Why should they freely facilitate their own demise?
Why should they provide their customers the service they signed up for? They promised to provide access to the internet for a certain price, not to some subset of the internet that agreed to pay their extortion. If they can't make a profit, why is this Cogent's fault? Did SBC inform their customers they would be used like this? Will they be compensated for being unable to connect to work because SBC's CEO isn't getting a big enough bonus check?
This is the same issue L3 and Cogent had. They have the customers, someone else has the content. Their customers want access to the content, but generally don't have any content themselves, creating an unbalanced situation. In days of yore, all ISP's had a mix of content users and content providers, and they all agreed to share access at no cost. No you have providers like L3, Comcast, SBC, and Verizon who specialize in the user side of the equation, and have various mechanisms in place to dissuade content hosting.
By this very nature, they will wind up receiving far more traffic than they send. Now, these pipsqueaks (in the ISP world, they are small) are causing a fuss, wanting to get paid for all this extra traffic that is being put on their network, far more than they are putting on others networks. But what about the flip side? These ISP's are Leeches writ large, sucking other users content while providing non of their own. They charge clients $$ for access to the internet, then want to charge the internet for access to their clients.
Bad stuff is coming. This will be fought amonst the smaller Tier 1's, and it will be a bloodbath.
I think the first question would be... what happens if your site is deemed "non-compliant".
I would imagine you would receive a notice to correct the problem. After 6 months and 9 gentle reminders, you forfeit the domain. Of course if you whine that you are trying, etc. you'll be able to buy more time.
If they do block non-compliant sites then I can see them having a lot of court battles on their hands.
It would fall under contract law, and a simple clause requiring arbitration would keep almost everything out of the courts. They would win all arbitration because the contract would specifiy far more aggressive terms for reclaiming the domain name.
Big time stupid move whichever approach they take.
For almost every successful product/company, there is somebody who said that in the development stage.
If a site isn't phone-broswer friendly, people will not return.
And the "Land Rush" of idiots who camp on every possibly useful domain name? Part of the reason the nets a mess now is because its so cheap and easy to register domains now.
But that still continues to overlook to availability of many other intermediate systems whose graphics didn't suck. Sure, NES had better still graphics, but thats akin to comparing PlayStation2 to NES, there were at least two generations of consoles between the 2600 and the NES; and I'd say the impression of death had more to do with the Atari 5200's failure in the market as a result of it not being a significant improvement over the Intelivision and the Colecovision. There wasn't enough improvement for me expend the energy convincing Mom & Dad I needed a whole new console, versus just getting 5 more games for the intellivion.
Just wat til my 2007 update to the BlogPope's predictions for 2006 and you see just how amazing I am. I have successfully predicted the score in EVRY major league baseball game to be played last year. Think I was wrong on one, well, check back to my official site and you'll see I was right. Clearly you memory is failing, and you edited that downloaded copy!
Ever play old DOS games that have no or limited sense of timing for the underlying hardware? Hmm, passes the 486 test so I'll run with dealy Y, then laugh as one touch of the control rockets your tank to the other side of the screen while the old 10 second tank round reloads look like automatic fire?
Whats worse, my reaction to this was to criticize the articles summary.
The Atari 2600 had upset folks
What about Intellivision and Colecovision? Way cooler and more powerful than Atari. And while bad games had been an issue, it was hardly the reason for the game recession
If you read the article it sounds like the CIO is likely a founder who knew technology more than the other guys, with the explosive growth he's in over his head. He is wisely asking some key players on his staff (clearly he's wise enough not to ask you exiledOne) for some direction on what they would like to see instead of calling in the consultants and pissing away money on a plan to introduce slogans.
The downside is that likely the employees aren't sure about what they want either (so they Ask Slashdot, a questionable move), and are likely to be divided.
I find it interesting how, in a world of IP, somebody out there ( Intel ) can still 'cheat' the system by creating dual core CPU's which still count as a single processor, thus allowing for a system like this.
This isn't cheating. Microsoft & others must update their licensing to accomodate. And its not as clear as the Hyperthreading issue that they will. On the bright side, you can usually turn off Hyperthreading in the short term, to get it down to a "managable" 4 CPU's
Let 'em prosecute. When they lose the case because admin passwords were TAPED TO THE BOTTOM of the laptops they can sue for wrongful prosecution.
Whoever taped the passwords to the bottom of the machine is an idiot, whoever thought prosecution was an answer is an idiot, anyone who actually prosecutes the case is an idiot (likely the real reason they are "cutting a deal", if the kids don't admit guilt their chances of successful prosecution is just about nil.)
THe id in an RFID would have to match the database, and known not to be in play
In addition to catching cheaters, this makes counting chips near instantaneous. Though a pile out there on the table, the system knows you just bet $45. 7 comes up on the role and suddenly there $90 on the pay line, bang, games up. Likewise, you pile starts slowly shrinking while you sit, and its not going to the table but your neighbors zone, the cameras can quickly focus in to nab the thief.
The other side is that the Casino's tell you they can do X, Y, and Z so you won't even try it, saving them the enormous expense of doing Y and Z every day.
If I own something that has value and someone else takes it and prevents me from profitting myself from it, that is theft, plain and simple.
And how do you figure you "own" the information? You visit site X, doesn't the list of people who visit site X belong to site X? Do you "own" the fact that you drive to work every morning at 8am? Do you "own" the fact that I saw you walking your dog in front of my house this morning? Did the traffic reporter steal from you when he reported the congestion you were stuck in? Did the newscaster steal from you when he reprted the headcount of the "Million Moron March"?
You want to block cookies, fine. I'm sure you accept the consequences of your actions, no problems. The the concept that someone who is taking the effort to aggregate the behavior of millions is stealing from you personally is stupidity.
The hope is to riase thier bandwidth bill so it isn't as profitable as well as flood thier operations with stuff they know have to filter thur to be productive. It is basicaly giving them a dose of thier own medicine
Except that the "reply-to" address could easily be bogus, route responses to/dev/null, etc. route to someone they don't like. I really hope this is not what they are doing.
Looked at from the other perspective... you have to be online to watch a DVD?!
Yeah, I see this as a deal breaker feature. Only houses with broadband access can watch the new format? And of that subset, only those willing to let "Big Brother" (I hate using that phrase, but what else is there?) know what you're watching and when? Risking that their player may be deactivated because of some computer glitch?
The only chance they would have is to prevent any competing format from showing up, and I have to imagine that market forces will ensure that will not happen.
This implies that the WBM goal is to be a legal and absolute reference point. What about the case where a web servers recognizes the WBM and serves it different content than the rest of the world.
Making $3.50 per table every 2 hours will not keep them in business. It's all about getting drinks out the door.
As I had drilled into my head in B-school, Starbucks is not about moving coffee, its about creating a "atmosphere" people enjoy. $4.00 cups of coffee is just how they derive revenue from that creation. So they want folks sitting around enjoying coffe, but they want them doing so in a social manner, nat heads buried in a laptop grunting over market moves. Pretty much the same reason people go to bars to pay $5.00 for a beer they could get for $1 at the Wholesale Club.
The home user and the single desktops are Apple's bread and butter.
Actually, I think the "Creative Professionals" are Apple's bread and butter. Home users are a nice plus, and there's a huge surge in "Security Professionals" of late.
But I'm curious why the comments of a third rate vendor like Linspire merit posting to Slashdot.
IT Managers get zero chicks. Lifeguards get tons of chicks. What happens when then two are combined in the same person?
You get the curious effect of a "chick ring" as the attractive and repulsive forces reach an equilibrium somewhere just out of arms reach. From there they tend to fall into a stable orbit.
I would bet 50% or more of the current web traffic is aggregated behind those 2 items. Makes IP based tracking useless.
Better yet, large organizations, (AOL especially but not exclusively), will do a madnening thing with Poxy hopping. User A might come from 3 different IP's during a single 15 minute session, tracking without some form of cookie is almost impossible, and worse yet locking a session to an IP for security fails horrendously.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should they provide their customers the service they signed up for? They promised to provide access to the internet for a certain price, not to some subset of the internet that agreed to pay their extortion. If they can't make a profit, why is this Cogent's fault? Did SBC inform their customers they would be used like this? Will they be compensated for being unable to connect to work because SBC's CEO isn't getting a big enough bonus check?
By this very nature, they will wind up receiving far more traffic than they send. Now, these pipsqueaks (in the ISP world, they are small) are causing a fuss, wanting to get paid for all this extra traffic that is being put on their network, far more than they are putting on others networks. But what about the flip side? These ISP's are Leeches writ large, sucking other users content while providing non of their own. They charge clients $$ for access to the internet, then want to charge the internet for access to their clients.
Bad stuff is coming. This will be fought amonst the smaller Tier 1's, and it will be a bloodbath.
I would imagine you would receive a notice to correct the problem. After 6 months and 9 gentle reminders, you forfeit the domain. Of course if you whine that you are trying, etc. you'll be able to buy more time.
If they do block non-compliant sites then I can see them having a lot of court battles on their hands.
It would fall under contract law, and a simple clause requiring arbitration would keep almost everything out of the courts. They would win all arbitration because the contract would specifiy far more aggressive terms for reclaiming the domain name.
Big time stupid move whichever approach they take.
For almost every successful product/company, there is somebody who said that in the development stage.
And the "Land Rush" of idiots who camp on every possibly useful domain name? Part of the reason the nets a mess now is because its so cheap and easy to register domains now.
Tides go against that too. I guess there's limits to what they can deny? Or perhaps that one of gods miracles, pushing the unbeliever into the sea?
But that still continues to overlook to availability of many other intermediate systems whose graphics didn't suck. Sure, NES had better still graphics, but thats akin to comparing PlayStation2 to NES, there were at least two generations of consoles between the 2600 and the NES; and I'd say the impression of death had more to do with the Atari 5200's failure in the market as a result of it not being a significant improvement over the Intelivision and the Colecovision. There wasn't enough improvement for me expend the energy convincing Mom & Dad I needed a whole new console, versus just getting 5 more games for the intellivion.
Thats just what I was thinking. After all, if we can change something to make it better, we should.
Just wat til my 2007 update to the BlogPope's predictions for 2006 and you see just how amazing I am. I have successfully predicted the score in EVRY major league baseball game to be played last year. Think I was wrong on one, well, check back to my official site and you'll see I was right. Clearly you memory is failing, and you edited that downloaded copy!
Ever play old DOS games that have no or limited sense of timing for the underlying hardware? Hmm, passes the 486 test so I'll run with dealy Y, then laugh as one touch of the control rockets your tank to the other side of the screen while the old 10 second tank round reloads look like automatic fire?
The Atari 2600 had upset folks
What about Intellivision and Colecovision? Way cooler and more powerful than Atari. And while bad games had been an issue, it was hardly the reason for the game recession
The downside is that likely the employees aren't sure about what they want either (so they Ask Slashdot, a questionable move), and are likely to be divided.
This isn't cheating. Microsoft & others must update their licensing to accomodate. And its not as clear as the Hyperthreading issue that they will. On the bright side, you can usually turn off Hyperthreading in the short term, to get it down to a "managable" 4 CPU's
Let 'em prosecute. When they lose the case because admin passwords were TAPED TO THE BOTTOM of the laptops they can sue for wrongful prosecution.
Whoever taped the passwords to the bottom of the machine is an idiot, whoever thought prosecution was an answer is an idiot, anyone who actually prosecutes the case is an idiot (likely the real reason they are "cutting a deal", if the kids don't admit guilt their chances of successful prosecution is just about nil.)
If time is relative, it follows that time is also subjective.
In addition to catching cheaters, this makes counting chips near instantaneous. Though a pile out there on the table, the system knows you just bet $45. 7 comes up on the role and suddenly there $90 on the pay line, bang, games up. Likewise, you pile starts slowly shrinking while you sit, and its not going to the table but your neighbors zone, the cameras can quickly focus in to nab the thief.
The other side is that the Casino's tell you they can do X, Y, and Z so you won't even try it, saving them the enormous expense of doing Y and Z every day.
Wow, you two examples have convinced me! Stadium names ARE the exact same thing as in feild billboards!
And how do you figure you "own" the information? You visit site X, doesn't the list of people who visit site X belong to site X? Do you "own" the fact that you drive to work every morning at 8am? Do you "own" the fact that I saw you walking your dog in front of my house this morning? Did the traffic reporter steal from you when he reported the congestion you were stuck in? Did the newscaster steal from you when he reprted the headcount of the "Million Moron March"?
You want to block cookies, fine. I'm sure you accept the consequences of your actions, no problems. The the concept that someone who is taking the effort to aggregate the behavior of millions is stealing from you personally is stupidity.
The hope is to riase thier bandwidth bill so it isn't as profitable as well as flood thier operations with stuff they know have to filter thur to be productive. It is basicaly giving them a dose of thier own medicine
Except that the "reply-to" address could easily be bogus, route responses to /dev/null, etc. route to someone they don't like. I really hope this is not what they are doing.
Yeah, I see this as a deal breaker feature. Only houses with broadband access can watch the new format? And of that subset, only those willing to let "Big Brother" (I hate using that phrase, but what else is there?) know what you're watching and when? Risking that their player may be deactivated because of some computer glitch?
The only chance they would have is to prevent any competing format from showing up, and I have to imagine that market forces will ensure that will not happen.
This implies that the WBM goal is to be a legal and absolute reference point. What about the case where a web servers recognizes the WBM and serves it different content than the rest of the world.
As I had drilled into my head in B-school, Starbucks is not about moving coffee, its about creating a "atmosphere" people enjoy. $4.00 cups of coffee is just how they derive revenue from that creation. So they want folks sitting around enjoying coffe, but they want them doing so in a social manner, nat heads buried in a laptop grunting over market moves. Pretty much the same reason people go to bars to pay $5.00 for a beer they could get for $1 at the Wholesale Club.
Actually, I think the "Creative Professionals" are Apple's bread and butter. Home users are a nice plus, and there's a huge surge in "Security Professionals" of late.
But I'm curious why the comments of a third rate vendor like Linspire merit posting to Slashdot.
Yeah, but when was NT 1.0 released?
You get the curious effect of a "chick ring" as the attractive and repulsive forces reach an equilibrium somewhere just out of arms reach. From there they tend to fall into a stable orbit.
Nothing, you have to read it.
You can read the book on the "pot" a lot easier than the online version (though I'm sure some Slashdotters have a net erminal there too)
Better yet, large organizations, (AOL especially but not exclusively), will do a madnening thing with Poxy hopping. User A might come from 3 different IP's during a single 15 minute session, tracking without some form of cookie is almost impossible, and worse yet locking a session to an IP for security fails horrendously.