I thought the last third of Seveneves was weaker than the first two-thirds, but not so much as to make me think I'd wasted my time time reading it.
So far, I've highly enjoyed every one of Stephenson's books that I have read. In addition to "Cryptonomicon" (1999) and "Seveneves" (2015), I've read "Anathem" (2008) and "Reamde" (2011).
Of the four, I'd say I liked Crypto and Reamde the most, Anathem the least, with Seveneves somewhere in the middle.
I "read" Cryptonomicon as an audiobook a year or two ago. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and (w/o giving away the plot) how Stephenson tied modern era cryptography to the work of the WWII code-breakers.
I don't know if this book is classified as "historical fiction", but he does place his characters in historical settings. I loved the discussion of the ethical dilemma of using decrypted information, if using it will save lives, but give away the fact that you now have broken the enemy code.
Stephenson also talks about Bletchley Park and even makes room for Alan Turing and some mythical friends! Fascinating stuff!
TechDirt (and the rest of the tech community, as far as I can tell) never met a pirate it didn't love.
So online theft, copyright violations, etc. are not problems, as far as they are concerned. Where is your righteous indignation when pirates copy wholesale the intellectual property of others? Is that how you advocate for authors' rights, by advocating for the "rights" of pirates?
Oh, I forget, you don't recognize "copyright" as a right.
The Dallas Morning News is traditionally a very conservative newspaper. Its direct competition, the Dallas Times Herald (not exactly liberal, but certainly less conservative than the DMN) went out of business in the early 90s, so there isn't an alternative voice to challenge the DMN's conservative pronouncements.
"The tl:dr version is that AT&T's taking existing (and in some cases finished) deployments, pretending they're totally new deployments only made possible by the DirecTV merger, and the FCC's helping them".
It amazes me that Bode, a third party w/o access to all the merger data, can figure this out, but the FCC staff, with all the merger info at the fingertips, cannot.
Is the FCC really that dumb or is Bode really that smart?
@JR: The First Amendment also protects freedom of the press, right?
Are you saying that the free press clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the New York Times? Because the New York Times is a corporation (and a pretty big one at that).
If you agree that the New York Times has freedom of the press, then you must also agree that the First Amendment applies to corporations.
So how do you come down on the Garland, TX gathering of Muhammad cartoonists?
I believe they have a First Amendment right to draw such cartoons. As to whether Muslims take offense: yes, they can take offense (just as Christians took offense at piss Jesus and shit-stain Mary), but Christians didn't take up arms against those so-called artists.
And despite protests from veterans, I think Under Armour can print its Iwo Jima-basketball t-shirt if it wants to. But it can expect disapproval from some (as well as support from others).
"Does the FCC have the authority to, I don't know, eliminate the binding arbitration agreement clause in all ISP-customer contracts?"
Probably not.
That clause is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, which favors binding arbitration. Binding arbitration has been a feature of cellular contracts for probably a decade, so if the FCC had a problem with such clauses, it has had plenty of time to eliminate them in the wireless context.
Speaking as a Republican myself, I view this as nothing more than political grandstanding.
They don't have the votes to override the inevitable veto. This strikes as little more then whining. I'm no fan of Title II reclassification, but I think the FCC is on firm legal ground here.
So in the event the ISPs sue to overturn the NN rules, I think the FCC wins this time around.
For once, I think I agree with just about everything you wrote.
One side or the other (or maybe both) will be pissed when the FCC releases its final NN decision, but like you said, it won't be because the pro-NN comments were ignored. By law (the APA) all relevant comments must be considered.
It's too bad that so many of the pro-NN comments were devoid of facts, and heavy on vitriol. Simply relating the problems that users have with their ISPs is just one example of how citizens could submit facts instead of opinions.
But it is so much easier to fire off a tirade without even reading the very document they are commenting on.
the largest period of investment in broadband infrastructure happened before the big Brand X Supreme Court decision, when broadband was still considered to be under Title II.
It is true that DSL was considered a Title II service before it was reclassified in 2005. But the largest providers of broadband Internet access in the U.S. are by far the cable TV companies. And their infrastructure was never classified as Title II.
In the 2002 decision that classified cable modem service as a Title I Information Service, rather than a Title II Telecommunications Service, I think the FCC made a mistake, but what they didn't do was reclassify cable modem from telecom to information service; it was never a telecom service to begin with.
So to say all broadband was Title II before Brand X is nowhere near correct.
According to the government, Microsoft was a monopoly and even filed an antitrust lawsuit against them. So my question stands: would the government have made a better monopoly than Microsoft when it came to OS software?
Re: Re:
Congress allowed SCOTUS to redefine people as corporations?
Howso? And what could Congress have done to stop them?
Re: Re: an annual read
I thought the last third of Seveneves was weaker than the first two-thirds, but not so much as to make me think I'd wasted my time time reading it.
So far, I've highly enjoyed every one of Stephenson's books that I have read. In addition to "Cryptonomicon" (1999) and "Seveneves" (2015), I've read "Anathem" (2008) and "Reamde" (2011).
Of the four, I'd say I liked Crypto and Reamde the most, Anathem the least, with Seveneves somewhere in the middle.
Great book
I "read" Cryptonomicon as an audiobook a year or two ago. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and (w/o giving away the plot) how Stephenson tied modern era cryptography to the work of the WWII code-breakers.
I don't know if this book is classified as "historical fiction", but he does place his characters in historical settings. I loved the discussion of the ethical dilemma of using decrypted information, if using it will save lives, but give away the fact that you now have broken the enemy code.
Stephenson also talks about Bletchley Park and even makes room for Alan Turing and some mythical friends! Fascinating stuff!
If Bode says it, it must be so
Have the courage of your convictions and file a formal complaint with the FCC if you think Verizon is violating the FCC's net neutrality rules.
While this blog post serves to inform, it does nothing to change anything.
Hail to the Redskins!
Hopefully, this means the end of the federal government's persecution of the Washington Redskins!
Hypocrisy, thy name is TechDirt
TechDirt (and the rest of the tech community, as far as I can tell) never met a pirate it didn't love.
So online theft, copyright violations, etc. are not problems, as far as they are concerned. Where is your righteous indignation when pirates copy wholesale the intellectual property of others? Is that how you advocate for authors' rights, by advocating for the "rights" of pirates?
Oh, I forget, you don't recognize "copyright" as a right.
Re: Not so fast! This is a good thing!
The Dallas Morning News is traditionally a very conservative newspaper. Its direct competition, the Dallas Times Herald (not exactly liberal, but certainly less conservative than the DMN) went out of business in the early 90s, so there isn't an alternative voice to challenge the DMN's conservative pronouncements.
Is the FCC really that dumb?
"The tl:dr version is that AT&T's taking existing (and in some cases finished) deployments, pretending they're totally new deployments only made possible by the DirecTV merger, and the FCC's helping them".
It amazes me that Bode, a third party w/o access to all the merger data, can figure this out, but the FCC staff, with all the merger info at the fingertips, cannot.
Is the FCC really that dumb or is Bode really that smart?
Re: They are not a person
@JR: The First Amendment also protects freedom of the press, right?
Are you saying that the free press clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the New York Times? Because the New York Times is a corporation (and a pretty big one at that).
If you agree that the New York Times has freedom of the press, then you must also agree that the First Amendment applies to corporations.
Garland shooting related to Muhammad cartoons
So how do you come down on the Garland, TX gathering of Muhammad cartoonists?
I believe they have a First Amendment right to draw such cartoons. As to whether Muslims take offense: yes, they can take offense (just as Christians took offense at piss Jesus and shit-stain Mary), but Christians didn't take up arms against those so-called artists.
And despite protests from veterans, I think Under Armour can print its Iwo Jima-basketball t-shirt if it wants to. But it can expect disapproval from some (as well as support from others).
Re: BAA
@TMC:
"Does the FCC have the authority to, I don't know, eliminate the binding arbitration agreement clause in all ISP-customer contracts?"
Probably not.
That clause is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, which favors binding arbitration. Binding arbitration has been a feature of cellular contracts for probably a decade, so if the FCC had a problem with such clauses, it has had plenty of time to eliminate them in the wireless context.
It has not done so.
Nothing more than political grandstanding
Speaking as a Republican myself, I view this as nothing more than political grandstanding.
They don't have the votes to override the inevitable veto. This strikes as little more then whining. I'm no fan of Title II reclassification, but I think the FCC is on firm legal ground here.
So in the event the ISPs sue to overturn the NN rules, I think the FCC wins this time around.
Plaintiff contradicts himself
First, O'Rourke claims he never told Comcast he worked for PWC.
Then, he claims Comcast googled his employment information.
Assuming both are true, then Comcast got his employment info off the public Internet.
So how is disclosing public information a violation of privacy laws?
Re: Rule of Law
So how would you change things?
Splitting the baby
Mike:
For once, I think I agree with just about everything you wrote.
One side or the other (or maybe both) will be pissed when the FCC releases its final NN decision, but like you said, it won't be because the pro-NN comments were ignored. By law (the APA) all relevant comments must be considered.
It's too bad that so many of the pro-NN comments were devoid of facts, and heavy on vitriol. Simply relating the problems that users have with their ISPs is just one example of how citizens could submit facts instead of opinions.
But it is so much easier to fire off a tirade without even reading the very document they are commenting on.
ROW is not a subsidy
Mike, you should know better.
Cable companies pay for the right to occupy the public right of way, it is not a subsidy to them.
Ever heard of a franchise fee?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee
Cable modem was never Title II
Masnick writes:
It is true that DSL was considered a Title II service before it was reclassified in 2005. But the largest providers of broadband Internet access in the U.S. are by far the cable TV companies. And their infrastructure was never classified as Title II.In the 2002 decision that classified cable modem service as a Title I Information Service, rather than a Title II Telecommunications Service, I think the FCC made a mistake, but what they didn't do was reclassify cable modem from telecom to information service; it was never a telecom service to begin with.
So to say all broadband was Title II before Brand X is nowhere near correct.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats were against Title II before they were for it
orbitalinsertion writes:
Obviously not, so what part of my post is revisionism?Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats were against Title II before they were for it
Anonymous coward writes:
True, but what does that have to do with the letter from Dems asking the FCC to not apply Title II to broadband?Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to the government, Microsoft was a monopoly and even filed an antitrust lawsuit against them. So my question stands: would the government have made a better monopoly than Microsoft when it came to OS software?