Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment A living constitution would adapt to circumstances (Score 1) 367

by Kuma-chang (#37626934) Attached to: Calif. Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Searches
The strict constructionist would say that the text of the Constitution did not protect the founders' iPhones, therefore it doesn't protect your iPhone. I'm not sure precisely what "effects" meant at the time of the ratification, but I'm pretty sure it didn't refer to handheld electronic devices. The "living constitution" folks would say that today's iPhone is the modern equivalent of papers and effects, and therefore should be protected. The idea of the living constitution is to adapt the broad principles of the constitution to modern circumstances. Seems like we could use more of that in this case.

Comment Maintaining the PSTN isn't feasible (Score 1) 305

by Kuma-chang (#36694562) Attached to: Could PSTN Go Away By 2018?
While I understand many commenters are sad to see the PSTN go, I hope all acknowledge that it is simply not feasible to keep it running. Even today we're shelling out somewhere in the neighborhood of $12-15 billion a year in subsidies through the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to rural telcos to keep the PSTN running. As PSTN subscribership continues to drop steadily (and it will), the required subsidy levels will only go up. Sure the PSTN had its merits, but ultimately it could not compete with IP networks in terms of efficiency and capabilities, and hence both service providers and customers are abandoning it in droves. Unless we are all happy to shell out tens of billions of dollars a year in subsidies, the PSTN is going to die and die quickly.
Businesses

Data-Mining Ban Struck Down By US Supreme Court 176

Posted by timothy from the about-your-nasty-std dept.
smitty777 writes "The Supreme Court struck down in Sorrell vs IMS Health a Vermont law banning data mining which has been in place since 2007. The court ruled that the data on medications prescribed by doctors is protected by the First Amendment and can be used for marketing by the pharmaceutical companies. This follows similar declarations in Maine and New Hampshire."

Comment Headline vastly overstates the opinion's impact (Score 5, Informative) 134

by Kuma-chang (#36400084) Attached to: SCOTUS Rules Incumbent Telcos Must Share Network Access At Cost
As an actual telecom attorney, I'd just like to clarify that this ruling applies very narrowly to the use of entrance facilities (wires running into telco offices) for the purpose of interconnection. The dispute centered on an order from the FCC that excluded these facilities from regulation under one part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that requires unbundled access to network elements that are necessary for competing service providers and would impair their ability to provide service if they were denied access. A separate section of the Act requires telcos to provide cost-based access to network facilities for the purpose of interconnection. AT&T claimed that the order meant that they did not have to provide access to entrance facilities under either statutory provision. A competing provider, took them to court over it, the FCC filed a brief stating that AT&T was required to provide the facilities for the purpose of interconnection, and the Supreme Court endorsed the FCC view. That's it. This opinion does not expand the rights of competitors to unbundled access to incumbent networks in any general sense.
Google

Submission + - Google & Verizon's Real Net Neutrality Proposa (blogspot.com) 3

Submitted by langelgjm
langelgjm writes: Announced this afternoon in a joint conference call held by CEOs Eric Schmidt and Ivan Seidenberg, Google and Verizon have released a joint net neutrality proposal in the form of a "suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers." This comes on the heels of last week's assertion (and subsequent denial) that Google and Verizon were close to concluding talks that would permit Verizon to prioritize certain content in exchange for pay. A look at the actual text of the framework shows some positive net neutrality principles, but there is also some more curious content: "Wireless broadband" is singled out for exclusion from most of the agreement, and providers would be permitted to prioritize "additional online services... distinguishable in scope and purpose." Public Knowledge, a watchdog group based in Washington, has criticized the agreement for these provisions.

Comment Re:Should we have a... (Score 1) 371

by Kuma-chang (#33138222) Attached to: Hardware Hackers Reveal Apple's Charger Secrets

Sorry to distract you from the "But teh labour is too expensive in Amercia" rant but a $3/h repair job in China is fine when you're on US$40K a year but when you're on US$2K it's just as expensive as the "hyper inflated cost of labour in America".

Economy scales, you're paying roughly the same in the US as the Chinese are in China. Any differences can be attributed to skill shortage/abundance. For a Chinese person, Chinese labour is not cheap.

This is nonsense. Manufactured goods are not radically cheaper in China than in the US. Labor is. Think about what you're saying for a second. Manufactured goods are highly transportable. If the exact same goods sold in China for a fraction of the price they sell for in the US, how long would it take for large importers to make a fortune arbitraging that price difference until the prices balance out? In fact, Walmart has already done this. The fact that China keeps its currency devalued against the dollar only exacerbates the matter. Labor is cheap in China. Goods and services that are labor-centric and based on local market pricing are cheap (food, housing generally) compared to a Western nation. But prices for manufactured goods are pretty similar to what they'd be anywhere else. Labor is cheap in China, EVEN FOR CHINESE PEOPLE. In that sense, a Chinese company will simply throw more manpower at something that in the US we would instead deploy more machinery and technology (e.g., construction, agriculture). And people in China do repair everything because taking it to a repairman is cheaper than buying a new one.

Comment You have a bad sales model (Score 2, Insightful) 438

by Kuma-chang (#33081906) Attached to: Sometimes It's OK To Steal My Games
If you can only sell 50 copies a week a $1, but can move 25k copies per week at $0, you need to find a way to make money off of $0. Find a sponsor, insert some advertising. That's a 50,000% difference in market reach between $1 and $0. Even if you can only figure out how to make $0.01 per customer, you've increased your revenue by 500%. This is the trap that the traditional media companies fall into--thinking they need so many units of product at the same prices they've always charged. It's a different platform, you need a different model.

Comment Yes, Greenspan is a libertarian. (Score 4, Informative) 2369

by Kuma-chang (#25557987) Attached to: Discuss the US Presidential Election & the Economy
So, Greenspan who ran the government monopoly of money supply, was a libertarian? I had no idea.

Actually, yes. Greenspan is well-known to have been a lifelong libertarian. The man was a close personal friend of Ayn Rand, for gods sake. Wikipedia:

During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan continues to advocate laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious, given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. ... However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he actually believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.

This is why it was shocking to many when Greenspan made the concession before Congress last week that his ideological model of how the markets worked was flawed.
The Internet

Submission + - US #4 in "network readiness," #19 in bandw (arstechnica.com)

Submitted by Herman's hermit
Herman's hermit writes: A new report from the World Economic Forum ranks the US number four when it comes to "network readiness," despite the fact that the same report has the US 17th broadband subscribers and 19th in bandwidth. 'While good news overall for the US, which is poised to take full advantage of information technology gains, the report probably won't change many minds when it comes to talking specifically about US broadband deployment.'

Feed Techdirt: Striking Writers Point Out Viacom Hypocrisy; Claiming Online Video Is Worthless (techdirt.com)

From feed by techdirtfeed
While I tend to agree with Tim Lee's comments about why the Writers Guild strike is misguided (and the guild itself is increasingly obsolete), it is rather amusing to see the hypocrisy of the studio bosses, claiming that they won't pay the writers anything for the use of their content online because there's no money online at the very same time that they're suing YouTube for $1 billion, claiming they need to protect their valuable online content. Boing Boing points us to an amusing video by some of The Daily Show's writers highlighting this contradictory stance: Of course, while it's easier to feel sympathy for the writers (and very, very, very difficult to feel any for the studios), the studios are correct that the content is promotional (and they're wrong when they sue for $1 billion). Just as most people aren't paid extra every time a product they helped create gets sold, the writers are only asking for trouble if they really do want residuals for every use of the content they write. It's the same thing that's caused the problems the entertainment industry faces in the first place: the ridiculous demand that every time any piece of content is used for any purpose that money must change hands. The writers are paid by the studios to write content. If the studios are making more money by creatively promoting the shows, then they can start to pay the writers more. But setting up a system where every use requires payment is simply perpetuating the problems the industry is facing and will make it harder for the industry to adjust to the rapidly changing market. While we'd all like the writers of shows we like to get paid well, setting up a system that will cripple the overall distribution of the content won't do them any benefit. It will just open up avenues for other, non-TV, content to take their place.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Feed Wired: Obama Woos Silicon Valley (wired.com)

From feed by wiredfeed
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would reverse most of the Bush Administration's technology policies and make Net Neutrality a priority, according to a sweeping tech-policy agenda the candidate unveiled Wednesday.


Slashdot Top Deals

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close