Yeah if there were just an easy to use meter that could determine how many miles the car has been driven... We could name it something fancy like from the greek word "hodos", meaning "path", and call it a odo-meter, oh wait I'll call my new invention an odometer!
No, that is too complicated, we should add an expensive GPS unit that tracks every place you've been, not just the miles you've traveled.
It might be a fake group, but I don't think what they're pushing for is a bad thing. I'd love to be able to leave Time Warner in my area, but they're the only ones with local sports coverage and that is a must-have for me. Then again once Verizon FIOS is available I can get ESPN360 which will cover all college games... Maybe Verizon and TWC can trade/share local sports coverage for ESPN360.
The data is still unlimited, it just doesn't (appear to) have a full web browser. I've been curious about this plan since I heard about it last week and after looking at the phones yesterday I don't think they're capable of actual web browsing. It's still a great deal for someone who just talks and texts a lot. It's not an iphone by any means, the phones are what you would expect to find for free from Verizon 2-3 years ago.
"So you'd rather that telcos have no problem revealing all your info to the gov't? Just as long as they keep their bills low?"
I said don't sue the telecoms for money. I didn't say that what they did is ok. If someone broke the law throw them in jail. But if you fine the company they're just going to pass those fines on to the customers. Most telecoms have virtual monopolies in their markets, any fines will be passed directly on to consumers (further harming already violated citizens).
I also do not think you can assume that because they were granted immunity from lawsuits that they are guilty. I don't support granting them immunity, but assuming that they are guilty is incorrect.
The telecom companies were given immunity from lawsuits. This is not an admission of guilt on anyone's part. There was a pending lawsuit by the EFF against AT&T, it was allowed to go forward, then the government granted immunity to the telecom companies to avoid details of the plans from becoming public.
It's shady for sure, but it's not fair or correct to assume guilt. We have a judicial system in which you're innocent until proven guilty, and that applies to every one - even people/companies you really really don't like.
I was trying to make two points (and I did it poorly). First - you can't assume guilt on the part of telecom companies. Second - you should go after the people who instructed them to violate our rights, not the companies.
My understanding of the case is that the businesses were directed to give up our data, conversations, e-mails, etc to the government. They didn't offer it up willingly. If you're going to go after someone then go after the person who told them to turn the data over.
So you're claiming that teleco's are obviously guilty before having a trial? And guilt is the only excuse - they couldn't want to avoid an expensive long trial?
You can't claim that someone is guilty because they don't want to go to court.
I hate my teleco as much as the next guy, but I'm happy if they don't go to court, spend millions, and raise prices next year. The lawsuits are trying to continually tarnish the Bush administration which has already admitted to illegal surveillance. Why continue to waste tax payer money attacking companies that will only result in raised prices for consumers? I don't want to pay for both ends of this lawsuit that won't change illegal intrusions that already happened.
I can't believe Mike wrote "There is simply no credible explanation for granting telco immunity except to cover up illegal activity."
Mike seems to be taking the "if you want privacy you're obviously guilty" approach that he's fought against time and time again for personal liberties. Every reader here would be outraged if someone wrote that about a person, so how is it ok when it's about a company?
Please do not sue my teleco for money. I hate them - they suck. But if you sue them and they get fined they're only going to pass that fine on to customers in the way of new fees or reduced services. Businesses don't take losses or just pay fines, they work those losses into next year's prices.
Hey she's clearly guilty of sharing music. If you take Jammie Thomans's fine of $80,000 per song (18 in total I believe). Could Lily-5-years-ago afford a (US)$1,440,000 fine? Could Lily today pay that fine?
Lily did this infringement for financial gain also, she could face the max penalty of $150,000 per song fine - can she afford $2,700,000?
Suing a service provider is like Joe Satriani suing Walmart for selling a Coldplay CD that (allegedly) infringed on his works. Come to think of it there's a lot more money in suing Walmart and Apple than Coldplay...
There aren't many good shows out there that fans would want to connect with. Lost has done a great job of connecting with fans between seasons online and with fun TV commercials for the Dharma Initiative (and also listening to their fans). Not many other shows are as good as Lost and I really really don't want to connect to The Hills...
They need to make sure its easier to obtain their goods legally. The customers they're pissing off aren't interested in buying their products. They should be happy they were getting anything from Netflix or Redbox. This just makes the less-than-legal approaches much more appealing.
Gizmodo has been doing a new daily post called "Remainders - Things we didn't post" where they show stories they decided not to write full posts about. Why not do the same thing and put up links that were sent to you that you decided weren't good enough. You might find that your readers do find some of those sites interesting that you might want to revisit. I have no clue how long it would take to put up something like that, but it would be interesting to see what you deem unworthy.
I have never disagreed more with this site than today. To say that allowing kids to share answers on tests is ok or should be encouraged is bullshit. There's absolutely no other way around it.
I will never want to work with someone who is incapable of solving basic problems on their own. Tests in school (high school and college) are basic problems - they may be parts of larger problems - but no matter what school you went to and what degree you got the questions you answered in school were basic compared to problems in the real world. If you can't do it in school you'll never make it in the real world and it's time for a change in your career/major. If you always have to "collaborate" to solve problems or to do work you're wasting the time and efforts of other employees and you're nothing more than a drain on the team and organization.
Some collaboration is always expected, but if you can't manage to do the basics on your own, like pass a test in school then you're in the wrong field.
I'm not a web developer so I'm positive that I'm going to over simplify this, but why can't "someone" make a website where users can plot their location on a map and show what broadband providers they have available in their area? A grassroots effort could provide a decent representation of the competition available across the country. I know some people will make mistakes or lie, but if you get enough people to participate then you should be able to get a pretty accurate map. Any reasons why this can't be done? I hear a lot of complaining on blogs about Connected Nation, but no action to fix anything.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as jsl4980)
Yeah if there were just an easy to use meter that could determine how many miles the car has been driven... We could name it something fancy like from the greek word "hodos", meaning "path", and call it a odo-meter, oh wait I'll call my new invention an odometer!
No, that is too complicated, we should add an expensive GPS unit that tracks every place you've been, not just the miles you've traveled.
This promotes buying? (as jsl4980)
This is a great opportunity to ask again - how does this promote buying?
Re: �World� Series? (as jsl4980)
Yeah "world" there's a team from Toronto.
Election is right around the corner (as jsl4980)
If you don't let Cuomo grandstand; how else will he get to run for governor? NY has a long history of AG's doing a great job as governor.
(as jsl4980)
It might be a fake group, but I don't think what they're pushing for is a bad thing. I'd love to be able to leave Time Warner in my area, but they're the only ones with local sports coverage and that is a must-have for me. Then again once Verizon FIOS is available I can get ESPN360 which will cover all college games... Maybe Verizon and TWC can trade/share local sports coverage for ESPN360.
(as jsl4980)
The data is still unlimited, it just doesn't (appear to) have a full web browser. I've been curious about this plan since I heard about it last week and after looking at the phones yesterday I don't think they're capable of actual web browsing. It's still a great deal for someone who just talks and texts a lot. It's not an iphone by any means, the phones are what you would expect to find for free from Verizon 2-3 years ago.
Re: Great quote (as jsl4980)
I wanted to say the exact same thing. That quote needs it's own site.
(as jsl4980)
Awesome use of "kerfuffle" I have yet to find an appropriate setting to use that word.
Re: Re: Woah back up (as jsl4980)
"So you'd rather that telcos have no problem revealing all your info to the gov't? Just as long as they keep their bills low?"
I said don't sue the telecoms for money. I didn't say that what they did is ok. If someone broke the law throw them in jail. But if you fine the company they're just going to pass those fines on to the customers. Most telecoms have virtual monopolies in their markets, any fines will be passed directly on to consumers (further harming already violated citizens).
I also do not think you can assume that because they were granted immunity from lawsuits that they are guilty. I don't support granting them immunity, but assuming that they are guilty is incorrect.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah back up (as jsl4980)
The telecom companies were given immunity from lawsuits. This is not an admission of guilt on anyone's part. There was a pending lawsuit by the EFF against AT&T, it was allowed to go forward, then the government granted immunity to the telecom companies to avoid details of the plans from becoming public.
It's shady for sure, but it's not fair or correct to assume guilt. We have a judicial system in which you're innocent until proven guilty, and that applies to every one - even people/companies you really really don't like.
I was trying to make two points (and I did it poorly). First - you can't assume guilt on the part of telecom companies. Second - you should go after the people who instructed them to violate our rights, not the companies.
Re: Re: Woah back up (as jsl4980)
My understanding of the case is that the businesses were directed to give up our data, conversations, e-mails, etc to the government. They didn't offer it up willingly. If you're going to go after someone then go after the person who told them to turn the data over.
Re: Re: Woah back up (as jsl4980)
So you're claiming that teleco's are obviously guilty before having a trial? And guilt is the only excuse - they couldn't want to avoid an expensive long trial?
You can't claim that someone is guilty because they don't want to go to court.
I hate my teleco as much as the next guy, but I'm happy if they don't go to court, spend millions, and raise prices next year. The lawsuits are trying to continually tarnish the Bush administration which has already admitted to illegal surveillance. Why continue to waste tax payer money attacking companies that will only result in raised prices for consumers? I don't want to pay for both ends of this lawsuit that won't change illegal intrusions that already happened.
Woah back up (as jsl4980)
I can't believe Mike wrote "There is simply no credible explanation for granting telco immunity except to cover up illegal activity."
Mike seems to be taking the "if you want privacy you're obviously guilty" approach that he's fought against time and time again for personal liberties. Every reader here would be outraged if someone wrote that about a person, so how is it ok when it's about a company?
Please do not sue my teleco for money. I hate them - they suck. But if you sue them and they get fined they're only going to pass that fine on to customers in the way of new fees or reduced services. Businesses don't take losses or just pay fines, they work those losses into next year's prices.
What about the US fines? (as jsl4980)
Hey she's clearly guilty of sharing music. If you take Jammie Thomans's fine of $80,000 per song (18 in total I believe). Could Lily-5-years-ago afford a (US)$1,440,000 fine? Could Lily today pay that fine?
Lily did this infringement for financial gain also, she could face the max penalty of $150,000 per song fine - can she afford $2,700,000?
Fun to apply off line (as jsl4980)
So Joe Satriani sued Coldplay for infringement - http://techdirt.com/articles/20090914/0258286177.shtml
Suing a service provider is like Joe Satriani suing Walmart for selling a Coldplay CD that (allegedly) infringed on his works. Come to think of it there's a lot more money in suing Walmart and Apple than Coldplay...
What shows are worth it? (as jsl4980)
There aren't many good shows out there that fans would want to connect with. Lost has done a great job of connecting with fans between seasons online and with fun TV commercials for the Dharma Initiative (and also listening to their fans). Not many other shows are as good as Lost and I really really don't want to connect to The Hills...
ugh... (as jsl4980)
They need to make sure its easier to obtain their goods legally. The customers they're pissing off aren't interested in buying their products. They should be happy they were getting anything from Netflix or Redbox. This just makes the less-than-legal approaches much more appealing.
Why not make a new feature "Things we didn't post" (as jsl4980)
Gizmodo has been doing a new daily post called "Remainders - Things we didn't post" where they show stories they decided not to write full posts about. Why not do the same thing and put up links that were sent to you that you decided weren't good enough. You might find that your readers do find some of those sites interesting that you might want to revisit. I have no clue how long it would take to put up something like that, but it would be interesting to see what you deem unworthy.
Never disagreed more (as jsl4980)
I have never disagreed more with this site than today. To say that allowing kids to share answers on tests is ok or should be encouraged is bullshit. There's absolutely no other way around it.
I will never want to work with someone who is incapable of solving basic problems on their own. Tests in school (high school and college) are basic problems - they may be parts of larger problems - but no matter what school you went to and what degree you got the questions you answered in school were basic compared to problems in the real world. If you can't do it in school you'll never make it in the real world and it's time for a change in your career/major. If you always have to "collaborate" to solve problems or to do work you're wasting the time and efforts of other employees and you're nothing more than a drain on the team and organization.
Some collaboration is always expected, but if you can't manage to do the basics on your own, like pass a test in school then you're in the wrong field.
My attempt to over simplify (as jsl4980)
I'm not a web developer so I'm positive that I'm going to over simplify this, but why can't "someone" make a website where users can plot their location on a map and show what broadband providers they have available in their area? A grassroots effort could provide a decent representation of the competition available across the country. I know some people will make mistakes or lie, but if you get enough people to participate then you should be able to get a pretty accurate map. Any reasons why this can't be done? I hear a lot of complaining on blogs about Connected Nation, but no action to fix anything.