Not to mention on the internet side Charter is offering 60/4 residential speeds (with free modem) for the same price I currently pay TW to get 15/1, the modem being an additional $7.99/mo if you want them to NOT charge you should they need to stop by and fix things, and TW's price was a promotional price.
I feared Comcast because of what I'd heard about Comcast both in terms of customer service and bandwith throttling. Everything I've heard about Charter is that I'll get faster theoretical advertized speeds and about the same level of "service" as I'm used to with TW.
Seems pretty clear that this falls squarely within it's right to regulate. Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".
But... everyone knows the internet is a series of tubes and therefore neither wire nor radio.
Estoppel comes into play. Check it. For one moment lets go all hypothetical and say that what you're suggesting is true, and that the MPAA and CCA broke the law horribly by denying people fair-use rights. Well, they can then claim that they've been telling people for years that the discs are encrypted (which they have) and that any challenge on this ground these years later should be effectively ignored on the grounds that "the public knew we've been doing this for so long and said nothing."
Could that point be argued in court? Probably. But a good lawyer would pad the estoppel claim with many others just in case someone did manage to shoot it down.
Well, aside from the fraud keeping such transactions off the book constitutes for both companies, if both companies are guilty of collusion this could have had much farther reaching effects on CPU prices and pre-built system configurations than you realize.
"These "special" features that the box you buy. Why would they support these features? Would the software "at" the cable company work with features of say box, a b and c box? The software at these cable companies is specialized. I should know, I work in tech support at one."
Funny, I used to work tech support at a cable company too.
Honestly? Yes. It's not as difficult as you're making it sound or the DOCSIS standards that the cable modems your company probably issues to customers wouldn't work because of the "features of modem a, b, and c." Cable companies modifying VoD services to work with generic cable boxes should not be difficult.
"There is now way in hell that they will support a box they do not provide unless the manufacturer of said box releases the information required. Simple. The customer will get referred to the manufacturer."
You mean just like when the physical tv has a problem, the computer itself has a problem, there's a problem in the customer's physical phone and such? The problem that the FCC seems to be addressing here is the non-standardization of cable boxes.
"Another thing, say you spend $300 on a box and spill coffee in it. You buy a new one. If you had OUR box, it gets replaced, free. Same as the cable modem.. you're takes a crap, you buy another one, we will replace it free. I really don't see any cost savings here."
You and I both have probably heard strange tales of things like people calling and saying that their house was broken into, and now their cable modem is covered in a strange white fluid and hot sauce. However... most people are a lot more careful with their equipment. If you're working tech support, you're dealing with the people that DO have problems, not the ones that don't.
Now, not knowing where you are I can tell you some pretty standard info about the cable company where I am. If you lost your cable box, there was a $250 charge for that. Since I don't know ANY company that's altruistic enough to take a loss on lost/damaged equipment fees, lets just ASSUME for a moment that the actual price the company pays per box is around $250, which is around the same price people can purchase the boxes for DirecTV at electronics retailers for. Now, out here the price per month for a cable box that was "worked into" the service was $8.00/mo. So, the box was theoretically paid for after 2.5 years of service. After that, if you kept using the box like MANY customers do, on average 4 - 5 years, that means you've paid for the box twice over. Even factoring in, say, a 3 year accidental damage plan for $50.00 most retailers will pitch, you're still saving money.
"Plus feature wise, you'll lose out.. at least as far as our VOD and such. (video on demand"
AGAIN, not quite. If the cable companies treated their cable modems the same way they treated their cable boxes, each company would have a different standard and people wouldn't be able to buy cable modems at stores. As far as VoD software goes, it'll probably go down just like VHS vs Betamax where eventually one method becomes the standard and the differences between providers becomes the CONTENT PROVIDED.
It wasn't stating that he was a Christian that drew my ire. It was the hypocritical and unchristian chest-thumping that he considered himself "more ethical than average" that did.
I can understand that. However, that chest-thumping also serves to show others where his viewpoint on ethics is coming from, even if it is unintentionally boxing them into a less desirable light.
I actually find it fascinating because it confirms that the conscience of the subjects is working at them, causing them to feel stress at feeling that what they're doing is wrong in spite of actually doing it. Guilt or discomfort is present but insufficient to stop action.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more moderate and well mannered of the anti-violent-video-game crowd use this as reason to conduct further research into how exactly violent video games effect both adults and children, while idiots like a certain lawyer from Florida start screaming about this being concrete evidence that GTA is a "Columbine Simulator."
Myself, I'd be more curious to see if this has more beneficial effects. If it goes one way, it's possible for it to go the other after all. They say that having human interaction as well as interaction with pets helps people who are ill. It's not always possible to bring people into hospitals, and non-service animals are never permitted. Perhaps another branch of this study would be to see how people react to a VR dog or cat compared to a real pet?
Funny. So were most of the original test subjects in Milgram's 1963 experiments. This stands an an irrelevant comment except to basically brag about how you feel morally superior to most people -- and then you have the sheer, unmitigated gall to ask that people "hold [their] slams." That's Pride. We are all sinners; remember that, and you'll do far better as a Christian than to parade around like a Pharisee waving your religiousity around like it's a badge, proclaming that you have "more ethics than average."
False sense of pride or not, the comment was not as irrelevant as you think. There are many different viewpoints on the definition of ethics, and the person was stating where their viewpoint was coming from.
The victims are the test subjects -- the people being pressured into harming other people in spite of their normal moral inclination to avoid such a thing. They are being put under stress and are being led to sincerely attempt to cause mortal harm to another to avoid the displeasure of an authority figure. They are caught between their conscience and the pressure to conform. In the end they are harmed in two ways: (a) they are put under immense stress, (b) they are led to commit a deeply wrong act that they would've never considered.
For the original expirements, I would agree that they are unethical for the reasons you have outlined. However, for this most recent expirement, the "teachers" are fully aware that the subject and the environment is fully virtual and nothing they are doing is actually causing harm. That strips away most of the reasons that the Milgram expirements were considered unethical. What this does do is that it shows that even though the subjects know it is all fake, the nervous system still reacts even if it isn't as strongly as if the "learners" were real.
You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence.
Be honest. When was the last time you saw diplomacy stop someone from getting wedgied and then beaten up on the playground? When was the last time you saw a bully stop bullying someone, because the last time he tried he got a black eye? Now truly ask yourself if the game is wrong for showing the use of violence for stopping bullys.
Actually, all it answers is that none of the SVRX code SCO thinks it owns are illegally in Linux if/when IBM wins. There is still a possibility that someone else's code could either have been pinched and thrown in, or that someone could steal code and try submitting it to Linux, and hopefully this lawsuit will show the world how NOT to handle that situation.
I am totally getting a Wii, so this is not slanted in any way, but honestly, I'm concerned about the strain that using a motion-sensitive controller for every game, every movement, etc. will have. Seriously. I'm all for getting up off the couch, interactivity, and innovation. However, when I want to do some monster gaming session on Zelda, or Metroid Prime or something, how long can I really play before my body says "sit down, and stop flailing about. Plug that GC controller in right now, young man...":)
Honestly, how often have you watched people play console games and start moving the controller and/or themselves around, like leaning left will make Mario go left that much quicker. People subconsiously do this already, especially when playing intense games like Halo. If anything the wrist motions the controller actually requires might actually prove to be beneficial, like the gyroscopic balls people buy to exercize their wrists in an effort to stave off carpal tunnel.
But I think the Wii-60 argument is really compelling. The idea that you can buy both machines for a price comparable to the PS3, and have both next-gen graphics as well as innovative gameplay... I don't really see why you wouldn't, especially as we're entering this age of multi-platform games being the norm, due publishers and devs trying to make back their high development costs.
There are a few reasons someone wouldn't. First of all, that multi-platform arguement actually works both ways. Why would I want the combo when I can just get a PS3 and not miss out on the game anyway? Secondly, you have to factor in brand loyalty. This should be especially obvious in a forum with as many Apple/Sun/Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo loyalty-based flamewars. There are going to be those people who will say "I like Sony's Playstation consoles, I'm going to buy the console even if it's expensive based on the enjoyment I've gotten from my previous two."
Becides, just like in any supply-demand scenario, if the demand isn't there for the PS3 at the starting pricepoint it will eventually lower itself -- just like every console has over time, and people will buy it at the reduced price. The first time I spent money on a console (as opposed to getting it as a gift) was back when the Sega Dreamcasts hit $99. I bought that, a bunch of clearance/used games, and had a blast.
I play bass. It won't screw with real guitar/bass playing. What WILL happen is you'll find yourself trying to play the actual note on the guitar, which will screw up your timing in the game when that split second of "WTF??? WHERE'S THE STRING?!?"
If MS were intelligent, they could make it so that the entire chat log from the time the conversation started to the time the button was clicked were included along with any acct info they have as well as the IP address of both the person reporting and the person being reported. Doing that would enable any law enforcement agent quickly determine if it was a false report or something with merit.
Copyright, patent reform, and privacy reform will only take a political party so far. If this party is going to succeed in any major way it also has to develop a clear stance on issues that white-bread america will be interested in. What are the party's stance on things like preventing the FEMA fiasco in the wake on Hurricane Katrina? What's their policy on the minimum wage laws? Where's their stance on drug policy and education and taxes?
These are what most people will want to know before signing up for a party.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet their corporate headquarters is in Scottsdale.
Not to mention on the internet side Charter is offering 60/4 residential speeds (with free modem) for the same price I currently pay TW to get 15/1, the modem being an additional $7.99/mo if you want them to NOT charge you should they need to stop by and fix things, and TW's price was a promotional price.
I feared Comcast because of what I'd heard about Comcast both in terms of customer service and bandwith throttling. Everything I've heard about Charter is that I'll get faster theoretical advertized speeds and about the same level of "service" as I'm used to with TW.
Seems pretty clear that this falls squarely within it's right to regulate. Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".
But... everyone knows the internet is a series of tubes and therefore neither wire nor radio.
Estoppel comes into play. Check it. For one moment lets go all hypothetical and say that what you're suggesting is true, and that the MPAA and CCA broke the law horribly by denying people fair-use rights. Well, they can then claim that they've been telling people for years that the discs are encrypted (which they have) and that any challenge on this ground these years later should be effectively ignored on the grounds that "the public knew we've been doing this for so long and said nothing."
Could that point be argued in court? Probably. But a good lawyer would pad the estoppel claim with many others just in case someone did manage to shoot it down.
Well, aside from the fraud keeping such transactions off the book constitutes for both companies, if both companies are guilty of collusion this could have had much farther reaching effects on CPU prices and pre-built system configurations than you realize.
Funny, I used to work tech support at a cable company too.
Honestly? Yes. It's not as difficult as you're making it sound or the DOCSIS standards that the cable modems your company probably issues to customers wouldn't work because of the "features of modem a, b, and c." Cable companies modifying VoD services to work with generic cable boxes should not be difficult.
You mean just like when the physical tv has a problem, the computer itself has a problem, there's a problem in the customer's physical phone and such? The problem that the FCC seems to be addressing here is the non-standardization of cable boxes.
You and I both have probably heard strange tales of things like people calling and saying that their house was broken into, and now their cable modem is covered in a strange white fluid and hot sauce. However... most people are a lot more careful with their equipment. If you're working tech support, you're dealing with the people that DO have problems, not the ones that don't.
Now, not knowing where you are I can tell you some pretty standard info about the cable company where I am. If you lost your cable box, there was a $250 charge for that. Since I don't know ANY company that's altruistic enough to take a loss on lost/damaged equipment fees, lets just ASSUME for a moment that the actual price the company pays per box is around $250, which is around the same price people can purchase the boxes for DirecTV at electronics retailers for. Now, out here the price per month for a cable box that was "worked into" the service was $8.00/mo. So, the box was theoretically paid for after 2.5 years of service. After that, if you kept using the box like MANY customers do, on average 4 - 5 years, that means you've paid for the box twice over. Even factoring in, say, a 3 year accidental damage plan for $50.00 most retailers will pitch, you're still saving money.
AGAIN, not quite. If the cable companies treated their cable modems the same way they treated their cable boxes, each company would have a different standard and people wouldn't be able to buy cable modems at stores. As far as VoD software goes, it'll probably go down just like VHS vs Betamax where eventually one method becomes the standard and the differences between providers becomes the CONTENT PROVIDED.
I can understand that. However, that chest-thumping also serves to show others where his viewpoint on ethics is coming from, even if it is unintentionally boxing them into a less desirable light.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more moderate and well mannered of the anti-violent-video-game crowd use this as reason to conduct further research into how exactly violent video games effect both adults and children, while idiots like a certain lawyer from Florida start screaming about this being concrete evidence that GTA is a "Columbine Simulator."
Myself, I'd be more curious to see if this has more beneficial effects. If it goes one way, it's possible for it to go the other after all. They say that having human interaction as well as interaction with pets helps people who are ill. It's not always possible to bring people into hospitals, and non-service animals are never permitted. Perhaps another branch of this study would be to see how people react to a VR dog or cat compared to a real pet?
False sense of pride or not, the comment was not as irrelevant as you think. There are many different viewpoints on the definition of ethics, and the person was stating where their viewpoint was coming from.
For the original expirements, I would agree that they are unethical for the reasons you have outlined. However, for this most recent expirement, the "teachers" are fully aware that the subject and the environment is fully virtual and nothing they are doing is actually causing harm. That strips away most of the reasons that the Milgram expirements were considered unethical. What this does do is that it shows that even though the subjects know it is all fake, the nervous system still reacts even if it isn't as strongly as if the "learners" were real.
If nicotine patches don't stick, how reliable is the adhesive on these going to be, and what happens when they fall off?
Be honest. When was the last time you saw diplomacy stop someone from getting wedgied and then beaten up on the playground? When was the last time you saw a bully stop bullying someone, because the last time he tried he got a black eye? Now truly ask yourself if the game is wrong for showing the use of violence for stopping bullys.
Actually, all it answers is that none of the SVRX code SCO thinks it owns are illegally in Linux if/when IBM wins. There is still a possibility that someone else's code could either have been pinched and thrown in, or that someone could steal code and try submitting it to Linux, and hopefully this lawsuit will show the world how NOT to handle that situation.
There are a few reasons someone wouldn't. First of all, that multi-platform arguement actually works both ways. Why would I want the combo when I can just get a PS3 and not miss out on the game anyway? Secondly, you have to factor in brand loyalty. This should be especially obvious in a forum with as many Apple/Sun/Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo loyalty-based flamewars. There are going to be those people who will say "I like Sony's Playstation consoles, I'm going to buy the console even if it's expensive based on the enjoyment I've gotten from my previous two."
Becides, just like in any supply-demand scenario, if the demand isn't there for the PS3 at the starting pricepoint it will eventually lower itself -- just like every console has over time, and people will buy it at the reduced price. The first time I spent money on a console (as opposed to getting it as a gift) was back when the Sega Dreamcasts hit $99. I bought that, a bunch of clearance/used games, and had a blast.
I play bass. It won't screw with real guitar/bass playing. What WILL happen is you'll find yourself trying to play the actual note on the guitar, which will screw up your timing in the game when that split second of "WTF??? WHERE'S THE STRING?!?"
If MS were intelligent, they could make it so that the entire chat log from the time the conversation started to the time the button was clicked were included along with any acct info they have as well as the IP address of both the person reporting and the person being reported. Doing that would enable any law enforcement agent quickly determine if it was a false report or something with merit.
Copyright, patent reform, and privacy reform will only take a political party so far. If this party is going to succeed in any major way it also has to develop a clear stance on issues that white-bread america will be interested in. What are the party's stance on things like preventing the FEMA fiasco in the wake on Hurricane Katrina? What's their policy on the minimum wage laws? Where's their stance on drug policy and education and taxes?
These are what most people will want to know before signing up for a party.
Not only does Mario resort to violence, but he does so cheerfully while taking mushrooms!