Monday Evening Links
|
  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Internet addiction will soon be classified as mental illness Zombies, kill them, kill them NOW! | |
|  | | | Re: Internet addiction will soon be classified as mental illness Internet Addiction != Mental Illness
I rely in the Internet to keep myself up-to-date and stay informed. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| Re: Internet addiction will soon be classified as mental illness said by GraysonPeddi:Internet Addiction != Mental Illness
I rely in the Internet to keep myself up-to-date and stay informed.
The internet has kept me from developing an actual mental illness 
That said I imagine someone being charged with a crime claiming he/she has a mental illness due to his internet use | |
| | | |
|  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2 | Political ads inflict far more mental illness than the Internet does. | |
| | | | | Re: Internet addiction will soon be classified as mental illness I found political ads to inflect depression in my mind, but to each their own.
I'm like, "I don't have anything to do with politics" when it comes to government. Heh. | |
|
| tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Denying your illness is part of the syndrome.
lobotomy and electroshock are the only likely treatments.
really! Google it
 | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Kansas City ISPs want same deal KC gave Google
»professional.wsj.com/article_ema···3Wj.html
To entice Google Inc. to build its ultra-high-speed fiber network there, Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., offered the Internet company sweeteners including several free or discounted city services. Now, Time Warner Cable Inc. and AT&T Inc., the incumbent Internet and TV providers in town, are angling to get the same deal.
Among the sweeteners granted Google by both cities are free office space and free power for Google's equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities' "assets and infrastructure"—including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees "dedicated to the project."
Time Warner Cable has been negotiating with Kansas City, Kan.,to get a "parity agreement" granting it the same concessions as Google got, the city and the company says. Time Warner Cable has already signed such a deal with Kansas City, Mo.
AT&T also has approached Kansas City, Mo., for the same deal, according to a person familiar with the matter.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ | |
| | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: Kansas City ISPs want same deal KC gave Google I'd be seeking retroactive compansation for all previousley paid RoW, inspections, meeting franchise costs, and extras.
this could become VERY expensive for the cities, FOREVER even if google walks | |
| | | | Come on, Tommy. Don't be a Google hater. | |
| |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | When they pony up $70 Gb service they can have it. | |
| | | | Perhaps at&t and TWC should provide the same level of service and quality of service to get those perks? | |
| | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Kansas City ISPs want same deal KC gave Google Google hasn't provided anything yet, where the city provided and guaranteed those advantages to Google in advance.
Hardly a level playing field. also At&T( and probably TWC do to franchise requirements) has the burden of serving EVERY house, on demand rather than being able to cherry pick ONLY those that pay in advance and agree to be installed during googles flash build schedule.
Face it, these rules are VERY different then when At&t and TWC built out.
That may not be a bad thing, but it does show yet another cost shift from the privately owned network onto the public without any ownership rights.
In fact Google only said their service would be cost competitive with existing services until the recent price announcements, so google COULD have said the were going to charge $100's more.
The cities had no legal way of knowing that all their freebies would be repaid.
It's not hating google to say the city gov't appears to have acted in capricious and irresponsible manner towards their fiduciary duty to the citizens.
And those of you not totally enamored of Google, might recognize this if in each place above it says Google, instead you subsituted say, Lightsquared...would you then feel so good about each of the cities actions in response to the vague promises that LS (as above) made? Or perhaps the promises were stronger in the backroom deals it took to only have learned about these conditions and concessions made to please LightSquared?
Those of you who complain thread after thread about the Corp./Gov't conspirisies secret handshakes and bribies
yet choose to ignore this, most obvious example just because you TRUST Google to "do no evil" and imagine they are doing something you want for your benefit are in serious denial. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | No way the incumbents should get the same deal unless they also agree to build out FTTH and sell it cheap and unrestricted. | |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Samsung wins 1 in court - ban on Galaxy Tab lifted
»www.theverge.com/2012/10/1/34249···tab-10-1
Judge Lucy Koh has dissolved the US sales ban on the tablet. It's the latest twist in a long and winding story for the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Back in June, Judge Koh granted a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood that the Tab infringed upon the iPad's hardware design patent. However, while the jury found that the device had infringed on several pieces of Apple's intellectual property, the cited hardware design patent wasn't one of them. Given the circumstances, Samsung asked for the sales ban to be lifted.
This past Friday the Federal US Circuit Court of Appeals kicked the case back down to Koh, opening the door to today's decision. Koh also stated that the court will be holding on to the $2.6 million bond Apple posted for the injunction.
Of course, given that the Tab 10.1 was found to have infringed on other patents, the device could be banned again after the December hearing currently scheduled on Judge Koh's calendar.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ | |
|
| |
|
|
·