TAN: You know Juno?
Laura M. Parkinson
uses the ISP Juno, but just in case (and to warn you about it if you
were thinking about switching)...
http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20010222S0004
Keep going on to the "next page," it starts to get even more
interesting there.
I'm really interested in hearing what others on the newsgroup think
about this one.
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Steven M. Ginter
Parkinson) spake thus:
>I don't think anybody on the newsgroup (that speak out a lot anyhow)
>uses the ISP Juno, but just in case (and to warn you about it if you
>were thinking about switching)...
>
>http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20010222S0004
>
>Keep going on to the "next page," it starts to get even more
>interesting there.
>
>I'm really interested in hearing what others on the newsgroup think
>about this one.
Hnh. Looks like a standard "pound of flesh" agreement to me.
Ultimately, it'll never stand up in court, irregardless of whether or
not the user actually clicked the "I agree" button for the TOS. Thing
is, if you can't afford an ISP and thus use Juno, what're the chances
that you can afford a lawyer?
I am reminded of GeoCities' clusterfuck of a little while back.
Enough people are going to cotton onto this and leave Juno in
sufficient droves that the company will be backpedaling so fast it'll
look like the Tour de France in reverse.
ObSheesh: Sheesh! What kind of pencil-necked ignoramus actually
thought this would be a Good Idea?
--
Steve G.
"They will pay," Lews Therin growled. "I am the Lord of the Morning."
John S. Novak, III
>>I'm really interested in hearing what others on the newsgroup think
>>about this one.
>Hnh. Looks like a standard "pound of flesh" agreement to me.
>Ultimately, it'll never stand up in court, irregardless of whether or
>not the user actually clicked the "I agree" button for the TOS. Thing
>is, if you can't afford an ISP and thus use Juno, what're the chances
>that you can afford a lawyer?
Ah, Juno is one of the free services?
Well, that's one more reason I tolerate the day to day drudgery of
having a job-- I don't have to put up with nonsense like that.
Of course, I'd be fascinated to see them prove that my custom screen
saver, which calculates pi to the trillionth digit, was intended to
block their service.
>ObSheesh: Sheesh! What kind of pencil-necked ignoramus actually
>thought this would be a Good Idea?
I'm kind of surprised it took this long, really.
It is, frankly, the cost of dealing with a free service. If they
can't make money from advertising, they're going to make money from
something else.
Now, if my paid account tried crap like this, my opinion would be
entirely different. But it's not like they'd get anywhere with my
machine anyway.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Benjamin Fitch
"Steven M. Ginter" <sgi...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.150e0fcfcf58a160989a68@nntp...[snip verbiage]
> ObSheesh: Sheesh! What kind of pencil-necked ignoramus actually
> thought this would be a Good Idea?
> --
> Steve G.
> "They will pay," Lews Therin growled. "I am the Lord of the Morning."
**(I'm not snipping the sig.... I love that one)
What Juno did is absolutely outrageous. Regardless whether or not the
service is free, an individual who signs up for their service does so with
the intent of accessing the internet when they choose, not being forced to
leave their system on to have it do grunt work, with no guarantee that it
won't crash the system or corrupt it in some way. I can understand the
rationale, bascially "Hey, we're letting you use our system for free, let us
use yours for free" but I personally feel such a trade is incredibly biased
in favor of Juno. I don't use Juno so it doesn't affect me, and as Mr.
Novak so eloquently put, paying for a service eliminates putting up with
Junoesque bullshit.
It wouldn't surprise me though if they lose a lot of subscribers, get sued,
or both.
~B
leaving before the power goes out!
Eric P. McCoy
> What Juno did is absolutely outrageous. Regardless whether or not the
> service is free, an individual who signs up for their service does so with
> the intent of accessing the internet when they choose, not being forced to
> leave their system on to have it do grunt work, with no guarantee that it
> won't crash the system or corrupt it in some way.
I actually kind of like the general idea. If the software functions
like SETI@Home (e.g., it only uses idle cycles), it should be
invisible to the average user. It provides a way for Juno to make
money without imposing on most users at all, and never to the extent
that those hateful banner ads do.
But it does cause a lot of problems regarding, among other things, the
privacy of your computer. I don't know why Juno would want to steal
anything on my computer, but I suspect it'd be virtually impossible to
prove if they did.
So I think it's a good idea, but likely also an unworkable one.
--
Eric McCoy <emc...@hamilton.edu>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
Michael Hoye
Benjamin Fitch <brf...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> I can understand the
>rationale, bascially "Hey, we're letting you use our system for free, let us
>use yours for free" but I personally feel such a trade is incredibly biased
>in favor of Juno.
So you get a free unlimited connection to the net, and Juno gets the
processor time you're not using, and that's biased in favor of Juno?
Boy, SETI is _really_ giving me the shaft. I give them my spare cycles,
and all I get from them is static.
--
Mike Hoye
Jamie Bowden
> I don't think anybody on the newsgroup (that speak out a lot anyhow)
> uses the ISP Juno, but just in case (and to warn you about it if you
> were thinking about switching)...
>
> http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20010222S0004
>
> Keep going on to the "next page," it starts to get even more
> interesting there.
>
> I'm really interested in hearing what others on the newsgroup think
> about this one.
That ought to last about one round through the courts before Juno finds
themselves paying out in a class action of some sort. I don't use 'em,
but if I find their crap running on my network, you better belive me, my
firewall vendor, and the US Govt. are going to have a good time at their
expense. I'm sure I have a user somewhere who accesses them for mail.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Maggie
> I don't think anybody on the newsgroup (that speak out a lot anyhow)
> uses the ISP Juno, but just in case (and to warn you about it if you
> were thinking about switching)...
>
> http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20010222S0004
>
> Keep going on to the "next page," it starts to get even more
> interesting there.
>
> I'm really interested in hearing what others on the newsgroup think
> about this one.
Bloody.
Hell.
OK, I'm sure there is going to be a fuckload of people who will want to
ride down like the wrath of Goddess on me for saying this, but:
If you use a "free" ISP for anything *but* emergency backup service
(frex, if your broadband dies temporarily), then you deserve whatever
you get.
Good local dial up is rather inexpensive these days - I've seen it go
for as little as $5/month, my own former dial up was only $8. If you
can't get local, you can still get national, albeit limited, service,
for just $5. Unlimited national service for around $15, if you can nab
a special.
Drop the dime, spend the time and get yourself something decent if you
want Net access. If you find your current provider unreliable or too
expensive, look for a cheaper one instead of whining about your bill.
<*grumble*> I'm going to slap my sister the next time she complains
about her $21 internet bill for her shitty service (AT&T). Ten seconds
on line will get her switched to a cheaper, more reliable local service,
but it seems she'd rather whine. Gah.
Sa'Peeve: Family and friends who ask for ISP advice, then go ahead and
get AOHell, MSN or other equally beschissene ISP. I'm tired of
unfucking their computers after they've let them get taken over by a
worthless "service".
--
Maggie - techno-cranky tonight.
Maggie
> Ah, Juno is one of the free services?
Sort of.
They have free service (with ad window), "premium" service (no constant
ad window, but the promise of "fewer ads" leads me to believe they do
the pop-up thing) for $15/month, DSL for $225 for self installation and
$50/month, and wireless for $100 to set up and $80/month.
Yick. I'm quite happy with my $40/month cable access.
<snip>
> I'm kind of surprised it took this long, really.
> It is, frankly, the cost of dealing with a free service. If they
> can't make money from advertising, they're going to make money from
> something else.
I'll give them creativity points, but that's about it. The remaining
free providers have gone to an "X hours free, pay X amount thereafter"
plan, which seems reasonable enough.
> Now, if my paid account tried crap like this, my opinion would be
> entirely different. But it's not like they'd get anywhere with my
> machine anyway.
The advantage of having a local provider is that I have the option of
stomping into the office and personally asking what the hell they think
they're doing if they try anything shady.
There is a lot to be said for local accountability.
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.chocolatefiends.com
"The Dark was cold until she came, but she was Midnight, kissed by
Flame"-Rajiv Mote on rasfwrj
Kenneth G. Cavness
Michael Hoye <mh...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote...
> In article <1ZYo6.1474$5f.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> Benjamin Fitch <brf...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > I can understand the
> >rationale, bascially "Hey, we're letting you use our system for free, let us
> >use yours for free" but I personally feel such a trade is incredibly biased
> >in favor of Juno.
>
> So you get a free unlimited connection to the net, and Juno gets the
> processor time you're not using, and that's biased in favor of Juno?
I guess the only problem I have with the agreement -- the part that
raises my eyebrows -- is the insinuation in the agreement that Juno
can force you to keep your computer on in order to do the computations
or they can cancel your account.
The other problem I have -- the one that would keep me from
even considering Juno if I needed a free ISP -- is the absolution
from any liability if their software -- which you must consent to
use if you want an account with them -- fucks up your system.
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://stargoat.dynip.com/ (usually)
UIN: 3504847, AOL IM: kcavness2
Maggie
> "Benjamin Fitch" <brf...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > What Juno did is absolutely outrageous. Regardless whether or not the
> > service is free, an individual who signs up for their service does so with
> > the intent of accessing the internet when they choose, not being forced to
> > leave their system on to have it do grunt work, with no guarantee that it
> > won't crash the system or corrupt it in some way.
>
> I actually kind of like the general idea. If the software functions
> like SETI@Home (e.g., it only uses idle cycles), it should be
> invisible to the average user. It provides a way for Juno to make
> money without imposing on most users at all, and never to the extent
> that those hateful banner ads do.
Oh, that's the bitch of it.
They still have the dog-awful ad window. So you get to look at ads
*and* they get to run amok in your machine, and even connect you to the
net, whether you want to be connected or not.
Looking it over, it seems that the simple act of turning your computer
off at night violates the TOS, as they can't dial you in when your
machine is off.
I can only boggle at the people who submit to this willingly.
Laura M. Parkinson
The third problem I'd have with it (well offhand) is that not only
this, but you yourself are responsible for any charges incurred in
this. Which means that if said program has to dial up some
long-distance number to send off its data, then it's on YOUR phone
bill.
John Rowat
> Good local dial up is rather inexpensive these days - I've seen it go
> for as little as $5/month, my own former dial up was only $8. If you
> can't get local, you can still get national, albeit limited, service,
> for just $5. Unlimited national service for around $15, if you can nab
> a special.
The company I work for is cheaper, and if you're in Washington state, I
wouldn't touch any other provider with a 10-foot pole. Outside of
Washington they mostly rely on outsourced POPs, but even those are good,
if not as good.
> Drop the dime, spend the time and get yourself something decent if you
> want Net access. If you find your current provider unreliable or too
> expensive, look for a cheaper one instead of whining about your bill.
Or work for the ISP. Free connection, and you know everything that can
ever possibly go wrong.
-John
--
[The right to own a gun is...] The right to free expression. I can
articulate my disagreement with you by shooting you -- thus, a gun is
as protected as a pen or printing press.
-Rob Russell
Jason Short
"Eric P. McCoy" wrote:
>
> I actually kind of like the general idea. If the software functions
> like SETI@Home (e.g., it only uses idle cycles), it should be
> invisible to the average user. It provides a way for Juno to make
> money without imposing on most users at all, and never to the extent
> that those hateful banner ads do.
IMO it would be a good idea for a free ISP to offer internet access in
return for CPU cycles. A good deal for the ISP, perhaps, but also a
good deal for many users. However, that's not what's going on here.
The problem with the Juno situation is that the typical user won't even
know it's happening, and once they find out there's nothing they can
do. The only place it's mentioned is deep within the legal agreement
that most users won't read and that you have to sign up and download the
installer program before you can even see. Furthermore, this legal
agreement states that you are responsible for making sure the program
runs all the time, and that it can connect back to Juno at any time.
Any information gleaned by running the program is the sole property of
Juno.
Now, some will say:
"John S. Novak, III" wrote:
>
> I'm kind of surprised it took this long, really.
> It is, frankly, the cost of dealing with a free service. If they
> can't make money from advertising, they're going to make money from
> something else.
This is largely covered in page 3 of the article. You don't have to
have small profit margins to want to make more money. Any software
product could embed something like this into its product, and most users
would be none the wiser. Of course (not mentioned by article), once
"word got out", users might never buy that product again.
Now, some will say:
Jamie Bowden wrote:
>
> That ought to last about one round through the courts before Juno finds
> themselves paying out in a class action of some sort. I don't use 'em,
> but if I find their crap running on my network, you better belive me, my
> firewall vendor, and the US Govt. are going to have a good time at their
> expense. I'm sure I have a user somewhere who accesses them for mail.
I can't attest to the legality of the agreement, but if it were invalid
then it seems to me that some or all of the following would be true:
1. Any profit Juno makes by selling the CPU time to another company
would not rightfully be theirs.
2. Any information Juno or another company discovers by using the CPU
cycles would not rightfully be theirs.
3. Juno would be liable for any costs their illegal software causes for
the user.
The first might be cause for a class action. The second seems
completely unprovable, and would in any case be a can of worms since the
"other company" might not know they were using stolen CPU cycles. (Note
that with both SETI@home and distributed.net the user stands to profit
from any information their computer discovers.) The third would most
likely be cause for specific liability cases, in the (highly unlikely)
event that some party is greatly injured by the software.
jason short
Hawk
:I don't think anybody on the newsgroup (that speak out a lot anyhow)
:uses the ISP Juno, but just in case (and to warn you about it if you
:were thinking about switching)...
:http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20010222S0004
[...]
:I'm really interested in hearing what others on the newsgroup think
:about this one.
You really think that this would be endorsed on this newsgroup?
This is a bullshit attempt to see how far people will allow themselves to
be pushed until they say "Enough!". If anyone is foolish enough to
willingly allow a third party to control their personal or (especially)
work computer - and install software on it that they are "not allowed" to
get rid of - they deserve what happens to them.
Hawk
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of hawks, for we are fond of raking with our
talons.
John S. Novak, III
>This is largely covered in page 3 of the article. You don't have to
>have small profit margins to want to make more money. Any software
>product could embed something like this into its product, and most users
>would be none the wiser. Of course (not mentioned by article), once
>"word got out", users might never buy that product again.
Having seen discussions of this nature before (like, years ago) I am
relatively certain but not absolutely certain that there is either a
standing law or a reasonably straightforward logical extension of a
law that makes this sort of thing (ie, if Netscape or Microsoft
decided to embed something like that in their browsers) illegal on
general principle. Or at least, illegal without some form of
notification.
On a more practical level, of course, what happens when you get two
pieces of software that think they own your processor? This is not a
sustainable market plan.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
Jamie Bowden
> Jamie Bowden wrote:
> >
> > That ought to last about one round through the courts before Juno finds
> > themselves paying out in a class action of some sort. I don't use 'em,
> > but if I find their crap running on my network, you better belive me, my
> > firewall vendor, and the US Govt. are going to have a good time at their
> > expense. I'm sure I have a user somewhere who accesses them for mail.
>
> I can't attest to the legality of the agreement, but if it were invalid
> then it seems to me that some or all of the following would be true:
>
> 1. Any profit Juno makes by selling the CPU time to another company
> would not rightfully be theirs.
These computers do not belong to the users, some don't necessarily belong
to us, they are US Govt. property bought on contract. Juno has no right
to them.
> 2. Any information Juno or another company discovers by using the CPU
> cycles would not rightfully be theirs.
The information on computers on my network, whether corporate capital
assets or GFE contract assets, contain info that is classed US Govt. FOUO,
and not for general release. I will happily firewall Juno for every port
except 110 and 25, and we'll see if they can force me to do otherwise.
> 3. Juno would be liable for any costs their illegal software causes for
> the user.
PRA as a corporation signed no such agreement, and shrinkwrap licenses
have been thrown out of more than one court already.
> The first might be cause for a class action. The second seems
> completely unprovable, and would in any case be a can of worms since the
> "other company" might not know they were using stolen CPU cycles. (Note
> that with both SETI@home and distributed.net the user stands to profit
> from any information their computer discovers.) The third would most
> likely be cause for specific liability cases, in the (highly unlikely)
> event that some party is greatly injured by the software.
Juno is an ancient service; they didn't attract 14 million users
overnight. I know people that have been using them since the early 90's
when they were pretty much the only choice out there if you didn't have an
educational or govt. account.
Mike Kozlowski
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
[the increasing inconvenience of free ISPs]
>I can only boggle at the people who submit to this willingly.
I imagine that's what tycoons say about people who use commercial
airlines, too. Those poor people sure are a bunch of saps, huh?
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Jim Hill
[Juno what I mean, man?]
>This is a bullshit attempt to see how far people will allow themselves to
>be pushed until they say "Enough!".
And, alas, this is nowhere near that point. I'm becoming convinced that
people are such goddamned cheapskates (at least in the US) that they'd
happily stand grabbing their ankles and take an ass-plunging from a
Louisville Slugger for half an hour if the pounder told 'em it would
result in a three-dollar savings off the phone bill.
Jim
--
"You're looking at a meltdown from the Colbster." -- Survivor Colby
Frank van Schie
Maggie wrote:
>
> Bloody.
Yes?
> Hell.
Ah.
> OK, I'm sure there is going to be a fuckload of people who will want to
> ride down like the wrath of Goddess on me for saying this, but:
>
> If you use a "free" ISP for anything *but* emergency backup service
> (frex, if your broadband dies temporarily), then you deserve whatever
> you get.
I don't think so. The fact that they offer it for free doesn't give them
the right to take control of your computer, or to spend your money for
you.
They claim you have to keep your computer on at all times, that you have
to pay for those electricity charges, that you have to run their
software (nowhere does it say it only uses idle CPU cycles, it might as
well take up 80% of your CPU... how about people with old POS
computers?), and that if their software screws up your computer, it's
not their fault. Oh, couple that with the fact that it clogs up your
phone line for an undetermined amount of time to an undisclosed number.
And finally, they propose to do this without actually telling any of
their customers about it.
I get the feeling this violates a few laws. Even American laws.
> <*grumble*> I'm going to slap my sister the next time she complains
> about her $21 internet bill for her shitty service (AT&T). Ten seconds
> on line will get her switched to a cheaper, more reliable local service,
> but it seems she'd rather whine. Gah.
*snicker*
$21? I know plenty of people with phone bills of US$300 and up here in
Holland. At least you guys can get local phonecalls for a fixed charge?
No charge?
> Sa'Peeve: Family and friends who ask for ISP advice, then go ahead and
> get AOHell, MSN or other equally beschissene ISP. I'm tired of
> unfucking their computers after they've let them get taken over by a
> worthless "service".
Think how wonderful it will be to remove a piece of software which clogs
up the CPU automatically dials in from time to time, which will
obviously not come with a handy-dandy uninstall item in add/remove
programs...
--
Frank
Jeff Stockwin
>>Ultimately, it'll never stand up in court, irregardless of whether or
Unrelated Peeve: irregardless. I hate that word, same as I hate
inflammable. People that have to learn English later in life have my
full sympathy.
>Of course, I'd be fascinated to see them prove that my custom screen
>saver, which calculates pi to the trillionth digit, was intended to
>block their service.
Lucky for them, you can stop that now.
It's 2.
--
Jeff Stockwin
I did once write such a program, but it was sufficiently long enough ago
that it took several days to get past the tenth digit or so, and I gave
up on it a couple weeks later. It hadn't even made it farther than I
already knew either, dammit.
Mark Loy
> Hawk wrote:
>
> [Juno what I mean, man?]
>
> >This is a bullshit attempt to see how far people will allow themselves to
> >be pushed until they say "Enough!".
>
> And, alas, this is nowhere near that point. I'm becoming convinced that
> people are such goddamned cheapskates (at least in the US) that they'd
> happily stand grabbing their ankles and take an ass-plunging from a
> Louisville Slugger for half an hour if the pounder told 'em it would
> result in a three-dollar savings off the phone bill.
Are we talkin' big end or little end of the Louisville Slugger?
ML
Eric P. McCoy
> > I'm becoming convinced that
> > people are such goddamned cheapskates (at least in the US) that they'd
> > happily stand grabbing their ankles and take an ass-plunging from a
> > Louisville Slugger for half an hour if the pounder told 'em it would
> > result in a three-dollar savings off the phone bill.
> Are we talkin' big end or little end of the Louisville Slugger?
First one, then the other.
Jeff Stockwin
>"Benjamin Fitch" <brf...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
>> What Juno did is absolutely outrageous. Regardless whether or not the
>> service is free, an individual who signs up for their service does so with
>> the intent of accessing the internet when they choose, not being forced to
>> leave their system on to have it do grunt work, with no guarantee that it
>> won't crash the system or corrupt it in some way.
>
>I actually kind of like the general idea. If the software functions
>like SETI@Home (e.g., it only uses idle cycles), it should be
Maybe a recent version of SETI@Home only uses idle cycles, but when it
was just a couple of months old we had to kill it off some servers at
work (and soundly beat the idiot that put it there as well as the
manager that gave him the passwords to do it). It sucked cycles like
there was no tomorrow; my development boxes were doing no development.
Which is Bad. Very, Very Bad.
--
Jeff Stockwin "You're just saying that because you've never had sex
jdastockwin with a pig. And by the way... if you think we're
@ lis-a.com above that sort of thing, you obviously haven't
read much..." - Eric P. McCoy on rasfwr-j
Mike Kozlowski
Jeff Stockwin <jdast...@lis-a.com> wrote:
>Unrelated Peeve: irregardless. I hate that word, same as I hate
>inflammable.
The difference is that inflammable is a real word, with roots going back
to Latin; "irregardless" is not a word at all.
Maggie
> In article <MPG.150e3bd14...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>
> [the increasing inconvenience of free ISPs]
>
> >I can only boggle at the people who submit to this willingly.
>
> I imagine that's what tycoons say about people who use commercial
> airlines, too. Those poor people sure are a bunch of saps, huh?
Don't be stupid, Mike.
There's a remarkable difference between being too poor to afford a $500
airline ticket and being too cheap to pay $5 or $10/month for internet
service.
In either case, there are options besides just bending over and taking
it. In the case of travel, there are always Greyhound, Trailways and
Amtrak. You won't take those? They're beneath you? Then shut up and
stay home.
In the case of Internet access, there are free services available that
don't take over *your property*.
Netzero offers 40 hours free per month, after which you pay a fee. Lose
the banner ads and the time limit entirely for a measly $10/month.
AmEx Online is free, unlimited, and gives you news access and 5MB
webspace. Trade off? Little banner ads.
My former dial up provider offers free, unlimited access, 6MB webspace
and news access - but you have to park an ad window on your screen and
put up with pop ups every 10 minutes. Same service, no ads and 6 e-
mails costs all of $8/month. Don't know what it's looking like
elsewhere, but at least two other local dial ups are doing the same
thing.
Even AT&T has gotten into the cheap access business - $5/month for 150
hours, news access, 6 e-mails and 60MB webspace.
None of those take over your computer in the manner Juno proposes. I
repeat: I can only boggle at the people who submit to this (Juno's
plan, just so you're not confused) willingly. To do so is either
stupidity, laziness or both. I have no sympathy for anyone who can't be
bothered to take a few minutes to look at other options.
We aren't entitled to free, unlimited access - if you want access,
you're going to have to pay one way or another. If you choose to pay by
allowing a service to take over your property, don't cry to those of us
who said "No". Either pay the price or do without.
Maggie
>
>
> Maggie wrote:
> > If you use a "free" ISP for anything *but* emergency backup service
> > (frex, if your broadband dies temporarily), then you deserve whatever
> > you get.
>
> I don't think so. The fact that they offer it for free doesn't give them
> the right to take control of your computer, or to spend your money for
> you.
You do know the old adage "You get what you pay for", yes?
> They claim you have to keep your computer on at all times, that you have
> to pay for those electricity charges, that you have to run their
> software (nowhere does it say it only uses idle CPU cycles, it might as
> well take up 80% of your CPU... how about people with old POS
> computers?), and that if their software screws up your computer, it's
> not their fault. Oh, couple that with the fact that it clogs up your
> phone line for an undetermined amount of time to an undisclosed number.
> And finally, they propose to do this without actually telling any of
> their customers about it.
The word is out now. If you're sticking with them in spite of that,
better pony up the system resources. *Nothing* is without strings
anymore. You just have to decide which strings you're willing to be
bound with.
If you don't want Juno taking over your machine, don't use them. There
are other options.
> I get the feeling this violates a few laws. Even American laws.
I'm sure it might somewhere. Until Juno gets sued, though, I don't see
any way to tell for sure.
> > <*grumble*> I'm going to slap my sister the next time she complains
> > about her $21 internet bill for her shitty service (AT&T). Ten seconds
> > on line will get her switched to a cheaper, more reliable local service,
> > but it seems she'd rather whine. Gah.
>
> *snicker*
> $21? I know plenty of people with phone bills of US$300 and up here in
> Holland.
Heh. That's just my long distance some months.
> At least you guys can get local phonecalls for a fixed charge?
> No charge?
My local phone service is a flat fee. Of course, with wild schedules
and the like, we also have extras like Caller ID and paging, so I think
our total is about $60/month for unlimited calls, 2 pagers, voice mail
and Caller ID. Reasonable for what I have, if you ask me.
> > Sa'Peeve: Family and friends who ask for ISP advice, then go ahead and
> > get AOHell, MSN or other equally beschissene ISP. I'm tired of
> > unfucking their computers after they've let them get taken over by a
> > worthless "service".
>
> Think how wonderful it will be to remove a piece of software which clogs
> up the CPU automatically dials in from time to time, which will
> obviously not come with a handy-dandy uninstall item in add/remove
> programs...
Oh no, they get to do *that* themselves now. I've put the usual crowd
on notice - if you come to me for help with your computer or for ISP
advice, then you go ahead and do precisely the opposite of what I said,
don't come crying to me to fix it unless you're bearing cold hard cash.
My sister in-law bought a computer recently and thought getting the MSN
$400 rebate in exchange for a two (or maybe three) year service contract
was a great idea. That damned butterfly was *everywhere*, all over
their computer once they installed MSN. They decided they hated it and
and the service, and wanted to cancel - but they couldn't get it off
their system. It even says in the TOS that it isn't designed to be
removed from your system. The files just sit there, taking up space.
It took half the day to clean *that* mess up.
Same sister in-law got a "500 hours in your first month free!" disc from
AOHell. She called and asked about it, and marvelled at what a great
deal it was. She installed it even after I emphatically urged her to
stick with her local provider, and pointed out that she couldn't use 500
hours of access in a month if she tried hard. Aside from that, I don't
see what's such a great deal in going from a reliable $8/month service
to a shitty one for $22, all for the sake of a month's free access.
It fucked her computer in ways unimaginable. Of course she was unhappy,
and wanted it off. There's another one that doesn't come off. Another
afternoon shot to hell, cleaning up after people who are either too
stupid or too cheap to listen.
That was the last freebie. First timers get my help with a little
chocolate. Repeat offenders are going to have to open up the old
wallet.
Mike Kozlowski
>>
>> [the increasing inconvenience of free ISPs]
>>
>> >I can only boggle at the people who submit to this willingly.
>>
>> I imagine that's what tycoons say about people who use commercial
>> airlines, too. Those poor people sure are a bunch of saps, huh?
>
>airline ticket and being too cheap to pay $5 or $10/month for internet
>service.
A difference of scale, not of kind (particularly since I've never seen $5
Internet connections anywhere; certainly not in small, working-class
semi-rural towns).
And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
with that kind of low-end corner-cutting just to save the $30 extra a
month that it would cost to go with a real broadband provider.
However, I recognize that not everyone shares my priorities and my
finances, and that people who do use services like Roadrunner aren't
necessarily being clueless saps.
>In either case, there are options besides just bending over and taking
>it. In the case of travel, there are always Greyhound, Trailways and
>Amtrak. You won't take those? They're beneath you? Then shut up and
>stay home.
>
>In the case of Internet access, there are free services available that
>don't take over *your property*.
Right now, yes. Wait a bit. AltaVista shut down their free ISP some
months ago; Juno's latest move is a reaction to the realities of... well,
reality. Free Internet access will very quickly prove to be as much a
product of the Internet bubble as most other free stuff.
>We aren't entitled to free, unlimited access - if you want access,
>you're going to have to pay one way or another. If you choose to pay by
>allowing a service to take over your property, don't cry to those of us
>who said "No". Either pay the price or do without.
How fortunate, then, that I've not even hinted that anyone was "entitled
to free, unlimited access"; and that I wasn't advocating any kind of
whining about impositions. I'm not sure who you're actually responding to
there, but it's not me.
All I'm saying is this: For some people, the cost of a conventional
Internet connection is too high, and getting free Internet service in
exchange for CPU cycles you weren't using anyway is a good deal. That
some people find this a good deal is cause neither for outraged
exclamations about the gall of the ISP, nor for dismayed head-shaking
about the gullible fools taking advantage of the deal.
Janet Quick
princ...@accesstoledo.com wrote on 3/6/01 12:30 PM:
Major snippage
> We aren't entitled to free, unlimited access -
So, that's not covered under Pursuit of Happiness?
How about Freedom of Speech?
New Right: Freedom of Internet Access
Janet Q.
Dave Rothgery
I sometimes wonder if people bother to calculate the number of hours in
a month...
--
Dave Rothgery
Picking nits since 1976
drot...@myrealbox.com
http://drothgery.editthispage.com
Dave Rothgery
> Same sister in-law got a "500 hours in your first month free!" disc from
> AOHell.
[Hoping my cancel propogated reasonably well...]
Jamie Bowden
> And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
> with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
> protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
> with that kind of low-end corner-cutting just to save the $30 extra a
> month that it would cost to go with a real broadband provider.
I can spend 43 a month on Road Runner (which doesn't do PPPoE, BTW, your
local cableco might), or I can spend 1200/month on a T1. Those are my
options. I didn't want RR, it's what's available.
> However, I recognize that not everyone shares my priorities and my
> finances, and that people who do use services like Roadrunner aren't
> necessarily being clueless saps.
I live 40000ft from the nearest CO according to C&P^WBell
Atlantic^W^WVerizon, and DSL isn't available in any form in that CO.
I suppose I could spend 600 a month on Frame Delay, but that would just
be silly. If you'd like to subsidize, I'll happily accept your money.
Michael Hoye
Boy, if I had a dollar for every time I'd heard that.
--
Mike Hoye
Mike Kozlowski
Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>
>> And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
>> with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
>> protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
>> with that kind of low-end corner-cutting just to save the $30 extra a
>> month that it would cost to go with a real broadband provider.
>
>I can spend 43 a month on Road Runner (which doesn't do PPPoE, BTW, your
>local cableco might),
Sorry, that was a confusing sentence. The proprietary hardware and
protocols are what I was referring to with Road Runner, not PPPoE.
>or I can spend 1200/month on a T1. Those are my
>options. I didn't want RR, it's what's available.
Which was part of my point -- sometimes, all your best options suck, and
you just make the best out of what you can get. (It's not like I really
_wanted_ 144k DSL...)
The Great Gray Skwid
Sa'Peeve: Those idiotic NetZero commercials. You know the ones. The
"Congressional Hearing" looking thing, with people shouting and such.
Never fails to piss me off. The only other ISP commercials that peeved
me more were the AOL ones a few years back with a chipper teenager
proclaiming "There are no rules on the internet!"
GRRRR.
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"Like cheese left out too long, he soon became 100% Republican."-Dan P.
Mark Loy
mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Michael Hoye) wrote:
Yeah, you'd probably be a thousand-aire or somethin'.
Me, I'd like to have a dollar for every time I've heard...
"There's no way in Hell I'm suckin' your dick tonight, Mark so quit
whimpering and slappin' the tune to "Final Jeopardy" on my forehead with
your cock and roll over and go to sleep!"
ML
Michael Hoye
Janet Quick <jqu...@electroscience.com> wrote:
>in article MPG.150ee8dcc...@news.buckeye-express.com, Maggie at
>princ...@accesstoledo.com wrote on 3/6/01 12:30 PM:
>
>
>So, that's not covered under Pursuit of Happiness?
>How about Freedom of Speech?
>
>New Right: Freedom of Internet Access
Heh. Not that I really believe you're advocating that, but:
One of my greatest peeves is people who get the idea that because they
have a freedom to do something, the rest of the world is somehow obligated
to make it easy for them to exercise that freedom. Freedom of movement
does not imply that you're entitled to a Bentley, a chauffeur and paved
roads. Freedom of religion does not mean that you are going to be
surrounded with like-thinking believers, and freedom of speech does not
entitle you to a pulpit and a bullhorn, nor does it oblige anyone to
listen.
There's nothing I hate more than people with a sense of entitlement.
--
Mike Hoye
Jeff Stockwin
>In article <slrn9aa73g.qi...@bambi.lis-a.com>,
>Jeff Stockwin <jdast...@lis-a.com> wrote:
>
>>Unrelated Peeve: irregardless. I hate that word, same as I hate
>>inflammable.
>
>The difference is that inflammable is a real word, with roots going back
>to Latin; "irregardless" is not a word at all.
Oh, I understand that they got to be around in quite different ways, but
the bug the shit out of me in quite the same way.
--
Jeff Stockwin "...perhaps God gave the answers
jdastockwin @ lis-a.com to those with nothing to say."
-Savatage
Tim Lieder
>ml...@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) writes:
>
>> > I'm becoming convinced that
>> > people are such goddamned cheapskates (at least in the US) that they'd
>> > happily stand grabbing their ankles and take an ass-plunging from a
>> > Louisville Slugger for half an hour if the pounder told 'em it would
>> > result in a three-dollar savings off the phone bill.
>
>> Are we talkin' big end or little end of the Louisville Slugger?
>
>First one, then the other.
Nah, sideways.
Tim Lieder
Mark Loy
jdast...@lis-a.com (Jeff Stockwin) wrote:
> Mike Kozlowski stood on the rasfwr-j soapbox and proclaimed:
> >In article <slrn9aa73g.qi...@bambi.lis-a.com>,
> >Jeff Stockwin <jdast...@lis-a.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Unrelated Peeve: irregardless. I hate that word, same as I hate
> >>inflammable.
> >
> >The difference is that inflammable is a real word, with roots going back
> >to Latin; "irregardless" is not a word at all.
>
> Oh, I understand that they got to be around in quite different ways, but
> the bug the shit out of me in quite the same way.
Yes but they -can't- bug the shit out of you in the same way.
Now "flammable" and "irregardless"...these two could bug the shit out of
you in almost exactly the same way at the same time.
"Irregardless of how flammable I know I am I still plan on walking
barefoot on the hot coals with success guru Tony Robbins carrying an
infant in each arm while gargling nitro glycerin and humming the Star
Spangled Banner as is my God-given right."
ML
Mike Kozlowski
Michael Hoye <mh...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>There's nothing I hate more than people with a sense of entitlement.
What about people who kill everyone you know, flay the skin off your body,
then break every single one of your bones one by one before disemboweling
you?
I hate those people _way_ worse.
Mark Loy
Well then no thank you.
What do you take me for, a non-savvy consumer?
ML
Mark Loy
> In article <983eoj$fho$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
> Michael Hoye <mh...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
> >There's nothing I hate more than people with a sense of entitlement.
>
> What about people who kill everyone you know, flay the skin off your body,
> then break every single one of your bones one by one before disemboweling
> you?
>
> I hate those people _way_ worse.
Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.
Of course that means that Mike Hoye _really_ hates you, now.
I'd suggest that you flay the skin off his body, break every single bone
he has, then disembowel him as you're entitled to do that to someone who
hates you that much except that would give me _such_ a headache.
ML
P. Korda
Frank van Schie <fv...@hoopyfroods.org> wrote:
>They claim you have to keep your computer on at all times, that you have
>to pay for those electricity charges, that you have to run their
>software (nowhere does it say it only uses idle CPU cycles, it might as
>well take up 80% of your CPU... how about people with old POS
>computers?), and that if their software screws up your computer, it's
>not their fault. Oh, couple that with the fact that it clogs up your
>phone line for an undetermined amount of time to an undisclosed number.
>And finally, they propose to do this without actually telling any of
>their customers about it.
And that's all the real shame of Juno's scheme. The general idea is
not bad. Providing internet service in exchange for _idle_ processor
time, while the consumer is connected to the 'net would be a great
idea. A barter system for the 21st century.
However, completely taking over the consumer's computer in return for
some half-assed net service is not an equitable exchange. I'd bet that
just the cost of electricity and phone service required to leave the
computer on and available to the net at all times would buy one some
basic net service, without the added inconvenience of having somebody
else running computations on one's machine.
The bit about not being responsible for damage caused by the company's
software is no different from the license agreement on just about any
piece of commercial software. If you're not outraged over similar
conditions on MS Word or Excel, or Photoshop, or AOL, I don't see why
you have any reason to be outraged over Juno having the same clause.
And while it is, IMO, deplorable to implement this scheme without
explicitly informing current and prospective customers about it, that
is also fairly typical, especially among cash-strapped dotcoms.
It really is a shame, though. This could have been a great innovation,
if it had been done in a civilized manner, with some consideration for
the consumers. As it is, it's probably going to sink Juno like the
iceberg in that movie about the boat.
-pam
Steven M. Ginter
thus:
>In article <slrn9aa73g.qi...@bambi.lis-a.com>,
>Jeff Stockwin <jdast...@lis-a.com> wrote:
>
>>Unrelated Peeve: irregardless. I hate that word, same as I hate
>>inflammable.
>
>The difference is that inflammable is a real word, with roots going back
>to Latin; "irregardless" is not a word at all.
Tsk tsk tsk. I think you mean "'irregardless' ain't a word at all."
HTH!
--
Steve G.
I mean, it's in the dictionary, ain't it?
jamie
>
>Sorry, that was a confusing sentence. The proprietary hardware and
>protocols are what I was referring to with Road Runner, not PPPoE.
I'm on RR, again too far from the CO for DSL.
I don't know what you're referring to as proprietary.
--
jamie (mj...@austin.rr.com)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
Mike Kozlowski
jamie <mj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, that was a confusing sentence. The proprietary hardware and
>>protocols are what I was referring to with Road Runner, not PPPoE.
>
>I'm on RR, again too far from the CO for DSL.
>I don't know what you're referring to as proprietary.
It uses a proprietary log-in mechanism. If you want to use it on a Linux
computer, you apparently need to use a special "rrclientd" program to
start the service. The whole idea of logging into an always-on connection
is just (as they say in the business) wack.
Dave Rothgery
I suspect that's some local cable co's deal.
I've never installed anything from RoadRunner on this box -- all I did
to set it up was connect an Ethernet cable from the cable modem to my PC
and fuss with a few network settings -- and my connection works just
fine. Indeed, although Linux is not formally supported, Rochester
RoadRunner's FAQ for Linux seems to suggest all you have to do is fuss
with your networking settings (they give a walkthrough of how to do this
with linuxconf), and doesn't require any specific client program.
John S. Novak, III
>>They claim you have to keep your computer on at all times, that you have
>>to pay for those electricity charges, that you have to run their
>>software (nowhere does it say it only uses idle CPU cycles, it might as
>>well take up 80% of your CPU... how about people with old POS
>>computers?), and that if their software screws up your computer, it's
>>not their fault. Oh, couple that with the fact that it clogs up your
>>phone line for an undetermined amount of time to an undisclosed number.
>>And finally, they propose to do this without actually telling any of
>>their customers about it.
>And that's all the real shame of Juno's scheme.
There's a lot of little things wrong with it, in my opinion, but not
enough to work up the kind of ferocious outrage some people are bound
to express.
Basically, it has enough things wrong with it that I can't imagine
using it, nor would I appreciate a paid service using it on me.
>The general idea is
>not bad. Providing internet service in exchange for _idle_ processor
>time, while the consumer is connected to the 'net would be a great
>idea. A barter system for the 21st century.
No, in general it's not a bad idea. The idea has been around for a
while in an SF-nal sense and has been getting close to practical for a
while. Someone I ran across on a mailing list a few years ago was in
the oscure-geek-news a few months back trying to capitalize on this
very idea-- it's vaguely possible he's involved in _this_ one.
It's not fundamentally different from, say, selling electricity from
your windmill back to the electricity grid.
>However, completely taking over the consumer's computer in return for
>some half-assed net service is not an equitable exchange. I'd bet that
>just the cost of electricity and phone service required to leave the
>computer on and available to the net at all times would buy one some
>basic net service, without the added inconvenience of having somebody
>else running computations on one's machine.
Well, my ComEd bill has a graduated rate for electricity, but if I
read it right, electricity is about 8 centz/kWH, 'round these parts.
If a computer sans monitor runs about 200 W (which may be on the high
end, I dunno) the electricity runs you 11, maybe twelve bucks a month,
which is probably enough to pay for your own dial-up, if you're in the
right area.
In my case, I have a flat rate for local telephone service, and it
doesn't matter how long I spend on-line. Hence my habit of just
leaving it one while I'm home, to screen out telemarketters.
>The bit about not being responsible for damage caused by the company's
>software is no different from the license agreement on just about any
>piece of commercial software. If you're not outraged over similar
>conditions on MS Word or Excel, or Photoshop, or AOL, I don't see why
>you have any reason to be outraged over Juno having the same clause.
I can see a reason for annoyance, but it basically boils down to their
attitude, and because this seems a little more intrusive than software
that you go out and buy. So basically, emotional reasons.
More important, though, is the clause that says I am not allowed in
any way to try and figure out what it is they're actually doing on my
machine. That annoys me in the abstract, becuase I don't particularly
care for the idea of contracting my machine out to Juno, who is
contracting out to a front company for Osama bin Laden, who is trying
to factor some Very Large Numbers.
That annoys me on a more concrete level because I don't have enough
trust in my heart to assume that they're not trying to sniff through
my files for interesting data.
And of course, the stealth method of putting this into the contract.
That sort of thing is standard, and is in my TOS as well, but the
intent is for rapid legal response to new and innovative forms of
spamming, not this kind of thing. Another annoyance and attitude
factor.
>It really is a shame, though. This could have been a great innovation,
>if it had been done in a civilized manner, with some consideration for
>the consumers. As it is, it's probably going to sink Juno like the
>iceberg in that movie about the boat.
It will probably exist in some form or another, once a few companies
get slapped around by their own arrogance. If it exists, it'll
probably be a on per-cycle basis (you get so much tacked off your bill
for a standard processing block, rather than "you must leave your
machine on, always!") and you'll probably get some gaurantees that
nothing intrinsically stupid is going on.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Richard M. Boye'
Actually, in the Vorkisoverse, Bujold has the undienable access to
compsystems (whatever it's called) written into the Betan
Constitution...
Then again, Beta Colony is like Planet California.
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/ UIN:9021244
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Ben Ryan
> Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>> In article <slrn9aamv6...@bozo2.local.net>,
>> jamie <mj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Sorry, that was a confusing sentence. The proprietary hardware and
>> >>protocols are what I was referring to with Road Runner, not PPPoE.
>> >
>> >I'm on RR, again too far from the CO for DSL.
>> >I don't know what you're referring to as proprietary.
>>
>> It uses a proprietary log-in mechanism. If you want to use it on a Linux
>> computer, you apparently need to use a special "rrclientd" program to
>> start the service. The whole idea of logging into an always-on connection
>> is just (as they say in the business) wack.
>
> I suspect that's some local cable co's deal.
As do I. I used a linux gateway until yesterday (when I bought a Linksys
DSL router - nice and small and quiet), and it was never a problem. As far
as I can tell, the connection is straight DHCP.
--
Ben Ryan http://www.core.binghamton.edu/~mobius/
"They cannot build a multibillion dollar business on the backs of other
people's works." - Hillary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA on Napster
Mike Kozlowski
Ben Ryan <mob...@core.binghamton.edu> wrote:
>Dave Rothgery <drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
[Roadrunner]
>>> It uses a proprietary log-in mechanism. If you want to use it on a Linux
>>> computer, you apparently need to use a special "rrclientd" program to
>>> start the service. The whole idea of logging into an always-on connection
>>> is just (as they say in the business) wack.
>>
>> I suspect that's some local cable co's deal.
>
>As do I. I used a linux gateway until yesterday (when I bought a Linksys
>DSL router - nice and small and quiet), and it was never a problem. As far
>as I can tell, the connection is straight DHCP.
It's possible. I don't have it myself, so I'm going by a) my sister's
reports, and b) cursory Internet searching for "Roadrunner Linux". It
didn't seem to be using DHCP, though, because doing a winipcfg didn't show
an IP address, despite which traffic was occurring.
Lurker Below
wrote:
>>Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
<looks over his glasses>
Your home computer *never* crashes, not even for reasons not it's
fault like the power going out?
--
"You don't have to pray to a litle tin god,
Step out of the way for a little tin god."
Don Henley, Danny Kortchmar & J. D. Souther
Mike Kozlowski
Lurker Below <lur...@below.nospam> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:08 -0600, m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski)
>wrote:
>>It uses a proprietary log-in mechanism. If you want to use it on a Linux
>>computer, you apparently need to use a special "rrclientd" program to
>>start the service. The whole idea of logging into an always-on connection
>>is just (as they say in the business) wack.
>
><looks over his glasses>
>
>Your home computer *never* crashes, not even for reasons not it's
>fault like the power going out?
You don't _log on_ to a connection when you start up. It's just there,
waiting for the computer to come back up, like electricity.
(And it hardly ever goes down -- 130 days uptime right now.)
jamie
>jamie <mj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>I'm on RR, again too far from the CO for DSL.
>>I don't know what you're referring to as proprietary.
>
>It uses a proprietary log-in mechanism. If you want to use it on a Linux
>computer, you apparently need to use a special "rrclientd" program to
>start the service. The whole idea of logging into an always-on connection
>is just (as they say in the business) wack.
I am on linux. I only ever boot to Win to see how to advise relatives
on their Win problems, or to run Win games.
That login varies from region to region. Austin RR dropped the login
requirement about 2 years ago, though I think they retained an optional
login for "family-rated" settings (restricted access for child's login).
Even back when they did require a rrlogind client, it was no big deal,
easily done with a simple Perl script. It took me about 10 minutes to
set up RR on linux. It took me far longer several years ago to write
a PPP chat script that would negotiate the proper responses back before
connection dialog was fairly standarized.
Jamie Bowden
Mine's straight DHCP. I have a Netscreen5 between my network at home and
the rest of the world. I think your cable company is screwy.
cd skogsberg
>Janet Quick wrote:
>> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>> > We aren't entitled to free, unlimited access -
>> So, that's not covered under Pursuit of Happiness?
>> How about Freedom of Speech?
>> New Right: Freedom of Internet Access
>Actually, in the Vorkisoverse, Bujold has the undienable access to
>compsystems (whatever it's called) written into the Betan
>Constitution...
"Access to information shall not be denied" or something like that.
>Then again, Beta Colony is like Planet California.
Yup.
/cd
--
"Pizza slices do not exhibit quantum effects."
-- Bill Garrett
Anne Willick
Mine does. And I third Dave & Ben's experience of not having to install
anything proprietary. They handed me the cable modem... And that was
about the extent of the cable guy's usefulness as far as my internet
hookup was concerned.
I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
major to complain about thus far.
--
Anne
Jamie Bowden
> I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
> speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
> major to complain about thus far.
I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
@Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
supposedly high speed link.
Mike Kozlowski
Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
>I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
>@Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
>there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
>the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
>supposedly high speed link.
So that's normal, then? My sister's been trying -- mostly unsuccessfully
-- to get a working Roadrunner connection. She's had four techs out
already, and she only has intermittent connectivity. But the part that
was bothering me was that even when she did have connectivity, she had
truly horrific ping times, in the 150-200 ms range (and the bottleneck
appeared not to be in her local loop, either).
Ben Ryan
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Anne Willick wrote:
>
>> I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
>> speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
>> major to complain about thus far.
>
> I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
> @Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
> there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
> the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
> supposedly high speed link.
I've heard this is a problem in your area - RR seems to have oversold
their service there, and now there's some major bandwidth shortages.
Here, there's little difference between my cable connection at home and
using the on-campus network at SUNY (which, being a T3 is theoretically
faster).
Jamie Bowden
Best I can tell, yeah, they just outright suck. When I need to do
interactive work, I dialup with my trusty USR Courier External
v.Everything (X2 & v.90). For generic web surfing and downloading of
large stuff, they are not too horrid.
Jamie Bowden
> Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Anne Willick wrote:
> >
> >> I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
> >> speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
> >> major to complain about thus far.
> >
> > I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
> > @Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
> > there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
> > the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
> > supposedly high speed link.
>
> I've heard this is a problem in your area - RR seems to have oversold
> their service there, and now there's some major bandwidth shortages.
>
> Here, there's little difference between my cable connection at home and
> using the on-campus network at SUNY (which, being a T3 is theoretically
> faster).
A T3 is 45ish megabit/sec (I forget the exact number, sue me), so it
should be far faster than your cable. SUNY's infernal network may present
bottlenecks and/or traffic that impede your full ability to abuse that
properly though.
Jeff Stockwin
>Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Anne Willick wrote:
>>
>>> I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
>>> speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
>>> major to complain about thus far.
>>
>> I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
>> @Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
>> there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
>> the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
>> supposedly high speed link.
>
>I've heard this is a problem in your area - RR seems to have oversold
>their service there, and now there's some major bandwidth shortages.
>
>Here, there's little difference between my cable connection at home and
>using the on-campus network at SUNY (which, being a T3 is theoretically
>faster).
Except for the occasional outage and the frustrating fact that I know
_way_, _way_ more about networking[1] than anyone they got answering the
phone, I've nothing to complain about, either.
It was nice last summer to have better bandwidth than the entire office
of 30 people in Charlotte, too. They've since done the much-needed
upgrade, though.
--
Jeff Stockwin "Then I thought: What kind of world is this
jdastockwin @ lis-a.com when you worry that people might be ripping
you off by selling you coffee that was NOT
pooped out by a weasel?" - Dave Barry
[1] I go to www.stny.com, the home page for my local RR people one day
only to find the web page for a florist about 2 streets over. When I
called and told them, the guy says "Huh. Works fine on my PC. Hold
on... Yep, works fine on the computer in the next cubicle, too. The
problem must be on your end." Using big words like 'router' and
'nslookup' only confused the guy further.
Jeff Stockwin
>bottlenecks and/or traffic that impede your full ability to abuse that
>properly though.
Ahh. "...impede your full ability to abuse that properly though."
What a wonderful turn of phrase. I like you, Jaime.
--
Jeff Stockwin "We do amuse the shit out of ourselves here."
jdastockwin -- Steve Monahan, on rasfwr-j
@ lis-a.com
Jamie Bowden
> Jamie Bowden stood on the rasfwr-j soapbox and proclaimed:
>
> >bottlenecks and/or traffic that impede your full ability to abuse that
> >properly though.
>
> Ahh. "...impede your full ability to abuse that properly though."
>
> What a wonderful turn of phrase. I like you, Jaime.
Bandwidth exists for my personal amusement. Networks that I don't
inhabit, you may feel free to use for your personal amusement.
Ben Ryan
> On 7 Mar 2001, Ben Ryan wrote:
<Road Runner in VA>
>> I've heard this is a problem in your area - RR seems to have oversold
>> their service there, and now there's some major bandwidth shortages.
>>
>> Here, there's little difference between my cable connection at home and
>> using the on-campus network at SUNY (which, being a T3 is theoretically
>> faster).
>
> A T3 is 45ish megabit/sec (I forget the exact number, sue me), so it
Actually, you do not forget the exact number.
> should be far faster than your cable. SUNY's infernal network may present
> bottlenecks and/or traffic that impede your full ability to abuse that
> properly though.
The impedance is due to sharing the bandwidth with ~12000 other people. At
our daily peak we're running at full throttle. (Currently, at 96% outgoing
capacity, 58% incoming - yes, these numbers are exact and authoritative)
Andy Carlson
m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) writes:
>
>And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
>with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
>protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
>
Could you explain what is wrong with PPPoE? I have had it since I moved,
having had DHCP before. and so far, it seems rock solid. I have to admit,
though, that I am not using it on windows. Thanks.
--
Andy Carlson |\ _,,,---,,_
an...@andyc.carenet.org ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
BJC Health System |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
St. Louis, Missouri '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Cat Pics: http://andyc.dyndns.org/animal.html
Trent Goulding
>PRA as a corporation signed no such agreement, and shrinkwrap licenses
>have been thrown out of more than one court already.
Do tell. Which courts did you have in mind?
As near as I can tell after a very brief skim through the materials,
the emerging majority view is that shrinkwrap licenses are, in
principle at least, enforceable contracts. A Washington State
Supreme Court decision from less than a year ago upholding the terms
of such a license contains this sentence: "The fact the approach
utilized by the _ProCD_(7th Cir.1996), _Hill_ (7th Cir.1997), and
_Brower_(NY 1998) courts represents the overwhelming majority view
on this issue is further demonstrated by its adoption into the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act ['The UCITA, formerly
known as proposed U.C.C. Article 2B, was approved and recommended
for enactment by the states in July 1999']" .
--
Trent Goulding goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu
Amy Yost
> As roses wither, so does Maggie:
>
<>
> > Drop the dime, spend the time and get yourself something decent if you
> > want Net access. If you find your current provider unreliable or too
> > expensive, look for a cheaper one instead of whining about your bill.
>
> Or work for the ISP. Free connection, and you know everything that can
> ever possibly go wrong.
You're not including AOL in that, are you?
--
Amy Yost (Cassandra) UIN: 49226347 fai...@yahoo.com
There are a lot of creative, interesting, smart people here... You just
have to make an effort to group them together, because they're interspersed
with a lot of morons. But that's real life. -Aimee Mann
Dave Rothgery
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
> > As roses wither, so does Maggie:
> >
> <>
> > > Drop the dime, spend the time and get yourself something decent if you
> > > want Net access. If you find your current provider unreliable or too
> > > expensive, look for a cheaper one instead of whining about your bill.
> >
> > Or work for the ISP. Free connection, and you know everything that can
> > ever possibly go wrong.
>
> You're not including AOL in that, are you?
AOL's not an ISP.
It's a media conglomerate/malevolent entity.
Of course, my ISP is RoadRunner, which is also under the AOL-Time Warner
umbrella...
Mike Kozlowski
Dave Rothgery <drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Of course, my ISP is RoadRunner, which is also under the AOL-Time Warner
>umbrella...
You just _know_ that everyone on Time Warner cable systems is going to get
shunted off to AOL posthaste, regulatory agreements or no.
Jamie Bowden
> In article <9sb389...@muse.klio.org>,
> m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) writes:
> >
> >And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
> >with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
> >protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
> Could you explain what is wrong with PPPoE? I have had it since I moved,
> having had DHCP before. and so far, it seems rock solid. I have to admit,
> though, that I am not using it on windows. Thanks.
PPP was designed specificly to deal with serial links, and uses it's own
framing. Overlaying this on top of a perfectly good network interface
(which already has it's own framing) leads to fucked up MTUs and other
such nightmares. PPPoE is a stupid hack that should never have seen the
light of day.
Jamie Bowden
I seem to recall MS losing at least one battle in a courtroom attempting
to enforce a license you couldn't read until AFTER you had already broken
the seal on the box. You're the law student, and what you posted above
does not give me warm fuzzies. Never the less, a user cannot enter an
agreement with a third party donating resources on behalf of the US Govt.
and/or PRA.
Dave Rothgery
> In article <MPG.15109fb47b9b091a9898f7@news-server>,
> Dave Rothgery <drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course, my ISP is RoadRunner, which is also under the AOL-Time Warner
> >umbrella...
>
> You just _know_ that everyone on Time Warner cable systems is going to get
> shunted off to AOL posthaste, regulatory agreements or no.
One can hope that AOL-TW realizes that those of us willing to shell out
$40/month for broadband are those least in need of AOL-esque hand-
holding[1], but I'm almost certainly going to move well before that
happens.
[1] Excepting some fanboys who begged their parents to get broadband so
they'd get better frame rates in $CURRENT_HOT_NETWORK_GAME.
Anne Willick
> Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Anne Willick wrote:
> >
> >> I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
> >> speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
> >> major to complain about thus far.
> >
> > I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
> > @Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
> > there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
> > the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
> > supposedly high speed link.
>
> I've heard this is a problem in your area - RR seems to have oversold
> their service there, and now there's some major bandwidth shortages.
Either this explains why I haven't noticed any general suckiness, or, it
could be the fact that the only thing I have to compare it to is my old
dial-up service. Which, incidentally, was Worldnet, and it was a whole
'nother amazing level of suckiness beyond your average dial-up.
On the other hand, I don't play with my internet service that much. I
just expect it to connect, and work. So for all I know, the network could
suck rocks, and I wouldn't notice.
--
Anne
Mike Kozlowski
Andy Carlson <an...@andyc.carenet.org> wrote:
>In article <9sb389...@muse.klio.org>,
> m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) writes:
>>
>>And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
>>with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
>>protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
>
>Could you explain what is wrong with PPPoE? I have had it since I moved,
>having had DHCP before. and so far, it seems rock solid. I have to admit,
>though, that I am not using it on windows. Thanks.
It's slower (an extra 5-10% just for unnecessary protocol overhead); you
need to sign on to the network (and can get disconnected -- disconnected
from an always-on connection!); potential compatibility problems,
especially with fragile apps like video-conferencing.
But mostly, it's aesthetic displeasure. When you've got DHCP, it's just
like being in the middle of a LAN; when you've got static IP going to a
router, it's like having a scaled-down version of a T1; when you've got
PPPoE, it's like glorified dial-up.
Mike Kozlowski
It's worth noting that UCITA is rather new, and has not been passed in
every state; and that its adoption is being pushed by software companies
who are afraid that their shrinkwrap licenses might not otherwise hold up.
In many tech circles -- and I'm talking about mainstream publications like
Infoworld, not just Slashdot -- UCITA is reviled.
Mike Kozlowski
Dave Rothgery <drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>> You just _know_ that everyone on Time Warner cable systems is going to get
>> shunted off to AOL posthaste, regulatory agreements or no.
>
>One can hope that AOL-TW realizes that those of us willing to shell out
>$40/month for broadband are those least in need of AOL-esque hand-
>holding[1], but I'm almost certainly going to move well before that
>happens.
The current state of broadband isn't going to stay where it is -- not
unless the telcos are successful in their goals.
And the way the future of broadband is shaping up, it looks like cable is
going to be the default broadband connection for the technically
disinclined: It's easier to get than DSL, it only involves dealing with
one company, it's more likely to be in any given area, there aren't all
the irritating options to choose from, it's cheaper (even the RBOCs are
now upping DSL prices to $50), and once AOL starts taking it over, it'll
be ultra newbie-friendly.
DSL is for people who aren't satisfied with the one-size-fits-all service
you can get from cable companies; those of us who choose to get DSL will
be fucked hard by both inconvenience and expense. DSL will be what ISDN
was in the dialup days: a niche product that techies pay through the nose
for.
Dave Rothgery
> In article <MPG.1510a98717db16d89898f8@news-server>,
> Dave Rothgery <drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>
> >> You just _know_ that everyone on Time Warner cable systems is going to get
> >> shunted off to AOL posthaste, regulatory agreements or no.
> >
> >One can hope that AOL-TW realizes that those of us willing to shell out
> >$40/month for broadband are those least in need of AOL-esque hand-
> >holding[1], but I'm almost certainly going to move well before that
> >happens.
>
> The current state of broadband isn't going to stay where it is -- not
> unless the telcos are successful in their goals.
>
> And the way the future of broadband is shaping up, it looks like cable is
> going to be the default broadband connection for the technically
> disinclined: It's easier to get than DSL, it only involves dealing with
> one company, it's more likely to be in any given area, there aren't all
> the irritating options to choose from, it's cheaper (even the RBOCs are
> now upping DSL prices to $50), and once AOL starts taking it over, it'll
> be ultra newbie-friendly.
No.
As things are now, cable is extremely easy. Once AOL starts taking over
there will be a lot of commercials about how newbie-firendly it is. This
will have nothing to do with actual ease of use.
Indeed, the cluttered, confusing mess that is the current AOL client is
a model for how not to design software -- especially for newbies,
IMNSHO.
Rachel Rosenblum
> In article <MPG.15109fb47b9b091a9898f7@news-server>,
> Dave Rothgery <drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course, my ISP is RoadRunner, which is also under the AOL-Time Warner
> >umbrella...
>
> You just _know_ that everyone on Time Warner cable systems is going to get
> shunted off to AOL posthaste, regulatory agreements or no.
I'm suddenly very, very happy that my cable company is not a Time Warner
company. My cable access will remain untainted by the vileness that is
AOL. My dad on the other hand would be very happy if his cable access
became an AOL account. As far as he is concerned there is no way to do
anything on the internet without AOL. He is fairly clueless about all
things computer related.
--
Rachel
Mike Kozlowski
>> And the way the future of broadband is shaping up, it looks like cable is
>> going to be the default broadband connection for the technically
>> disinclined: It's easier to get than DSL, it only involves dealing with
>> one company, it's more likely to be in any given area, there aren't all
>> the irritating options to choose from, it's cheaper (even the RBOCs are
>> now upping DSL prices to $50), and once AOL starts taking it over, it'll
>> be ultra newbie-friendly.
>
>No.
>As things are now, cable is extremely easy. Once AOL starts taking over
>there will be a lot of commercials about how newbie-firendly it is. This
>will have nothing to do with actual ease of use.
Well, I agree with you -- I think AOL is baffling and unintuitive as all
get out. But the evidence suggests that many people think (rightly or
wrongly) that AOL is a friendly, easy way to get a connection -- and
that's the future target market for cable.
Trent Goulding
>Trent Goulding <goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu> wrote:
[shrinkwrap licenses and their legal validity]
>>Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act ['The UCITA, formerly
>>known as proposed U.C.C. Article 2B, was approved and recommended
>>for enactment by the states in July 1999']" .
>
>It's worth noting that UCITA is rather new, and has not been passed in
>every state; and that its adoption is being pushed by software companies
>who are afraid that their shrinkwrap licenses might not otherwise hold up.
Sure. When the court refers to "approved and recommended", it's not
talking about a legislative body that itself has real legislative
authority, it's talking about the group that first drafted the
UCITA.
Recognizing that various areas of the law are often quite fragmented
as a result of our having 50 different state jurisdictions, a bunch
of smart lawyer types got together lo these many years ago to form
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(http://www.nccusl.org/), in order to draft uniform copies of
statutes in those various areas, and then recommend that the
different state legislatures enact those uniform acts into their
respective state codes. It's up to the state legislatures to
actually make the recommendations into real law, or to make
revisions before adoption. Sometimes they adopt pretty much
unanimously throughout the states (as for the UCC itself), sometimes
not.
As for the UCITA, there's a pretty interesting article on its
history and purpose by Professor Nimmer, the UCITA Reporter (i.e.
the person in charge of overseeing its drafting) at
http://www.law.uh.edu/ucc2b/082000/nimmer.html . Naturally, it
takes a favorable view of the Act ("...support has grown despite
vocal opposition that too often contains distortions that portray
UCITA as something other than what it is - a commercial contract
code for the information age based on the premise of freedom of
contract.") It does note that Virginia was the first state to
accept and enact the Act, a year ago this month, "by votes of 39-0
and 95-2, respectively, in the two legislative houses." I have no
idea how many more states have followed its lead. I'd recommend
reading the article; it seems pretty clear, and it's a chance to at
least look at reasoned arguments in favor.
>In many tech circles -- and I'm talking about mainstream publications like
>Infoworld, not just Slashdot -- UCITA is reviled.
That may be, and there may well be a number of valid criticisms of
it to be made. I'm not actually trying to take an advocacy position
on one side or the other, at least not without more familiarity with
the topic. I will note, though, that it's been my experience just
in the last couple of years that often when apocalyptic scenarios
get dreamed up and paraded about as a way of demonstrating this or
that statute or court ruling's idiocy or wrong-headedness, they more
often than not end up ignoring nuances, context, and implicit or
explicit limitations within the law itself, which in turn has the
effect of rendering the criticism wildly inapposite.
--
Trent Goulding goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu
Maggie
> In article <MPG.150ee8dcc...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> >Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> quietly murmured:
> >> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [the increasing inconvenience of free ISPs]
> >>
> >> >I can only boggle at the people who submit to this willingly.
> >>
> >> I imagine that's what tycoons say about people who use commercial
> >> airlines, too. Those poor people sure are a bunch of saps, huh?
> >
> >There's a remarkable difference between being too poor to afford a $500
> >airline ticket and being too cheap to pay $5 or $10/month for internet
> >service.
>
> A difference of scale, not of kind (particularly since I've never seen $5
> Internet connections anywhere; certainly not in small, working-class
> semi-rural towns).
I don't think you can rightly claim that anymore, since I did point out
AT&T's 150 hours/$4.95 plan. AT&T is more likely to have an access
point in MiddleCowTown, Ohio than NetZero or Juno.
>
> And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
> with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
> protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
> with that kind of low-end corner-cutting just to save the $30 extra a
> month that it would cost to go with a real broadband provider.
Er? Save $30 off the regular cost of broadband? What do they charge
for broadband up there that people are looking for $30 off?
My own broadband is $40, no proprietary anything and it's quite good.
> All I'm saying is this: For some people, the cost of a conventional
> Internet connection is too high, and getting free Internet service in
> exchange for CPU cycles you weren't using anyway is a good deal. That
> some people find this a good deal is cause neither for outraged
> exclamations about the gall of the ISP, nor for dismayed head-shaking
> about the gullible fools taking advantage of the deal.
And I do believe I said that if one knows what they're doing, bitches
about it, and uses them anyway, then one has no business bitching,
especially since there *are* alternatives.
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.chocolatefiends.com
"The Dark was cold until she came, but she was Midnight, kissed by
Flame"-Rajiv Mote on rasfwrj
Mike Kozlowski
Trent Goulding <goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) wrote:
>>Trent Goulding <goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>[shrinkwrap licenses and their legal validity]
>
>>>Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act ['The UCITA, formerly
>>>known as proposed U.C.C. Article 2B, was approved and recommended
>>>for enactment by the states in July 1999']" .
>>
>>It's worth noting that UCITA is rather new, and has not been passed in
>>every state; and that its adoption is being pushed by software companies
>>who are afraid that their shrinkwrap licenses might not otherwise hold up.
>
>Sure. When the court refers to "approved and recommended", it's not
>talking about a legislative body that itself has real legislative
>authority, it's talking about the group that first drafted the
>UCITA.
Right. My point there was that up until recently, it's been pretty much
assumed that shrinkwrap licenses weren't enforceable (I don't know if
there are any actual court tests of that), and UCITA is a measure designed
to make them enforceable.
>>In many tech circles -- and I'm talking about mainstream publications like
>>Infoworld, not just Slashdot -- UCITA is reviled.
>
>That may be, and there may well be a number of valid criticisms of
>it to be made. I'm not actually trying to take an advocacy position
>on one side or the other, at least not without more familiarity with
>the topic. I will note, though, that it's been my experience just
>in the last couple of years that often when apocalyptic scenarios
>get dreamed up and paraded about as a way of demonstrating this or
>that statute or court ruling's idiocy or wrong-headedness, they more
>often than not end up ignoring nuances, context, and implicit or
>explicit limitations within the law itself, which in turn has the
>effect of rendering the criticism wildly inapposite.
I don't doubt it, and I wouldn't really want to argue it with you, because
I'm sure that there's no way I could win that argument even if I were
right. I will note this, though:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/uc/xml/00/08/21/000821ucpositions.xml
It's a list of supporters and opponents to UCITA. The supporters are
about who you'd expect -- software companies, and industry trade
groups. The opponents include not just the obvious (FSF, EFF, Consumers
Union), but also groups like the IEEE, the ALA, and even the American
Association of Law Libraries...
Maggie
> On 7 Mar 2001 11:33:24 -0500, Ben Ryan said...
> > Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Anne Willick wrote:
> > >
> > >> I was slightly miffed when I found that Roadrunner was the only high-
> > >> speed connection available in my area, but really, I haven't had anything
> > >> major to complain about thus far.
> > >
> > > I have one big one. Their network sucks. I've used MCI, Sprint, MFS,
> > > @Home, Digex, BBN, and probably a provider I've forgotten somewhere in
> > > there, for both business and personal connections. Road Runner ranks near
> > > the bottom. Only BBN was worse for interactive sessions across a
> > > supposedly high speed link.
> >
> > I've heard this is a problem in your area - RR seems to have oversold
> > their service there, and now there's some major bandwidth shortages.
>
> Either this explains why I haven't noticed any general suckiness, or, it
> could be the fact that the only thing I have to compare it to is my old
> dial-up service. Which, incidentally, was Worldnet, and it was a whole
> 'nother amazing level of suckiness beyond your average dial-up.
Oh, yuck.
You know, Worldnet wasn't too bad a few years ago, until they started
getting poplular. Then, it was more like "World-disconnect". I dumped
them and went with a local provider, Stax.net. I probably would have
stayed with Stax, except that their newsfeed went down the toilet so
hard and fast that the suction would have dechromed a trailer hitch at
fifty paces.
AccessToledo was superb, and, in fact, still is. They're partnered with
the cable company, so I didn't have to get a new e-mail address when I
went broadband.
> On the other hand, I don't play with my internet service that much. I
> just expect it to connect, and work. So for all I know, the network could
> suck rocks, and I wouldn't notice.
I find myself incredibly frustrated when working on someone else's
computer now if they don't have broadband. Working with Randy and
Laura's (33.6!) connection a few weeks back had me gritting my teeth and
chanting Patience...Patience... The 4MB driver download for Randy's
sound card wasn't finished before supper was.
Daniel Magnusson
<drot...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>One can hope that AOL-TW realizes that those of us willing to shell out
>$40/month for broadband are those least in need of AOL-esque hand-
>holding[1], but I'm almost certainly going to move well before that
>happens.
>
>[1] Excepting some fanboys who begged their parents to get broadband so
>they'd get better frame rates in $CURRENT_HOT_NETWORK_GAME.
Umm. theese "fanboys" are in most cases very knowledgable about
computers, at least to the degree that they know that you don't want
broadband for the frame rates but for the low ping and stable
connection. In the modern games there is little correlation between
frame rates and your connection to the internet, it mostly depends on
the CPU and the graphics-card.
In older games such as Quake (and it's internet successor, QuakeWorld)
the frames per second (FPS) you had in the game was bound to the rate
you could assign, a modem-user had to set his rate to 2500-4000 (2.5
kb/s - 4 kb/s) and limit his FPS to 30-35 to get a stable playing
connection whereas the broadbanders could use higher rate and get much
higher FPS, and of course, get lower ping. In newer games such as
Quake3 and Unreal Tournament this is no longer true, the modem-user
can get as high FPS as the broadband-user. There is still the ping
disadvantage though so he will be virtually (no pun intended) helpless
online if he is playing someone who uses broadband.
OTOH you might very well know this and your footnote was made to make
fun of the "fanboys".
--
Daniel Magnusson
Trent Goulding
>>[shrinkwrap licenses and their legal validity]
>>Sure. When the court refers to "approved and recommended", it's not
>>talking about a legislative body that itself has real legislative
>>authority, it's talking about the group that first drafted the
>>UCITA.
>
>Right. My point there was that up until recently, it's been pretty much
>assumed that shrinkwrap licenses weren't enforceable (I don't know if
>there are any actual court tests of that), and UCITA is a measure designed
>to make them enforceable.
Part of my reply to Jamie was meant to point out that in the last
five years or so, it looks like there've been a trickle of cases
starting to indicate that they are in principle enforceable. Maybe
those are bad decisions, I don't know. I glanced at one law review
note that criticized part of Judge Easterbrook's reasoning in the
first 7th circuit case, insofar as it relied on the problemmatic
assumption that consumers who don't agree with terms they find after
they've bought the package are free to return it for a refund--with
most software being sold by 3rd party vendors, who are usually
unwilling to take returns, that assumption just may not hold true.
>>That may be, and there may well be a number of valid criticisms of
>>it to be made. I'm not actually trying to take an advocacy position
>>on one side or the other, at least not without more familiarity with
>>the topic. I will note, though,
[...]
>I don't doubt it, and I wouldn't really want to argue it with you, because
>I'm sure that there's no way I could win that argument even if I were
>right. I will note this, though:
I notice that there's a lot of noting going on here...
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/uc/xml/00/08/21/000821ucpositions.xml
>
>It's a list of supporters and opponents to UCITA. The supporters are
>about who you'd expect -- software companies, and industry trade
>groups. The opponents include not just the obvious (FSF, EFF, Consumers
>Union), but also groups like the IEEE, the ALA, and even the American
>Association of Law Libraries...
Well, if you glance at their policy positions (I looked briefly at
the AALL page), I think the various librarians' opposition is fairly
obvious too--they're all pretty major consumers of software and
other licensed electronic information material. Which is not to say
that their opposition can't be principled or even correct, of
course.
Look, my instinct is to side with the consumers here--after all, at
the moment (and on into the foreseeable future), I'm far more of a
software licensee than I am a licensor. Besides, I don't much like
Microsoft, or other big companies that stuff odious contractual
terms down my throat with a sneering "take it or leave it" attitude.
OTOH, courts thus far appear to me to be following a pretty
conventional contract law analysis on these things. The software
industry is hardly the first place where "yeah, so these are sucky
terms--there's the door if you don't like them" has been the motto
of the day.
Non-negotiable boilerplate language shows up in all sorts of
everyday commercial transactions and contracts. It has an obvious
downside for a consumer who gets caught by unlucky circumstances and
then finds out they've been screwed by the "small print" they never
bothered to read (see also, pretty much any EULA), but most don't,
and the trade-off has always been believed to be increased stability
and certainty for the company or vendor making the offer, which
supposedly translates at the end of the day into consumer benefits.
And if you read the rhetoric of UCITA supporters, "certainty" and
"predictability" in the legal code are two of the rallying cries.
Much of that rhetoric is undeniably self-serving, but it's not a
trivial point.
--
Trent Goulding goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu
Jeff Stockwin
>AOL. My dad on the other hand would be very happy if his cable access
>became an AOL account. As far as he is concerned there is no way to do
>anything on the internet without AOL. He is fairly clueless about all
>things computer related.
...but you had no need to say to say it twice.
--
Jeff Stockwin "...perhaps God gave the answers
jdastockwin @ lis-a.com to those with nothing to say."
-Savatage
Oo, oo, I think that's actually from the books somewhere.
Frank van Schie
Jeff Stockwin wrote:
>
> ...but you had no need to say to say it twice.
> [snip sig]
> Oo, oo, I think that's actually from the books somewhere.
Yup:
_The Dragon Reborn_, Chapter 53:
"I will find him," Zarine announced. "I have no shame in admitting I
will be glad enough to run from this fight. Men fight when they should
run, and fools fight when they should run. But I had no need to say it
twice." She strode ahead of them, her narrow, divided skirts making
small whisking noises as they entered the inn.
Having plaintext copies of the books certainly helps in looking up silly
trivia ;-)
--
Frank
And having a lousy fucking newsserver certainly doesn't, *grumble*
Eric P. McCoy
> AT&T is more likely to have an access point in MiddleCowTown, Ohio
> than NetZero or Juno.
It used to be that "small" national dialup companies actually just
rented hardware from big telcos, rather than installing their own
stuff. I have no idea if this is still the case, with the telcos
getting into the business themselves.
But my point is that for areas with small populations, Juno or NetZero
might just rent modems and bandwidth from Sprint or another company,
which will have a local POP.
> > And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
> > with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
> > protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
> > with that kind of low-end corner-cutting just to save the $30 extra a
> > month that it would cost to go with a real broadband provider.
> Er? Save $30 off the regular cost of broadband? What do they charge
> for broadband up there that people are looking for $30 off?
$30, in Connecticut, for cable. There are package deals with phone
service and the like that reduce that figure, but it still results in
a big cable bill. Some people have philosophical objections to paying
$60 or more to their cable company, even if they'd pay that much or
more going with separate companies.
> My own broadband is $40, no proprietary anything and it's quite good.
Mine was _real_ good for the first four or five months after we got it
(which was right when it was introduced). Unfortunately, it seems to
have become more popular, and now it's just good.
When it was first introduced, I was getting close to the theoretical
maximum of 1.5Mb/s. No, I'm not sure if I'm getting hit by bandwidth
limiting or if it's the local loop or what.
--
Eric McCoy <emc...@hamilton.edu>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
Eric P. McCoy
> You know, Worldnet wasn't too bad a few years ago, until they started
> getting poplular. Then, it was more like "World-disconnect".
They probably started getting popular around when they bought
ibm.net. Which is too bad for both services, because ibm.net at least
was really nice (when I was using it) and AT&T was far better than any
other national service I'd tried.
> I dumped them and went with a local provider, Stax.net. I probably
> would have stayed with Stax, except that their newsfeed went down
> the toilet so hard and fast that the suction would have dechromed a
> trailer hitch at fifty paces.
The only explanation I can come up with for bad newsfeeds is hardware
reallocation to other services. Once properly set up, a newsfeed
requires zero maintenance 98% of the time.
Hamilton's newsfeed is still trash, and I don't understand why. I
suspect it's our upstream provider (NYSERnet), because I know the net
admin here and he actually worked hard to get our newsfeed working
better - with little success.
[...]
> I find myself incredibly frustrated when working on someone else's
> computer now if they don't have broadband.
Actually, it doesn't bother me that much. For everything except
downloading large files (for varying values of "large"), I typically
don't notice a difference at all. Even at home, on cable, the best
rates I could get from most download sites was about 20KB/s [2]. Yes,
that's four times faster than I can get on 56k, but I don't often need
to download huge files.
--
Eric McCoy <emc...@hamilton.edu>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
[1] A/S/L YUO=FAGOT FOR GREAT JUSTICE YAMS AOL ROFLMFAO!!!11@!
[2] Although for some sites I could get 200KB or better (which seems
to actually be _greater_ than the theoretical maximum, now that I
think about it).
Dave Rothgery
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> writes:
>
> [...]
> > I find myself incredibly frustrated when working on someone else's
> > computer now if they don't have broadband.
>
> Actually, it doesn't bother me that much. For everything except
> downloading large files (for varying values of "large"), I typically
> don't notice a difference at all. Even at home, on cable, the best
> rates I could get from most download sites was about 20KB/s [2]. Yes,
> that's four times faster than I can get on 56k, but I don't often need
> to download huge files.
The big deal about broadband is that in most cases, it's on whenever
your computer is [1].
[1] In my case, that's whenever I'm awake, except for the time it takes
to get my glasses, turn on lights in my room, and turn on the computer.
The fan's too loud to sleep through. If/when my PC is no longer in my
bedroom, or I have a secondary PC/server around, it'll just be left on
at all times.
Mike Kozlowski
>> And while we're talking scale, I'm moderately baffled that anyone puts up
>> with things like PPPoE and broadband that uses proprietary hardware and
>> protocols (like Roadrunner). I think it's insane that people will put up
>> with that kind of low-end corner-cutting just to save the $30 extra a
>> month that it would cost to go with a real broadband provider.
>
>Er? Save $30 off the regular cost of broadband? What do they charge
>for broadband up there that people are looking for $30 off?
The absolute cheapest price that I've seen for acceptable-to-me broadband
is $79 -- no, scratch that, now it's $89 minimum for a slow (less than
384k) connection. Nine months ago, there was decent stuff available for
as low as $59, but not any more.
DSL prices are trending upward, now that we're out of the era of VC
subsidies, and into the era of bankruptcies. My DSL connection, if I were
to sign up for it today instead of last summer, would run me an extra $30
over the high price I'm paying now.
Janet Quick
araf...@hotmail.com wrote on 3/8/01 12:14 AM:
!!!!!
>He is fairly clueless about all
> things computer related.
And there is the key phrase. As more and more of my friends and family
decided they must "go online" I stopped suggesting dial-up (or whatever) and
just handed them a CD of AOL software with the instructions "Double click
the install icon and agree with everything. Keep saying OK until they ask
for your VISA number..."
I'm too lazy and they are too clueless for me to suggest anyone search for
the cheapest, fastest, most efficient or whatever.
I learned my lesson when an otherwise intelligent friend was heard saying "I
can't get yahoo to read my email, so I'll just stick with Internet
Explorer." What? No, I don't even want to know! I didn't even ask. I
just nodded and mumbled "Yes, well, it's best to go with what works for
you."
Janet Q.
Janet Quick
princ...@accesstoledo.com wrote on 3/8/01 12:16 AM:
Snipping snipping snip snip
> except that their newsfeed went down the toilet so
> hard and fast that the suction would have dechromed a trailer hitch at
> fifty paces.
Oh my! Do you write for animated movies? Perhaps you should.
Janet Q.
Frank van Schie
Janet Quick wrote:
>
> I'm too lazy and they are too clueless for me to suggest anyone search for
> the cheapest, fastest, most efficient or whatever.
>
> I learned my lesson when an otherwise intelligent friend was heard saying "I
> can't get yahoo to read my email, so I'll just stick with Internet
> Explorer." What? No, I don't even want to know! I didn't even ask. I
> just nodded and mumbled "Yes, well, it's best to go with what works for
> you."
That is a very good tech-support mindset.
Whenever you hear "The internet isn't working", it's very often just
E-mail.
It's happened quite a lot that people simply don't know what E-mail is.
It happens frequently that you tell people to 'go to control panel', and
they end up changing half their E-mail settings (Okay, so for E-mail
address I fill in my E-mail address, right? *no pause* Okay, and for the
server, it says 'pop3', *no pause* I'll just click next, and *no pause*
hey, it says it's done, so does my E-mail work now?).
Having to explain that 'space' does not equal 'slash' is getting a bit
tiresome too.
Especially when those people right off the bat claim to be 'system
managers'. They are invariably the worst. My automatic-idiot-reponse
system comes up with "Well then why can't you solve the problem yourself
then?" or "That's what our most annoying customers always say", but for
some reason I'd like to keep the job, so I ignore it.
*sigh*
Okay, I'm done venting. Thanks. :-P
--
Frank
Michael Hoye
Frank van Schie <fv...@hoopyfroods.org> wrote:
>Janet Quick wrote:
>>
>> I learned my lesson when an otherwise intelligent friend was heard saying "I
>> can't get yahoo to read my email, so I'll just stick with Internet
>> Explorer." What? No, I don't even want to know! I didn't even ask.
>
>
>Whenever you hear "The internet isn't working", it's very often just
>E-mail.
"Could you tell me what lights are lit up on your modem, sir?"
"Listen, the problem isn't at my end. It's been working fine up until now.
The problem is with your [expletitive list of choice] service."
"Sir, I'll need to check out your setup before I can send anything to our
network staff."
"I'm telling you, it worked fine here yesterday! I haven't changed
anything! It's a problem at your end! This service is terrible. I want to
talk to your supervisor!"
"Sir, I'm not going to pass you to anybody until I've had a chance to look
at your setup."
"That's unacceptable! I want to speak to your supervisor right now!"
"Sir. What. Lights. Are. Lit. On. Your. Modem."
"Uh... there are no lights on my modem."
"You'll notice a switch on the back, then. Could you turn the modem on?"
"Ok..." [half a minute] "Uh... they're green now."
"Ok, try connecting now."
"It works now."
"Remarkable, isn't it?"
<click>
>Especially when those people right off the bat claim to be 'system
>managers'. They are invariably the worst.
"Listen: I'm a computer expert..."
--
Mike Hoye
John Johnson
"Frank van Schie" <fv...@hoopyfroods.org> wrote in message
news:3AA7C8EF...@hoopyfroods.org...
>
>
> Janet Quick wrote:
> >
> > I'm too lazy and they are too clueless for me to suggest anyone search
for
> > the cheapest, fastest, most efficient or whatever.
> >
> > I learned my lesson when an otherwise intelligent friend was heard
saying "I
> > can't get yahoo to read my email, so I'll just stick with Internet
> > Explorer." What? No, I don't even want to know! I didn't even ask. I
> > just nodded and mumbled "Yes, well, it's best to go with what works for
> > you."
>
> That is a very good tech-support mindset.
>
> Whenever you hear "The internet isn't working", it's very often just
> E-mail.
"Can you double-click on your connection ma'am?"
"That doesn't do anything."
"What exactly is going on?"
"When I double-click on it all it does is turn blue."
"Can you do a right-click then and select open?"
"I can't do that either."
"When you double-clicked on your connection, did you do two really fast
left-clicks right after each other?"
Long pause . . ."Oh. Was I supposed to do that?"
Sound of my head pounding the keyboard "Yes. Try that now."
"Wow, it works."
My favorite, though, was the one where the parents put their 7-year old son
on the phone and had him fix the situation.
--
John Johnson
"A cry in the dark . . ." http://johnajohnson.diaryland.com
Matthew Hackell
>
>
> Jeff Stockwin wrote:
> >
> > ...but you had no need to say to say it twice.
> > [snip sig]
> > Oo, oo, I think that's actually from the books somewhere.
>
> Yup:
> _The Dragon Reborn_, Chapter 53:
> "I will find him," Zarine announced. "I have no shame in admitting I
> will be glad enough to run from this fight. Men fight when they should
> run, and fools fight when they should run. But I had no need to say it
> twice." She strode ahead of them, her narrow, divided skirts making
> small whisking noises as they entered the inn.
ObClueless: Hey! Robert Jordan is just ripping off Mark Twain! What an
uncreative schmuck he is!
--
Matt
Zen: A lifetime to learn. A minute to master.