DISQUS

Based on their FAQ, you need to give them your IM account password, in my case Google Talk. That won't fly for me.

Well, it may be splitting hairs, but for google posterity if nothing else:

My SOP for years now has been to set Firefox to always ask me what to do with cookies. With one or two work-related exceptions, the rest of the (web) world gets this treatment:

- The vast majority of cookies are persistently ("always do this for this site") denied.
- When needed, cookies are accepted only for the browser session.

This way, when advertising networks attempt to set tracking cookies, that serves as a trigger for me to enrich my AdBlock filters, before persistently denying the cookie.

So far I haven't seen any such third-party cookies which, being blocked, have interfered with my other use of a site.

Hence the "practical", if not exact, equivalence.

What would be excellent for a Firefox privacy add-on would be a feature to limit cookies to the particular tab's lifetime, similar to NoScript's temporary permission option.

How is this, in a practical sense, "new" in the face of Adblock and its whitelisting feature?

being a libertarian means being pro-liberty, not necessarily pro-business.

Cannot agree more.

Another way to remember this is, to (mis)quote The Economist, "supporting Free Enterprise is decidedly not the same, and usually antithetical to, supporting A Specific Enterprise."

Therefore "free enterprise" must be treated as a red flag and cause for closer inspection when it comes up in arguments (or - couldn't resist - think tank names), as it can be supporting actions on either side of this bait-and-switch.

I'd just like to post my objection to the use of the phrase "GNU/Linux operating system." This term is Stallman's attempt to take credit for something he did not in fact create, the Linux operating system, simply because it was compiled with the one thing that he did create, the GNU C compiler. It's an insult to Linus Torvalds to use this term, especially in a discussion of GPL and all that nonsense.

nonsense like the GCC didn't only let Torvalds create the original Linux kernel; it also provided thousands of people with a low-barrier-to-entry toolchain that allowed them to contribute. Hardly non-trivial.

There's other GPL nonsense that functionally makes up what we think of as the Linux OS. Little things like a standard library. Things like that.

If ad services have in fact consumed far more than their optimal "allocation" of capital, then a sustained drop in online advertising revenue should result in some beneficial reallocation of that capital to more worthy ends.

I mean we do believe in the invisible hand, don't we?

This looked nice until I realized it's a *hosted* service. Give Nokia my email passwords and, after the "trial period" ends, even *pay* for this on top of data charges?

Thanks, but no thanks. Stay with Profimail.

A 1.5 megabit connection (T1) was an unimaginable luxury when I started in tech in the mid-90’s. It was for well-funded companies only. Today, it is a low-end consumer connection and costs around 80% less. Has your sewage service followed a similar trajectory?

Based on the fact that my sewage provider isn't considering putting me on a liquid-only diet, or limit how many/often guests I can have over I'd have to say no.

I think our Russian friend answered Tim's question.

I had a N810 repaired recently (and, it turns out, unnecessarily - just needed a reflash but I didn't google diligently enough and Nokia's support site FAQs had zero relevance to tablets).

It went as smooth as it could possibly go, although I have also heard horror stories. Then again it was hardly a "repair".

As I posted in another thread earlier, I have two N95-4s with random shutdown issues, so I may be trying my luck with Nokia repair soon.

Good luck.

Mark,

How has your N95 been stability-wise?

We have two N95-4s, both updated to the 20.2.005 firmware. They both experience random shutdowns while idle.

This has happened both on the charger and on battery power (battery was charged). In all cases they were not in a pocket or similar, so it's not accidental key presses either. In fact in most cases it happened overnight while they were on a nightstand.

Googling around suggests that this has been going on for a while, with the N95-3 and with the original 8GB model.

Finally, these don't have any "strange" software installed that might cause this. They have Google Maps and Google Search, and I positively know that these were not running during many of the shutdowns.

One possibly related observation: Almost every time I handle either phone's BL-6F battery, for example to remove the SIM, I hear the characteristik crackle of static discharge. Bad/counterfeit batteries/phones?

All in all, with 2 out of 2 having this problem, and with a seemingly known history of problems that Nokia isn't able/willing to solve, I'm definitely unimpressed.

My E61i on the other hand has been rock solid. Perhaps N-series are simly to be avoided as just consumer-quality devices for not-too-demanding customers.

Hold the Mozilla comparisons. Symbian apps have to be signed, and to do anything interesting - like, say, change the S60 telephony app behavior for least-cost-routing - something, incidentally, built in with the UIQ flavor telephony app - is impossible.

For the most part, Symbian Signed is there to make sure developers behave like good kiddies and don't mess with Ma Telco's business models. Can ou say, pocket tivoization?

If something similar was (somehow) present in Mozilla, what are the chances the most popular Mopzilla extension would have existed?

Symbian Signed will live on under the new foundation, so although opening the code will help with the currently average-to-occasionally-atrocious API documentation, it will still be a disruption-hostile platform.

Radio receivers also emit, or "leak", radio frequencies. So your GPS chip was likely emitting a - very low - signal. Since the frequency depends on the receiver architecture, there's no way to conclusively know that *all* receivers are safe to use in aircraft. That's the reason for the blanket prohibition of transmitters *and* receivers.

As to the EU regulation, if I remember correctly it is only supposed to be used with microcells installed on the plane which signal the mobile to transmit at its lowest setting. Plus, the frequencies are known/tested with the relevant avionics before they are allowed to be used on board.

So, Al, technically speaking, the Feds might want to have a word with you (not that I'd expect that to happen).

Ryan,

It's not about the giga/terabytes, at least not primarily. If use is not excessive and/or content is not HD, bandwidth might not even be that high. It's about the non-server policy, and the Slingbox, to be accessible remotely - its key selling point BTW - has to be a "server" under FIOS terms.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that, currently, Verizon may not do anything, even for servers. But how do you know that, in the quest for higher ARPU through some video-on-demand add-on, Verizon won't start enforcing the rules?

Anyway, agreeing to contracts on a nod-wink basis doesn't seem wise - or particularly libertarian, for that matter ;-)

Now, I agree with Wes that there's nothing wrong if one pays for the higher infrastructure costs of neutrality through higher prices/lower bandwidth. However, the persistently ignored elephant in the room is the (lack of) unbundling. If any Verizon can throw DSL competitors off its monopoly-era-sunk-costs infrastructure, arguing about "pricing" of neutrality seems pointless.

And so I wonder, how many folks would actually agree with Danny Weitzner’s statement that, “I’d rather have a more open Internet at lower speeds than a faster Internet that has all sorts of discrimination built in.” If that’s the trade-off that’s being forced upon us, then I will take the faster Internet, thank you very much.

Obviously it depends on the interpretation of "open", but your automatic preference for speed may be troubling. Have you compared terms of service? For example, Verizon FIOS is fast, however:

You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

No remote Slingbox for you on FIOS then, but it's OK on (slower) Speakeasy:

Speakeasy believes in the right of the individual to publish information they feel is important to the world via the Internet. Unlike many ISP's, Speakeasy allows customers to run servers (web, mail, etc.) over their Internet connections, use hubs, and share networks in multiple locations.

Oh, and on FIOS, all your data are possibly belong to Verizon:

Content and Data Management by Verizon: We reserve the right to: (a) use, copy, display, store, transmit and reformat data transmitted over our network and to distribute such content to multiple Verizon servers for back-up and maintenance purposes;

Well, at least it's fast(er) :-)

The administration is either spectacularly incompetent or going out of its way to avoid complying with the law

Both?

Dammit, the linked site is no longer viewable, "exceeded its CPU quota". That's what completely free schedulers get you, you Linux commie traitors!

Unless my wife had never shopped in Nordstrom before, which would make it creepy.

Not unlike third-party cookies which, in my browser, result mostly in new AdBlock rules with liberal use of '*' in the regular expressions, like '*.googlesyndication.com/*'.

BTW, what happened to comments the preview button?

Ryan,

People won't just be able to buy the rights to airwaves from the government--they would be able to purchase comparatively small chunks from spectrum resellers.

My point is that there is no need for the additional friction/barrier of the resellers. The government actually has considerable experience working with the retail investor.

Furthermore, reselling is going on now. However, one of these days, take a look at the fine print in your (perhaps "unlimited") wireless data plan. You'll likely find some interesting language about how, in order to protect its business plan - excuse me, its network - the operator reserves the right to define any application it likes as "bad" for the network. In other words: Browsing is good, (competitive) messaging et al, bad. Your barrier at work.

To be sure, spectrum rights should be sold on the free market, with the federal government acting as a registrar of spectrum deeds. The real question is, should every last bit of the spectrum be licensed, or is there a valid case for setting aside a small portion of the airwaves for open, unlicensed, government-regulated use?

That statement contains assumptions that perpetuate the existing system's built-in barriers to entry.

Depending on a target area's population desity, and with software-defined radios becoming more common in commercial devices, you don't need a command-and-control decision about the size of the minimum biddable spectrum "quantum". The lack of the ability to bid on just a few MHz is simply incumbent-protecting market rigging.

There are business models which can work with very very thin slices of spectrum/bandwidth. Think texting/chat, or Twitter, or walkie-talkie functionality - where not only bandwidth requirements are low but latency - and therefore spectrum contention - tolerance is higher.

However, due to the aforementioned barriers to entry, the only way to gain access to this bandwidth now is to submit to the "big picture" business model of an incumbent. Of course no telco is going to offer feasible terms to what would, for them, be a "skimming" competitor.

Another way to put this is that Soviet-style setting of the minimum biddable chunk, to something much much bigger than what dictated by radio technology, prevents efficient margin price discovery. If Verizon really needs that last MHz in, say, Atlanta, well, they really should have to bid it quite high, shouldn't they?

Or, risk some wireless Twitter startup eating their ARPU. To which I'd say, yay for the invisible hand.

Window shades: In case of evacuation, crew (and passengers seated in exit rows) need to be able to see whether there is fire that precludes the use of overwing exits.

Electronic devices: This does seem inconsistent. I can understand a prohibition of larger-than-handheld electronic devices, as they could conceivably get in the way during an evacuation. But then the rule should be about larger than handheld electronic devices, not things other than cellphones.

In fact allowing cellphones to be used after landing while taxiing seems inconsistent to me: If cellphones can interfere with communications equipment, that is a problem on the ground too, as pilots coordinate with the tower for active runway crossings. In fact one of the worst airline accidents ever was a ground collision where a radio communication problem was one of the chain of events. The "strict" thing to do would be to only allow handhelds other than cellphones.

A few years ago I read something in The Economist that resonates/dovetails with this article and the comments.

It basically said (I'm paraphrasing, it's all from memory) that the Bush administration and a lot of Republican senators/representatives had often confused support of free private enterprise with its subtle opposite, support of a private enterprise.

That same confusion makes appearances on TLF from time to time. CEI/AEI contibutors, that's you I'm looking at, for the most part.

Oh, it gets even nicer. I've experienced a WiFi hotspot (T-Mobile) which was attempting to transparently proxy - i.e. spoof - outbound SMTP connections on port 25.

I'm also aware of at least one, non-US, residential DSL ISP which was (and still is, to the best of my knowledge) spoofing port 25 in the same way.

So far, I haven't come across any bit-pusher that has attempted to block port 587, and I only use SSL/TLS over that anyway. I also have access to a SMTP server with a custom port.

the consumer “shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user’s use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network.”

How can the user ensure that her behavior does not violate a standard which is set in the sole judgment of Comcast, unless Comcast publishes that standard?

Do I need a special law-school-exclusive brain implant to read Comcast contracts?

Thanks.

Telcos: "Unbundling is baaaad, mmkay?"

Whatever. In unbundled Europe, I can still buy faster and cheaper DSL than what I can buy in the US. Here's a juicy example:

Greece: 10Mbit down/1Mbit up for EUR37.90/month, no volume limits, servers OK. Prices at bottom-left of page for the majority of non-Greek speakers reading this. The 29.90 number is for the non-LLU option, so there are extra telco racket fees in that case.

Oh, by the way this also includes two phone numbers, using fully PSTN-interconnected VoIP from the same provider. These come with unlimited nationwide calling and "unlimited" (probably some restriction in the fine print) calling to landlines in international destinations including US, Canada, UK etc.

I've also seen numbers like $20/month for 6Mbit DSL connections in Slovakia.

Of course I've seen second hand reports of many more such offers around Europe, but the above is what I remember off the top of my head at the moment.

So, the telcos say unbundling is bad? Puh-leeeeease.

PS As I write this, I'm trying to counter the second attempt by my local telco racket (Qwest) to mess up the CLEC installation for my new DSL line. Please allow me to be a little bitter, OK? Thanks.