Is this really how the U.S. government thinks it should regulate Internet communication and content?
Let us ban internet content deemed obscene to save our sensitive childrens' eyes. What standards should we use?...Oh, of course, we already have the FCC's handy guidelines for obscene content on over-the-air TV and cable TV broadcasts. Let us just use a similar definition of obscene content to filter out the internet. That is very convenient since the FCC already has a lot of experience in this area, and of course we can apply old laws to new mediums in which they were never intended to regulate.
Oh, but how will we enforce these new filtering laws? We need to remove anonymity with internet postings (technologically, almost impossible, and if implemented this will essentially remove the best form of communication for whistle blowers that exists). Also, we need to block all foreign internet content if that is obscene, so maybe we should build a whitelist of sites without offensive content...
...and after 6 months, let's add certain political speech (i.e. views of those not in power) to the definition of obscene.
End sarcasm.
...and we continue to slide down the slippery slope...
Don't forget your instant dance party room
on
Pimping Out a New House
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Not if Apple understands basic market economics. To maximize product profits, you want to have several levels of functionality/pricing options to capture as much of the market as possible. Functionality in this case can and should include ability to make phone calls, use SMS, browse online, etc. For example, Apple could have a premium portable unit with phone capabilities, and a value-based version with those features turned off in software (with the option to upgrade later, of course).
Disclaimer - I'm definitely not an Apple fanboy. I just wanted to find first-hand whatever I could about this situation. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cisco.com
has a nice listing of previous cisco home pages. I browsed through this quite a bit, and it looked like they were using the term "communicator" extensively. I didn't see iPhone on any of these historical pages. I'm inclined to think they just might have made "iPhone" a new, featured product in the last 72 hours.
Interestingly, I did find iphone by VocalTec in 1996, see: http://web.archive.org/web/19961225003516/www.voca ltec.com/iphone.htm
but since VocalTec is an Israeli telecom equipment provider, and IANAL, I don't know what to make of this. My only thought is that probably their iPhone is no longer being actively used, and I don't know if it was even a trademarked name.
From: info@lik-sang.com
Sender: cancellation@lik-sang.com
Subject: "Order cancelled due to out of business"
Body:
Dear valued customer,
unfortunately, Lik Sang is forced to close its virtual doors for good. This
comes as a consequence of the several legal actions brought on us by Sony.
For more information on the situation, please point your browser to the
following link:
Therefore, as soon as humanly possible, we will cancel all existing orders,
including yours, and issue refunds where necessary.
Please note that it may take anywhere from a few days up to a week or two
for refunds to be processed by PayPal, your bank or your credit card
company, so please don't worry if you don't see it immediately on your
balance statement. You can rest assured that Lik-Sang is monitoring the
situation closely with all involved parties. No single customer will be
caught in the crossfire of this ordeal.
We are sorry to have to go, and we wish to thank you sincerely your support
over the past decade.
Warm regards and a big THANK YOU from the entire Hong Kong crew.
is that there is almost no competitive market to allow the market to provide the service customers want. Most big markets in the US have a duopoly, where 2 companies (DSL and cable) control almost all of the broadband internet market share. And do not tell me there are wireless MANs, broadband over power, satellite broadband, and other options for customers. The majority of U.S. residents do not have these ISPs available as options.
I would agree that there should be no legislation to force any net neutrality on telcos, but these companies are expressing their INTENT to discriminate against specific content providers. And when both your dsl and cable company discriminate in a similar fashion, by having tiered services, how can you choose to take your business elsewhere?
Put yourself in the shoes of the executives at the telco companies. If you want to maximize your company's profits, the best thing to do might be to create an artificial shortage of bandwidth for everyone once ANY company is willing to pay for premium routing service. Now consider the point of view of the content providers. You might want to be the first company willing to pay AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. for premium routing service so that you have a competitive advantage in terms of performance. Of course, you will only want to pay for premium service if there is a performance benefit compared to non-premium service, hence discrimination is key for opening this new revenue source.
Yes, letting the market decide instead of forcing legislation is the best option in a truly competitive environment, but we do not have such competition in the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this really how the U.S. government thinks it should regulate Internet communication and content?
...and after 6 months, let's add certain political speech (i.e. views of those not in power) to the definition of obscene.
...and we continue to slide down the slippery slope...
Let us ban internet content deemed obscene to save our sensitive childrens' eyes. What standards should we use?...Oh, of course, we already have the FCC's handy guidelines for obscene content on over-the-air TV and cable TV broadcasts. Let us just use a similar definition of obscene content to filter out the internet. That is very convenient since the FCC already has a lot of experience in this area, and of course we can apply old laws to new mediums in which they were never intended to regulate.
Oh, but how will we enforce these new filtering laws? We need to remove anonymity with internet postings (technologically, almost impossible, and if implemented this will essentially remove the best form of communication for whistle blowers that exists). Also, we need to block all foreign internet content if that is obscene, so maybe we should build a whitelist of sites without offensive content...
End sarcasm.
like these guys at MIT. See:
http://web.mit.edu/zacka/www/midas.html
The page has the circuit diagrams for the wiring as well as a suggested layout.
Not if Apple understands basic market economics. To maximize product profits, you want to have several levels of functionality/pricing options to capture as much of the market as possible. Functionality in this case can and should include ability to make phone calls, use SMS, browse online, etc. For example, Apple could have a premium portable unit with phone capabilities, and a value-based version with those features turned off in software (with the option to upgrade later, of course).
Disclaimer - I'm definitely not an Apple fanboy. I just wanted to find first-hand whatever I could about this situation.a ltec.com/iphone.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cisco.com
has a nice listing of previous cisco home pages. I browsed through this quite a bit, and it looked like they were using the term "communicator" extensively. I didn't see iPhone on any of these historical pages. I'm inclined to think they just might have made "iPhone" a new, featured product in the last 72 hours.
Interestingly, I did find iphone by VocalTec in 1996, see:
http://web.archive.org/web/19961225003516/www.voc
but since VocalTec is an Israeli telecom equipment provider, and IANAL, I don't know what to make of this. My only thought is that probably their iPhone is no longer being actively used, and I don't know if it was even a trademarked name.
From: info@lik-sang.com
Sender: cancellation@lik-sang.com
Subject: "Order cancelled due to out of business"
Body:
Dear valued customer,
unfortunately, Lik Sang is forced to close its virtual doors for good. This comes as a consequence of the several legal actions brought on us by Sony. For more information on the situation, please point your browser to the following link:
http://www.lik-sang.com/news.php?artc=3901
Therefore, as soon as humanly possible, we will cancel all existing orders, including yours, and issue refunds where necessary.
Please note that it may take anywhere from a few days up to a week or two for refunds to be processed by PayPal, your bank or your credit card company, so please don't worry if you don't see it immediately on your balance statement. You can rest assured that Lik-Sang is monitoring the situation closely with all involved parties. No single customer will be caught in the crossfire of this ordeal.
We are sorry to have to go, and we wish to thank you sincerely your support over the past decade.
Warm regards and a big THANK YOU from the entire Hong Kong crew.
Team Lik-Sang
I would agree that there should be no legislation to force any net neutrality on telcos, but these companies are expressing their INTENT to discriminate against specific content providers. And when both your dsl and cable company discriminate in a similar fashion, by having tiered services, how can you choose to take your business elsewhere?
Put yourself in the shoes of the executives at the telco companies. If you want to maximize your company's profits, the best thing to do might be to create an artificial shortage of bandwidth for everyone once ANY company is willing to pay for premium routing service. Now consider the point of view of the content providers. You might want to be the first company willing to pay AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. for premium routing service so that you have a competitive advantage in terms of performance. Of course, you will only want to pay for premium service if there is a performance benefit compared to non-premium service, hence discrimination is key for opening this new revenue source.
Yes, letting the market decide instead of forcing legislation is the best option in a truly competitive environment, but we do not have such competition in the U.S.