Can you really imagine google's traffic all coming into their datacenter wirelessly?
With all due respect, and though you raise a very valid point as to practicality, I think all we're asking is for the FCC to give us the resources that will allow us the freedom to experiment and solve our own problems.
These problems cannot be overcome today. But in the future who knows, what with multiplexing and models of data distribution, what ingeneous solutions someone may come up up with tomorrow? All we're saying is give us the tools and (maybe) we'll finish the job. At least let us try by assigning the bandwidth that will allow us to make an attempt at a solution.
And then there's wireless, with companies such as Ruckus Wireless adapting Wi-Fi for broadband video.
I wish the FCC would assign more useful shortwave parts of the spectrum to the
ISM band for 802.x so we could start experimenting with meshing and maybe be like amateur radio where you buy your equiment and get online using an open standard with no company involded.
Who needs a provider when the airways are a zero cost medium?
How can George Bush get a subpoena in the first place. It's seems odd that a president can compel the private sector to divulge information in the pursuit of political policy.
Plus this is from the Executive branch which doesn't even make the law.
Let Congress pursue this if it wants. It has the responsibilty of making the laws, not the president.
The Constitution gives the president authority over the military and cabinet; the power to grant pardons and make appointments. And thats about it. Not sure where the Executive is coming from with this crap.
It's called the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act of 1999.
It prohibits "obscene and indecent" content on Australian-based web sites.
IIRC web sites have to meet the same standards as television and radio.
[T]his law prohibits pornographic Web sites based in Australia, though due to the majority of pornographic Web sites having been hosted outside Australia, the law is unlikely to have much effect on Australians' ability to access Internet pornography.
The legal term is bill of attainder [techlawjournal.com].
This is why the Maryland legislature laws against Wal Mart will ultimately fail.
Are you sure? I thought a bill of attainder applied only to crimianl law and besides, what make you think the legislature will sentencing either Apple or Walmart? That will be up the the courts in either case will it not? I don't think bill of attainder applies here.
I can empathize with you. I generally like Australia, my dad lives there now. But I'm suspicious of a country that bans Kazaa, has a total ban on Internet pr0n, and requires you to pay a departure tax when you leave.
Difference between the US and Australia is the Boston Tea Party.
I understand now. There's a wiki entry here. Problem is, the system in the US is controlled by the states as defined in the constitution. Don't hold you breath for a change anytime soon.
"Hardware is a small part of the cost" of providing computing capabilities, he said, adding that the big costs come from network connectivity, applications and support.
Well, all networking, apps, and support I run on my laptop are free. I'm not here to plug my favorite OS but it's not Windows and it certainly doesn't cost me anything.
The problem with the Libertarians under Badnarik is that they want to scrap the federal income tax system which means they're way out of step with the electorate. This is unfortunate because most Americans have libertarian sentiments. These are the prinicples on which the country was founded. If the Libertarians could compromise just a tad they could become a bigger, more influencial party with a real chance at grabbing the whitehouse.
I worked with a few groups in the San Francisco Bay Area and I've seen even 802.11 devices with their measly 15mW power restriction communicate several miles. The problem is 1) the (wavelength/2*pi) "skin depth" power drop-off and 2) the power restictions. If the FCC were to assign some of what the cell phone companies have to the ISM in terms of bandwidth and power, it might be possible to build something that could grow.
Do I sound cynical when I say that the FCC has become a multi-billion dollar cash cow that sells the spectrum to preserve its self-serving bureaucracy?
Nancy Pelosi, is the white, privileged congresswoman from San Francisco, a consummate politician who, because of her prodigious fundraising abilities, was promoted by the party...
This applies generally, it's not specific to Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps the real problem for McKinney is her lack of support for Israel which puts her out of step with the mainstream electorate
You mean it couldn't be free like amateur radio? You buy your equipment and you're online? All we need is a good chunk of the useful spectrum and a decent mesh protocol and we could, in theory, have a completely wireless Internet.
Of course the current wireless carries would lobby with everything they could to prevent it, but is it possible?
So where are they going to get the money for universal Internet access.
Maybe the FCC should refrain from auctioning off the best parts of the spectrum to the highest bidder and desginate some of the more useful shortwave parts of the spectrum to public use where people could use it to extend 802.x and mesh networking. If amateur radio is any indication, why do I need to pay for a wireless carrier? The airways are a zero cost medium.
With all the incompetence being displayed in my government's administration.......
I'm from the UK and having lived in the US for a number of years I think the US can achieve anything it sets its collective mind to. But the electorate has a neat trick of getting what it wants. Goes like this: Congress passes a law to do XYZ. The electorate says great but then refuses to pay taxes to support it. It's not really incompetence.
If you believe in the principle that government should have more to fear from the people than the people have to fear from government then this is probably good news as it's difficult to fear incompetence.
I agree with your sentiment but you argue the case terribly.
I think you're referring to the UN INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, Part III, article 9, section 1. Surely you're not making the legal case that a country at war has no right to detain combatatants. No lawyer would ever argue that.
Geneva Convention? Your example has to be Guantanamo and the Taliban never signed the convention. Again a difficult case to make. This has been, and will be resolved as a Fouth Amendment case under SCOTUS not the Geneva Convention.
International Law concerning invading sovereign nations? It would be great if there were a law that prohibits a country from going to war. Fact is, it doesn't exist.
Find another line of reasoning. Your arguments are mainly bogus.
One scientific problem is the need for standardized and reliable measurements for aggression and unacceptable behaviour. Another is selective discussions on findings that support the hypothesis. Good studies are blind. You don't start knowing what you're looking for.
Historically it's been very difficult to predict behavoir from environment and public policiy resulting from data suggesting otherwise hasn't had good success. It didn't work with comic books, rock and roll, or profanity and we'll probably see little change when we start banning video games for kids.
On the other hand don't blame the mirror. It only reflects what society is.
Right but your quote defines what a patent is. What I'm trying to understand is does the current system promote science (aka known as technology to congress) or hinder it? If the policies of the PTO don't promte science then they might not be constitutional. Who knows?
Studies have indeed shown a causal relationship between video games and hyperactivity, attention deficit, and violence.
Is that true? I thought studies had found a correlation with violence, but not cause and effect. The problem, IIRC is that it comes down to a nature vs nuture argument and real scientifically blind studies are extremely difficult to set up.
How would we perform such an experiment? If you find a correlation between people with violent criminal records and their proclivity toward violent video games, you still haven't shown cause and effect. They may have been violent without the games. It's a very difficult thing to prove.
Also, according to the FBI crime stats, there's been an overall decrease in violent crime over the past 10 years, yet violent video game sales have increased.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you really imagine google's traffic all coming into their datacenter wirelessly?
With all due respect, and though you raise a very valid point as to practicality, I think all we're asking is for the FCC to give us the resources that will allow us the freedom to experiment and solve our own problems.
These problems cannot be overcome today. But in the future who knows, what with multiplexing and models of data distribution, what ingeneous solutions someone may come up up with tomorrow? All we're saying is give us the tools and (maybe) we'll finish the job. At least let us try by assigning the bandwidth that will allow us to make an attempt at a solution.
A completely wireless Internet is feasible.
And then there's wireless, with companies such as Ruckus Wireless adapting Wi-Fi for broadband video.
I wish the FCC would assign more useful shortwave parts of the spectrum to the ISM band for 802.x so we could start experimenting with meshing and maybe be like amateur radio where you buy your equiment and get online using an open standard with no company involded.
Who needs a provider when the airways are a zero cost medium?
The DoJ is a presidential cabinet department. It is the Executive.
The question remains:
From where does the Executive branch derive its power of subpoena when no law has been broken?
How can George Bush get a subpoena in the first place. It's seems odd that a president can compel the private sector to divulge information in the pursuit of political policy.
Plus this is from the Executive branch which doesn't even make the law.
Let Congress pursue this if it wants. It has the responsibilty of making the laws, not the president.
The Constitution gives the president authority over the military and cabinet; the power to grant pardons and make appointments. And thats about it. Not sure where the Executive is coming from with this crap.
G'day mate:
It's called the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act of 1999. It prohibits "obscene and indecent" content on Australian-based web sites. IIRC web sites have to meet the same standards as television and radio.
More info here
Accoring to wiki:
[T]his law prohibits pornographic Web sites based in Australia, though due to the majority of pornographic Web sites having been hosted outside Australia, the law is unlikely to have much effect on Australians' ability to access Internet pornography.
The legal term is bill of attainder [techlawjournal.com]. This is why the Maryland legislature laws against Wal Mart will ultimately fail.
Are you sure? I thought a bill of attainder applied only to crimianl law and besides, what make you think the legislature will sentencing either Apple or Walmart? That will be up the the courts in either case will it not? I don't think bill of attainder applies here.
I can empathize with you. I generally like Australia, my dad lives there now. But I'm suspicious of a country that bans Kazaa, has a total ban on Internet pr0n, and requires you to pay a departure tax when you leave.
Difference between the US and Australia is the Boston Tea Party.
I understand now. There's a wiki entry here. Problem is, the system in the US is controlled by the states as defined in the constitution. Don't hold you breath for a change anytime soon.
That's a fault of the (plurality) voting system, not the merits of any of those parties. A single choice can only select between two things.
That's not what the system means. The plurality system means multiple candidates. Voters are not restricted to only two choices.
"Hardware is a small part of the cost" of providing computing capabilities, he said, adding that the big costs come from network connectivity, applications and support.
Well, all networking, apps, and support I run on my laptop are free. I'm not here to plug my favorite OS but it's not Windows and it certainly doesn't cost me anything.
The problem with the Libertarians under Badnarik is that they want to scrap the federal income tax system which means they're way out of step with the electorate. This is unfortunate because most Americans have libertarian sentiments. These are the prinicples on which the country was founded. If the Libertarians could compromise just a tad they could become a bigger, more influencial party with a real chance at grabbing the whitehouse.
I have to agree and disagree.
I worked with a few groups in the San Francisco Bay Area and I've seen even 802.11 devices with their measly 15mW power restriction communicate several miles. The problem is 1) the (wavelength/2*pi) "skin depth" power drop-off and 2) the power restictions. If the FCC were to assign some of what the cell phone companies have to the ISM in terms of bandwidth and power, it might be possible to build something that could grow.
Do I sound cynical when I say that the FCC has become a multi-billion dollar cash cow that sells the spectrum to preserve its self-serving bureaucracy?
Last I checked Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on the two impeachment charges by 55/45 for lying and 50/50 for obstruction.
From your link:
...
Nancy Pelosi, is the white, privileged congresswoman from San Francisco, a consummate politician who, because of her prodigious fundraising abilities, was promoted by the party
This applies generally, it's not specific to Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps the real problem for McKinney is her lack of support for Israel which puts her out of step with the mainstream electorate
Sorry, but there is no such animal.
You mean it couldn't be free like amateur radio? You buy your equipment and you're online? All we need is a good chunk of the useful spectrum and a decent mesh protocol and we could, in theory, have a completely wireless Internet.
Of course the current wireless carries would lobby with everything they could to prevent it, but is it possible?
So where are they going to get the money for universal Internet access.
Maybe the FCC should refrain from auctioning off the best parts of the spectrum to the highest bidder and desginate some of the more useful shortwave parts of the spectrum to public use where people could use it to extend 802.x and mesh networking. If amateur radio is any indication, why do I need to pay for a wireless carrier? The airways are a zero cost medium.
There are only two parties
What about the Constitution Party, Green Party Libertarian Party, Reform Party, Communist Party GTL Party, etc.?
There are more than two it's just that people don't vote for them. But it's not like there aren't choices. Anyone can start his own own party?
With all the incompetence being displayed in my government's administration .......
I'm from the UK and having lived in the US for a number of years I think the US can achieve anything it sets its collective mind to. But the electorate has a neat trick of getting what it wants. Goes like this: Congress passes a law to do XYZ. The electorate says great but then refuses to pay taxes to support it. It's not really incompetence.
If you believe in the principle that government should have more to fear from the people than the people have to fear from government then this is probably good news as it's difficult to fear incompetence.
I agree with your sentiment but you argue the case terribly.
I think you're referring to the UN INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, Part III, article 9, section 1. Surely you're not making the legal case that a country at war has no right to detain combatatants. No lawyer would ever argue that.
Geneva Convention? Your example has to be Guantanamo and the Taliban never signed the convention. Again a difficult case to make. This has been, and will be resolved as a Fouth Amendment case under SCOTUS not the Geneva Convention.
International Law concerning invading sovereign nations? It would be great if there were a law that prohibits a country from going to war. Fact is, it doesn't exist.
Find another line of reasoning. Your arguments are mainly bogus.
People need to be cautious in giving government weapons that we ourselves can not own or use.
You mean like tanks and rocket launchers?
Lean, mean, Debian killiing machines!
/bin/laden" in a cron job.
Yeah, you just put "rm -rf
One scientific problem is the need for standardized and reliable measurements for aggression and unacceptable behaviour. Another is selective discussions on findings that support the hypothesis. Good studies are blind. You don't start knowing what you're looking for.
Historically it's been very difficult to predict behavoir from environment and public policiy resulting from data suggesting otherwise hasn't had good success. It didn't work with comic books, rock and roll, or profanity and we'll probably see little change when we start banning video games for kids.
On the other hand don't blame the mirror. It only reflects what society is.
Right but your quote defines what a patent is. What I'm trying to understand is does the current system promote science (aka known as technology to congress) or hinder it? If the policies of the PTO don't promte science then they might not be constitutional. Who knows?
Studies have indeed shown a causal relationship between video games and hyperactivity, attention deficit, and violence.
Is that true? I thought studies had found a correlation with violence, but not cause and effect. The problem, IIRC is that it comes down to a nature vs nuture argument and real scientifically blind studies are extremely difficult to set up.
How would we perform such an experiment? If you find a correlation between people with violent criminal records and their proclivity toward violent video games, you still haven't shown cause and effect. They may have been violent without the games. It's a very difficult thing to prove.
Also, according to the FBI crime stats, there's been an overall decrease in violent crime over the past 10 years, yet violent video game sales have increased.