We had Comcast for years, and they took advantage of their monopoly in this area, raised rates to ridiculous levels, offered poor signal quality, and were slow in improving the infrastructure. My favorite Comcastic tactic is charging your existing customers twice what you charge your new customers -- unless the existing customers threaten to leave. Then they can find it in their hearts to offer an existing customer that price, too. Guess most of their customers don't notice there are two prices. We ended up on DSL instead of cable modem because it took them so long to offer broadband in the area. Now, I won't say Verizon is saintly, at all, but the customer service has been at least equivalent, the picture quality is incredible, we have tons more channels, and we're paying about the same as we used to pay before (for DSL from Vz + analog cable from Comcast). Comcast needs to wake up and smell the competition. We need them to stay around to serve the same purpose to Verizon when Verizon turns around and screws us in a few years. Oh, don't worry, they will. Let's hope the Comcastasaurus can adapt.
Thanks for posting this - I was in the middle of posting the same thing. Sure, you share a pipe - but the difference is the size of the pipe and how many other high bandwidth users you're sharing it with (and how oversubscribed it is). Around here (Philly burbs), Comcast offers "Speedboost" or "Powerboost" because they can occasionally allocate you the bandwidth, but they can't possibly give it to you all the time (they don't have it). DOCSIS 3.0 will help, but they're also trying to jam in all those new HDTV channels... FiOS, on the other hand, I NEVER see less than my rated speed, unless I'm going to a slow server or a server on a slow link. I might be sharing my downlink with up to 32 others on the BPON, but whatever they have at the CO and out is definitely not overloaded. My Mom on Comcast, though, sees a slowdown every day when the kids get home from school and log on to Xbox live.
Does that cost you in payments to your state's unemployment insurance program? I am not a business owner myself, and I haven't yet had the need of the UI system, but I've heard from others that you are eligible for UI only if you were terminated without cause, and that employers end up paying more into the system if their former workers file for unemployment benefits -- so the employers often claim cause to avoid it. Of course, since these stories were coming from terminated employees, they all claimed they were great employees being screwed out of their benefits (I imagine their wrongful termination suits were a bit weaker in actuality), but the part about employers paying more into the system sounded true. The law in my state (PA) proved a little more complicated than I was willing to navigate, but I did find this language in it:
"if the department finds that such individual was separated from his most recent work for such employer due to being discharged for willful misconduct connected with such work, or due to his leaving such work without good cause attributable to his employment, or due to his being separated from such work under conditions which would result in disqualification for benefits under the provisions of section 3 or section 402(e.1), thereafter no compensation paid to such individual with respect to any week of unemployment occurring subsequent to such separation, which is based upon wages paid by such employer with respect to employment prior to such separation, shall be charged to such employer's account under the provisions of this subsection"
(It's here if someone with actual business law chops wants to dig.) Or, is it just that UI only covers people who have actually been employed for longer than a probationary period, and you're able to separate the wheat from the chaff quicker than that? Or are the increased payments just worth it to get rid of idiots without potential legal hassles?
Sorry, now that I reread your comment, you weren't saying that one couldn't destroy it, only that tossing it on a fire wouldn't be good enough. Now why didn't that sink in the first time? I think someone's been sanding my brain platters.
I haven't opened any drive more recent than a 200MB (i.e. >10 yrs old), but all I needed to do that was a torx driver. I've never encountered one built to resist intentional opening (unless you count those stickers!) The platters are a non-magnetic material (aluminum in my experience, though I hear glass is used, too) coated with a thin layer of ferromagnetic material. I'm pretty sure that a few minutes with an orbital sander on this layer would make it "effectively unrecoverable" by even the best data recovery house. It's hard to say what the pattern of magnetic orientations might have been once they're scattered in a completely random pile of dust. You give me 30 minutes, I'll make sure your data can't be read. And, I can get some windchimes and rare earth magnets at the same time! Bonus!
FTFA: Fox said Essent's biggest concern is that the blogger has said some hospital employees have given him patient records. Even though they have not been posted on the blog, Fox said this represents a violation of federal law and the company needs to find the employees who are doing it.
IF that is true, then there absolutely needs to be an investigation. I'm all for allowing folks to honestly criticize care and use medical documentation that was authorized by the patient, but getting it without patient authorization?! I would have a problem with the employees that gave it to him. If the blogger is on to something, then he should approach the patients involved and ask them for the information. In this day of litigation, I'm sure most patients would jump on board for the chance of suing for $$$.
If this is true, then it's a HIPAA violation, not defamation. And while I would agree it needs to be investigated, HIPAA violations, as it says hereare enforced civilly by HHS (not the hospital) and criminally by the DOJ (obviously not the hospital). So, I reject the assertion that Essent's legal action has anything to do with the patient privacy issues. All the hospital should need to do for that is contact the federal prosecutor's office and/or the HHS, and cooperate with information requests. Texas may even have its own state laws (and offices) that have jurisdiction. We don't need hospitals playing DA, and we certainly don't need them filing defamation suits unless they have defamation issues to address. So I hope they really think they have defamation issues, and this isn't some legal ploy to smoke out the name of a critic for retaliation.
I also think the best defense to anything said by an anonymous blogger about a corporation is for the corporation to post their own statements, not to sue for defamation, at least not until other avenues have been exhausted. Open dialog and fight bad speech with more speech, not with actions that could be interpreted as an attempt to silence whistle-blowers or retaliate against what might be valid criticism. This is likely to call more attention to the claims (compounding the damage if they are false) and lead even more area residents to question the hospital's reputation.
It is portrayed as an "open beta" (if beta really means anything in this post-gmail age), so maybe that will be added before it is really "done". If it's a Linux client you're looking for, the FAQ says:
If you use Linux, you can currently buy individual songs. A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases. For more information, please visit the Amazon MP3 Downloader Help page.
So, we can hope that they provide Linux version soon. Still, I'd be even happier if they'd publish the API, so FOSS developers can make their own clients, and incorporate it into their own music managers. A Linux client would make me happy, but probably leave some others still wishing (*BSD, etc.)
Sorry, but those costs suck donkey dick. Consumers aren't going to be very happy about doubling or tripling the cost of electricity, no matter how much better it makes people feel about screwing up the environment.
And here, you're not even talking about doubling or tripling, you're talking about 5 to 8 times the cost (initially) and maybe getting down to slightly worse than tripling. I wish the Economist article had more details about what costs so much that it's $0.17/KWh - nobody's charging for the sun (yet), so their costs should be the build cost (is it that much more than a coal plant?), maintenance (again, is that much more than a coal plant?) and transmission (they do tend to be out in the middle of nowhere...) Some more details about where progress has to be made would be interesting.
The guy spent $7500 on the case and forfeited the right to pursue further legal action against the city for being wrongfully arrested, but hey at least his criminal record is clean now? His record should have been clean the whole time, so there's no victory there either...
I wonder if he (and his family) can spare the time / effort to sue the store employee (and the store) for wrongfully detaining him in the first place. Maybe then he can pay the lawyers from the criminal trial with the return from the civiil trial.
What kind of data do you end up with once the driver has interpreted the signals, and what do you want to map that data to? I mean, do you want it to act like some sort of standard user input device and move the cursor, select user interface items (click, double click, right click), and send keystrokes (e.g. keyboard, mouse, trackball, touch screen, etc.) -- or do you want it to act like something else? If you want it to generate standard UID events, look into/dev/uinput. I wrote a user space driver that takes input from a device and feeds it into/dev/uinput to simulate keystrokes on a keyboard. It'd be simple to write one that simulated mouse movements, clicks, etc. So, if the device could somehow recognize that one brain wave meant "move right slowly" and another meant "stop", it'd be easy to write a user space driver that could simulate a mouse moving right slowly when told the first had been recognized, and then stopping when the second had been recognized. But a response to an "Open File" thought could only be accomplished if the application itself recognized a standard input event for that command (maybe a keyboard shortcut), and you'd have to have different mappings for each application's set of recognized input events (when pattern 0x1a42cf7d is recognized, send "Ctrl-down O-down O-up Ctrl-up" if in "Firefox" mode, but send "Ctrl-down x-down x-up f-down f-up Ctrl-up" if in "emacs" mode). Given that both could be on the screen at the same time, you'd have to have "change map" commands or some sort of hook into the window manager to know which had focus. And then once you got into the file, it would be tedious to type anything. How many unique wave patterns can be recognized by the device, how long does it take to recognize each one, and what's the rate of error? And how do you attract it's attention (analogous to touching the touchpad or putting your hand on the mouse) and tell it to ignore you? Do the waves look different, or will you end up with spurious input?
I think you might be exaggerating a bit./. hates Windows a whole lot more than it hates Mandriva. But it's not surprising that/. opinions reflect what http://distrowatch.com/ says - Ubuntu is #1 and Mandriva is #9. I just switched myself - Mandriva has been good from a user perspective, but has had repository / update problems in recent years. Maybe this will signal a turn around, but I'm probably not going to switch back unless I hear the repository problems are gone.
I used Mandriva (and Mandrake) for years, and really liked it, except for updates. I would ALWAYS eventually run into bad packages that wouldn't install for one reason or another, but were required for other packages, and I'd constantly have to update where I pulled packages from or I'd end up with bad signatures. My Xubuntu box never had any of those problems, so I finally gave up about 2 months ago, and switched the Mandriva box to Kubuntu. Those problems were likely with the mirror network (not Mandriva itself), but that's part of what you sign up for when you choose the distribution, so I don't know if I'll switch back. I don't like the desktop quite as much (it's not bad, though), but updates and package installs have been absolute simplicity. I also find it easier to get answers to questions with Ubuntu.
I thought the problem was that Microsoft was already judged to be a monopoly, and to have abused their monopoly. See, if Microsoft has a monopoly on the O/S, and they use that O/S monopoly to harm competitors in other markets (office software, search software, media players, etc.) then the government is supposed to step in and protect competition to protect the consumers. How do they abuse their monopoly? Well, I assume you will agree that their O/S is essentially the only O/S shipped by the vast majority of vendors. The first link in Google for "O/S marketshare" would indicate that various flavors of Windows have over 90%. Examples?
A company comes along and decides to sell browsers, great! Then Microsoft makes their own browser, and "bundles" it with the O/S (or makes it "an integral part" of the O/S). No one buys the competitor, because they get one "free" with the O/S; additionally, any non-standard "features" of Microsoft's browser become the instant standard. Competition harmed.
Someone decides to make search software, great! Microsoft makes their own, and bundles it with the O/S. No one downloads or uses the competitor, because they get one "free" with the O/S. Competition harmed.
Someone makes a good media player, great! Microsoft decides to "bundle" one with the O/S - no one buys the competitor and no one makes files in the competitor's format, because consumers get one "free" with the O/S. Why make content in a format no one will ever use? Competition harmed.
Do you see how having a monopoly on the O/S can allow you to throw around an instant 90% marketshare? Name any application. Now, imagine what happens to vendors of that type of application when Microsoft "bundles" an app of that type with the O/S. Remember, no one has the choice to buy the O/S without the bundling. It's not like Microsoft is saying "Hey, we make a great widget, too, buy ours!" They're saying "hidden in the cost of the O/S you're going to get anyway will be a widget -- why buy our competitors?" And these things AREN'T integral to the O/S. They're things that can be, should be, and originally were separate products. Microsoft didn't invent the browser, the media player, or the search feature. The O/S existed without all of them before. Now, did they do this because everyone was having problems finding these applications before Microsoft nobly put their own versions in a bundle with the O/S? Or, was it that Microsoft wanted to force the adoption of their product and extend their monopoly into other markets?
Additionally, suppose Microsoft also publishes public APIs for their O/S, to allow vendors to sell products that run on it, but they intentionally leave out critical information that would allow those vendors to compete with Microsoft's own offerings.
These types of practices trample competitors, who may have superior products that no one will ever discover because a monopoly has been abused.
Here's a analogy that is probably flawed, but which I hope illustrates the problem. Imagine that 90% of all TVs are made by MegaTV. An engineer sitting around at home gets a great idea - we can sell movies on little plastic disks that people can watch on their TVs! He starts a company (DiskCo) that sells movie disk players you can hook up to your MegaTV. A few other companies think this is a great opportunity, and they get into the disk player market, playing movies in the DiskCo format. Seeing this, MegaTV makes their own disk player and bundles it into every new TV sold, so 90% of all TVs sold now have a MegaTV disk player in them. Sure, all the new TVs are slightly more expensive, but the player is "free!" And, the MegaTV player has a quirk in it, it handles something slightly different. Movie studios have to choose -- do they put out content that works on DiskCo's player? Or on the one that 90% of all new TV owners will have? Hmmm... DiskCo and the other small vendors go out of business, no one wants their players and their players don't handle the "non standard" (but most prevalent) content "prope
Oh, come on, you all knew the Furon genome was secreted into the human genome, right? That's why Crypto 137 is wandering around collecting brain stems!
You seem to think you've set a 'booby-trap' that only bites the guy that triggers the trap, but you know you've set a trap that can cause harm so you are still guilty like it or not.
Bullshit. That's not what the law says. No one should be punished for violating what you THINK the law ought to be, only for violating what the law IS. If you don't like it, write your congresspeople and get it changed.
Like someone else said, it's like having a newspaper and telling people to come on over, you'll allow them to use your photocopier to spit out a copy of the newspaper for their use, avoiding paying the paperboy. In the case of the music file maybe the photocopier is your P2P software and your modem that sends the protected data out for non personal use.
Exactly. And until someone requests that copy of the newspaper and you make one, no infringement has been committed. And until someone downloads that copy, no infringement has been committed.
There is not much difference between this and broadcasting the music over a radio station and skipping the fees charged by the music industry. Either way the owner of the music is not getting paid for the use of their product. It doesn't require that someone listen to the station for it to be illegal. The station must pay based on how many times they play a song, not on how many people are listening at that moment.
This is a different action entirely. By broadcasting over the airwaves, the copy has essentially been made already. Public performance rights (which cover broadcast) come into effect when the protected material is TRANSMITTED. That is where the act requiring a different license has occurred. Not in saying that you WILL broadcast it.
It's no different than showing a Pay Per View show at a bar but only paying the personal fee instead of the bar fee... regardless of whether or not anyone shows up to watch it. You've broken the copyright and distributed the show illegally.
Actually, it's no different than SAYING you're going to show a PPV performance at a bar and then doing nothing. It's really closer to having a DVD player in your bar, and having a DVD in your bag. Until you put the DVD in the player and play it, no public performance has occurred. In this case, the argument is that because you have a DVD player, you're guilty because you COULD show it. No, you are guilty when and only when you actually do the thing which is prohibited by copyright. Owning a car that can exceed the speed limit doesn't make me a speeder, even if many people who own cars that can exceed the speed limit do speed. Telling someone that I will speed tomorrow doesn't make me a speeder. Actually speeding makes me a speeder.
If you want to win the desktop war, you can, in a few years, by asking yourself a single question:
Could my grandmother (who is already "sort of" computer savvy) use this without calling me every five minutes?
Well, I can only offer you my anecdotal evidence. Last year, my Mom (age 72 at the time) had a Windows XP box that my brother gave her. I think she's a fairly typical senior user -- she wants to browse around on the internet (she shops for air travel, gets directions, reads email), use a word processor (she writes business correspondence, articles for the newsletter, etc.), and play games (Free cell, Mah Jong). My brother and I regularly provide phone support for her, and/or remote in to fix things. One time mid-last year, after a "my computer doesn't work" call, I stopped in to visit Mom, and found her PC in an endless boot cycle. Somehow, something had corrupted NTOSKRNL.EXE, which is a fairly rare problem that I don't expect any non-techie to fix. I searched around, but couldn't find the repair / install disks. I don't have a spare copy of NTOSKRNL.EXE, so I used my laptop to burn an Ubuntu disk, and went through the repartition / install procedure. When it was done, I arranged the desktop icons so that Firefox was where it used to be, OO.o Writer was where Word used to be, Freecell and Mah Jong were where they used to be, set the theme to look vaguely Windows-ish, imported her Firefox bookmarks, and set it up so she could get to all her old documents. She had no problem using it for the next few months. Oddly, I actually took fewer support calls from her during that time. She's back on Windows now -- my brother just ended up replacing the computer, it was a little dated anyway. At one point, Mom mentioned that she liked what I had done to the computer (Ubuntu). Apparently, it didn't get stuck at shutdown "Installing Update 1 of 3" every night, it didn't pop up Zone Alarm notices, didn't want her to reboot to complete updates, and it didn't didn't take 5 minutes to log on while starting virus scanners. I think that there are actually a lot of people out there who would be perfectly happy running Ubuntu instead of Windows, they really don't care what OS they're on. They are just unlikely to ever have a computer with Ubuntu on it as an option, since very few come from the store that way.
It's been a minute since I've used Linux as my desktop, but if users are still being forced to edit text files to change common program preferences, you'd better get used to your third seat behind Windows and OS X. I'm not telling you to have some crazy xml schema with a billion pieces fronted by a hefty GUI - I'm just asking you for the option of using a lightweight GUI to parse and store my preferences to the same text file.
It must have been a while -- for her setup, I didn't edit any config files by hand. Now, you probably can't set up a web server w/o editing config files by hand, but you should be able to set up a modern distro like Ubuntu for a typical user w/o it.
What I'd like to see is something that the Linux developer community can't do: Increased support by 3rd parties, like digital camera or MP3 manufacturers. What the Linux community has done is amazing, and though it takes a few months, most of these things are supported eventually, but I'm sure Mom would find it confusing to buy an iPod or SanDisk player and plug it in if she was still running Ubuntu.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but pre-release versions of Vista were available for free download from Microsoft under their beta test or "customer preview program" (closed now), and had a license that was supposed to be good for a year. Assuming that year hasn't passed (website says June), they did not pirate the RC2 copy, they obtained it legally. Microsoft obviously did not make the release version available for free download under any licensing agreement, so unless they paid for a license they would be pirating a release version. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they actually DID try it out on a pirated version of release Vista, but if they're going to come out in public and stand next to it, it's much better to do so with RC2, which they can claim they have under a legitimate license to.
Why? It's dead easy to find people who infringe. Just open bittorrent and look at the IP's in the swarm. Some clients will helpfully let you know which country each IP is coming for, too!
And that's all you need to do!
Considering how easy it seems, you'd think they couldn't screw it up, but apparently that's not the case. It is actually a little more complicated. There are a lot of links in the chain -- you need to tie the IP address to a subscriber, when the IP address may be leased for only a short period of time. Also, since they're suing a person for copyright infringement, they should be reasonably sure that the person actually violated a copyright. Some sort of evidence other than "well, the filename seemed to have our artist's name in it" would be nice. Universities have already been contacted with threatening letters for distributing content that was licensed appropriately, because the agents of the RIAA didn't actually check to see what the content really was -- and it turned out to be perfectly legal. On a shared network connection, you need to actually sue the right person. Also, hackers have been known to turn their victims' computers into file distribution sites. You may feel those people are responsible for the acts of others on their hardware, but I don't think the law agrees with you (at least, not yet). So, making sure you have the right person to sue may take a little bit of investigation. They should at least make an attempt before sending threats.
If you read some of the recent case documents, you find that defendants willingly provided access to their computers and neither filesharing software nor unlicensed content was found. As easy as it seemed to find the right person, the agents hired by the RIAA screwed it up. You too could find a letter from the some RIAA lawyer in your mailbox someday, and I'm sure you'd be surprised.
You don't feel it's unreasonable for them to have some actual evidence before threatening lawsuits, do you? I'm not saying that people ought to have the right to indiscriminately distribute copyrighted content, just that if you're going to threaten people, force them to interrupt their lives by hiring lawyers and appearing in court, make them disclose their private documents and information to third parties, and generally make their lives miserable, you oughta have some evidence that they actually did something wrong.
The artists should stand up and say that when the RIAA goes on these witchhunts, they're acting AGAINST the artists' wishes. Otherwise, since the artists are signed to the labels, and the labels are suing innocent people, we can draw the conclusion that the artists support the intimidation and persecution of innocent people. I don't support that kind of behavior. They have a right to make a living, and suing those that have infringed their rights is defensible. It could even be forgivable to make a mistake from time to time. However, it's not OK to terrorize innocent people. If one owns attack dogs, one is responsible for making sure they don't attack innocent people.
Thank for the listing! I like some of those artists and next time I'm in a record store I'll get some more!
There are some people who don't mind paying to get something, you know. And when we break the law, we face the consequences, we don't say shit like "information wants to be free."
I don't think you understand -- the point isn't that people should get music for free, that's a completely different issue. The point here is that people who aren't infringing copyrights shouldn't have to fear baseless lawsuits. Bravo for you, you don't pirate. I salute your honesty and integrity. Lawyers representing the RIAA (in turn representing UMG, in turn representing Bon Jovi and Counting Crows, et al) may still put you through a legal nightmare. Look at the facts in this case for an example. I don't, and you shouldn't, support a legal witchhunt. They should actually have real evidence before they make threats, demand to invade your privacy, or intimidate your children. The artists should be writing songs to protest the injustice their own representatives are perpetrating on innocent people. Convince your favorite artists that to speak out and insist that their representatives act morally and ethically when representing them. You can be against copyright infringement and still be against harassing innocent people.
You are right. The record labels who are demanding to take the deposition of a 10-year-old girl are identified in the answer and counterclaims.
Which, if anyone out there has skipped it and the opposition to dismissing counterclaims, I urge you to go back and read them. When I peek in on court proceeding documents on Groklaw (like the SCO vs. IBM case), I usually find the documents painful to read because of all the legalese. Those documents, however, were clear enough for a layman to understand and only painful because of the horrible things the RIAA, their lawyers, and their hired associates have put Ms. Andersen through.
They are
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.
Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.
I think it's a good idea to name the names, and even mention a few of their products (i.e. a few artists they represent). Mateo_LeFou in this post points out that outraged individuals can go in the other direction -- start out with an artist, and find out if the artist is represented by the RIAA. It's a good idea, but I'm just afraid that a lot of people won't have the opportunity to consult it when they're considering their purchases. We don't have to name every name in the title every time, but put at least one in the title and mention the others in the article.
Is the order they appear on the documents based on anything in particular? It looked like it might be alphabetical on the state of incorporation (California, Delaware, New York). Atlantic and its artists deserve responsibility, but I'd hate to let Capitol and BMG (or some of their artists, like "Paul McCartney" [Capitol] and "Bob Dylan" [Sony BMG]) off the hook just because of where the corporate headquarters is.
Lets stop opening with "RIAA" -- hardly anyone outside of/. seems to have any clue who that really is. Instead, name the actual RIAA members that are responsible, and list a few of their high-profile artists. People should know who to boycott if they're outraged. When "average joe" sees a story about the RIAA suing a kid, he thinks "those bastards!" and then he picks up a CD at the FYE in the mall. To "average joe", there's little connection. Make the title something like "Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old". In the article, clearly explain that Atlantic Records, the label representing artists like "Matchbox Twenty" (list a few more from their website), in conjunction with their RIAA partners is engaged in a lawsuit against a 10-yr old girl. Explain that by purchasing music by these artists, one is supporting this kind of behavior, even though the artists themselves may not direct the actions. Encourage the artists to speak out against their label and its dubious tactics, suspect methods, and arguably coercive behavior. Help "average joe" understand what continued support of these labels through their artists enables. Don't let them wear one face in the mall and a different one in the courtroom. Let the artists feel the negative side of having the RIAA represent them. Maybe some day in the future artists will stand up and reject the RIAA because its tactics hurt their image. Maybe some day the RIAA labels will have trouble signing new artists because association with the RIAA will hurt their career prospects. That day will never come if people don't associate the artists with the behavior of the RIAA.
Exactly. That is my point, the people knew_they_were_part_of_a_study, and may have reacted differently to how they would normally.
Which is why, should I ever become a phisher, I will send people a link that says "We are attempting to verify the security procedures that have been put in place on our banking site. Please follow this link and..." Since I alerted them that this is a security test, I'm sure they'll just plow ahead, with the same results as in this study. See, who would ever lie about it being a security test, that'd be... well, dishonest!
You know, I wish people would look up "Freedom of Speech". Companies copy protecting content is stupid, silly and a long list of other horrible things, but it is NOT a violation of your freedom of speech. Every time you use this you undercut the true meaning and importance of the first amendment. Please stop.
Protecting content is not a violation of my freedom of speech, but preventing me from discussing mathematics or flaws in DRM IS. You do not get to decide what I get to talk about. Every time you use this argument you undercut the true meaning and importance of the first amendment by eroding it, piece by piece. PLEASE STOP.
The way I see it, putting CFC bulbs in your closet and other seldom used places is a waste. You may be installing bulbs that may outlive you. Sure, you do get the power savings, but I don't think it would be enough to be noticeable in my electric bill.
Heh, I put them in the "seldom used" places as well, since those also tend to be the places that I realize 2 days later that I left the stupid light on. I'd rather the 7W CF bulb ran for 48 wasted hours than the 40W incandescent.
Slashdot Mirror
We had Comcast for years, and they took advantage of their monopoly in this area, raised rates to ridiculous levels, offered poor signal quality, and were slow in improving the infrastructure. My favorite Comcastic tactic is charging your existing customers twice what you charge your new customers -- unless the existing customers threaten to leave. Then they can find it in their hearts to offer an existing customer that price, too. Guess most of their customers don't notice there are two prices. We ended up on DSL instead of cable modem because it took them so long to offer broadband in the area. Now, I won't say Verizon is saintly, at all, but the customer service has been at least equivalent, the picture quality is incredible, we have tons more channels, and we're paying about the same as we used to pay before (for DSL from Vz + analog cable from Comcast). Comcast needs to wake up and smell the competition. We need them to stay around to serve the same purpose to Verizon when Verizon turns around and screws us in a few years. Oh, don't worry, they will. Let's hope the Comcastasaurus can adapt.
Thanks for posting this - I was in the middle of posting the same thing. Sure, you share a pipe - but the difference is the size of the pipe and how many other high bandwidth users you're sharing it with (and how oversubscribed it is). Around here (Philly burbs), Comcast offers "Speedboost" or "Powerboost" because they can occasionally allocate you the bandwidth, but they can't possibly give it to you all the time (they don't have it). DOCSIS 3.0 will help, but they're also trying to jam in all those new HDTV channels... FiOS, on the other hand, I NEVER see less than my rated speed, unless I'm going to a slow server or a server on a slow link. I might be sharing my downlink with up to 32 others on the BPON, but whatever they have at the CO and out is definitely not overloaded. My Mom on Comcast, though, sees a slowdown every day when the kids get home from school and log on to Xbox live.
Sorry, now that I reread your comment, you weren't saying that one couldn't destroy it, only that tossing it on a fire wouldn't be good enough. Now why didn't that sink in the first time? I think someone's been sanding my brain platters.
I haven't opened any drive more recent than a 200MB (i.e. >10 yrs old), but all I needed to do that was a torx driver. I've never encountered one built to resist intentional opening (unless you count those stickers!) The platters are a non-magnetic material (aluminum in my experience, though I hear glass is used, too) coated with a thin layer of ferromagnetic material. I'm pretty sure that a few minutes with an orbital sander on this layer would make it "effectively unrecoverable" by even the best data recovery house. It's hard to say what the pattern of magnetic orientations might have been once they're scattered in a completely random pile of dust. You give me 30 minutes, I'll make sure your data can't be read. And, I can get some windchimes and rare earth magnets at the same time! Bonus!
I also think the best defense to anything said by an anonymous blogger about a corporation is for the corporation to post their own statements, not to sue for defamation, at least not until other avenues have been exhausted. Open dialog and fight bad speech with more speech, not with actions that could be interpreted as an attempt to silence whistle-blowers or retaliate against what might be valid criticism. This is likely to call more attention to the claims (compounding the damage if they are false) and lead even more area residents to question the hospital's reputation.
What kind of data do you end up with once the driver has interpreted the signals, and what do you want to map that data to? I mean, do you want it to act like some sort of standard user input device and move the cursor, select user interface items (click, double click, right click), and send keystrokes (e.g. keyboard, mouse, trackball, touch screen, etc.) -- or do you want it to act like something else? If you want it to generate standard UID events, look into /dev/uinput. I wrote a user space driver that takes input from a device and feeds it into /dev/uinput to simulate keystrokes on a keyboard. It'd be simple to write one that simulated mouse movements, clicks, etc. So, if the device could somehow recognize that one brain wave meant "move right slowly" and another meant "stop", it'd be easy to write a user space driver that could simulate a mouse moving right slowly when told the first had been recognized, and then stopping when the second had been recognized. But a response to an "Open File" thought could only be accomplished if the application itself recognized a standard input event for that command (maybe a keyboard shortcut), and you'd have to have different mappings for each application's set of recognized input events (when pattern 0x1a42cf7d is recognized, send "Ctrl-down O-down O-up Ctrl-up" if in "Firefox" mode, but send "Ctrl-down x-down x-up f-down f-up Ctrl-up" if in "emacs" mode). Given that both could be on the screen at the same time, you'd have to have "change map" commands or some sort of hook into the window manager to know which had focus. And then once you got into the file, it would be tedious to type anything. How many unique wave patterns can be recognized by the device, how long does it take to recognize each one, and what's the rate of error? And how do you attract it's attention (analogous to touching the touchpad or putting your hand on the mouse) and tell it to ignore you? Do the waves look different, or will you end up with spurious input?
I think you might be exaggerating a bit. /. hates Windows a whole lot more than it hates Mandriva. But it's not surprising that /. opinions reflect what http://distrowatch.com/ says - Ubuntu is #1 and Mandriva is #9. I just switched myself - Mandriva has been good from a user perspective, but has had repository / update problems in recent years. Maybe this will signal a turn around, but I'm probably not going to switch back unless I hear the repository problems are gone.
I used Mandriva (and Mandrake) for years, and really liked it, except for updates. I would ALWAYS eventually run into bad packages that wouldn't install for one reason or another, but were required for other packages, and I'd constantly have to update where I pulled packages from or I'd end up with bad signatures. My Xubuntu box never had any of those problems, so I finally gave up about 2 months ago, and switched the Mandriva box to Kubuntu. Those problems were likely with the mirror network (not Mandriva itself), but that's part of what you sign up for when you choose the distribution, so I don't know if I'll switch back. I don't like the desktop quite as much (it's not bad, though), but updates and package installs have been absolute simplicity. I also find it easier to get answers to questions with Ubuntu.
Do you see how having a monopoly on the O/S can allow you to throw around an instant 90% marketshare? Name any application. Now, imagine what happens to vendors of that type of application when Microsoft "bundles" an app of that type with the O/S. Remember, no one has the choice to buy the O/S without the bundling. It's not like Microsoft is saying "Hey, we make a great widget, too, buy ours!" They're saying "hidden in the cost of the O/S you're going to get anyway will be a widget -- why buy our competitors?" And these things AREN'T integral to the O/S. They're things that can be, should be, and originally were separate products. Microsoft didn't invent the browser, the media player, or the search feature. The O/S existed without all of them before. Now, did they do this because everyone was having problems finding these applications before Microsoft nobly put their own versions in a bundle with the O/S? Or, was it that Microsoft wanted to force the adoption of their product and extend their monopoly into other markets?
Additionally, suppose Microsoft also publishes public APIs for their O/S, to allow vendors to sell products that run on it, but they intentionally leave out critical information that would allow those vendors to compete with Microsoft's own offerings.
These types of practices trample competitors, who may have superior products that no one will ever discover because a monopoly has been abused.
Here's a analogy that is probably flawed, but which I hope illustrates the problem. Imagine that 90% of all TVs are made by MegaTV. An engineer sitting around at home gets a great idea - we can sell movies on little plastic disks that people can watch on their TVs! He starts a company (DiskCo) that sells movie disk players you can hook up to your MegaTV. A few other companies think this is a great opportunity, and they get into the disk player market, playing movies in the DiskCo format. Seeing this, MegaTV makes their own disk player and bundles it into every new TV sold, so 90% of all TVs sold now have a MegaTV disk player in them. Sure, all the new TVs are slightly more expensive, but the player is "free!" And, the MegaTV player has a quirk in it, it handles something slightly different. Movie studios have to choose -- do they put out content that works on DiskCo's player? Or on the one that 90% of all new TV owners will have? Hmmm... DiskCo and the other small vendors go out of business, no one wants their players and their players don't handle the "non standard" (but most prevalent) content "prope
Oh, come on, you all knew the Furon genome was secreted into the human genome, right? That's why Crypto 137 is wandering around collecting brain stems!
What I'd like to see is something that the Linux developer community can't do: Increased support by 3rd parties, like digital camera or MP3 manufacturers. What the Linux community has done is amazing, and though it takes a few months, most of these things are supported eventually, but I'm sure Mom would find it confusing to buy an iPod or SanDisk player and plug it in if she was still running Ubuntu.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but pre-release versions of Vista were available for free download from Microsoft under their beta test or "customer preview program" (closed now), and had a license that was supposed to be good for a year. Assuming that year hasn't passed (website says June), they did not pirate the RC2 copy, they obtained it legally. Microsoft obviously did not make the release version available for free download under any licensing agreement, so unless they paid for a license they would be pirating a release version. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they actually DID try it out on a pirated version of release Vista, but if they're going to come out in public and stand next to it, it's much better to do so with RC2, which they can claim they have under a legitimate license to.
If you read some of the recent case documents, you find that defendants willingly provided access to their computers and neither filesharing software nor unlicensed content was found. As easy as it seemed to find the right person, the agents hired by the RIAA screwed it up. You too could find a letter from the some RIAA lawyer in your mailbox someday, and I'm sure you'd be surprised.
You don't feel it's unreasonable for them to have some actual evidence before threatening lawsuits, do you? I'm not saying that people ought to have the right to indiscriminately distribute copyrighted content, just that if you're going to threaten people, force them to interrupt their lives by hiring lawyers and appearing in court, make them disclose their private documents and information to third parties, and generally make their lives miserable, you oughta have some evidence that they actually did something wrong.
The artists should stand up and say that when the RIAA goes on these witchhunts, they're acting AGAINST the artists' wishes. Otherwise, since the artists are signed to the labels, and the labels are suing innocent people, we can draw the conclusion that the artists support the intimidation and persecution of innocent people. I don't support that kind of behavior. They have a right to make a living, and suing those that have infringed their rights is defensible. It could even be forgivable to make a mistake from time to time. However, it's not OK to terrorize innocent people. If one owns attack dogs, one is responsible for making sure they don't attack innocent people.
Is the order they appear on the documents based on anything in particular? It looked like it might be alphabetical on the state of incorporation (California, Delaware, New York). Atlantic and its artists deserve responsibility, but I'd hate to let Capitol and BMG (or some of their artists, like "Paul McCartney" [Capitol] and "Bob Dylan" [Sony BMG]) off the hook just because of where the corporate headquarters is.
Lets stop opening with "RIAA" -- hardly anyone outside of /. seems to have any clue who that really is. Instead, name the actual RIAA members that are responsible, and list a few of their high-profile artists. People should know who to boycott if they're outraged. When "average joe" sees a story about the RIAA suing a kid, he thinks "those bastards!" and then he picks up a CD at the FYE in the mall. To "average joe", there's little connection. Make the title something like "Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old". In the article, clearly explain that Atlantic Records, the label representing artists like "Matchbox Twenty" (list a few more from their website), in conjunction with their RIAA partners is engaged in a lawsuit against a 10-yr old girl. Explain that by purchasing music by these artists, one is supporting this kind of behavior, even though the artists themselves may not direct the actions. Encourage the artists to speak out against their label and its dubious tactics, suspect methods, and arguably coercive behavior. Help "average joe" understand what continued support of these labels through their artists enables. Don't let them wear one face in the mall and a different one in the courtroom. Let the artists feel the negative side of having the RIAA represent them. Maybe some day in the future artists will stand up and reject the RIAA because its tactics hurt their image. Maybe some day the RIAA labels will have trouble signing new artists because association with the RIAA will hurt their career prospects. That day will never come if people don't associate the artists with the behavior of the RIAA.