> FWIW, a different study looking at real-world statistical data just
> found no correlation between cell phone use and accidents:
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/08/13_cellphone.shtml
I love it when studies cancel themselves out.
Kenneth, I am sorry to hear about your incident
Mister E wrote:
> So take what legal remedies you can (sue for damages or get repairs paid
> fer, etc). Talk to the local media and see if it appeals to them to
> help your situation. Then be thankful you walked away, and with a cool
> story to tell yer grandkids later.
>
> Mister Ed
Great poi
Not long ago, Steve proclaimed...
> The cell phone thing reminds me of that old classic bumper sticker...
> "I wonder if you'ld drive any better if I took that cell phone and
> jammed it up your arse"
That's not bad. I've seen this one and it made me laugh so hard I nearly
ran off the road: "Are y
Jonathan Ellis wrote:
On 8/21/07, Mister E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ps - recent studies show that cell phone users, while driving, have the
same reaction time as do legally intoxicated drivers, so this is no lite
thing for me personally... and I would have probably done differently
above had i
The cell phone thing reminds me of that old classic bumper sticker...
"I wonder if you'ld drive any better if I took that cell phone and
jammed it up your arse"
On 8/21/07, Jonathan Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/07, Mister E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ps - recent studies show that
On 8/21/07, Mister E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ps - recent studies show that cell phone users, while driving, have the
> same reaction time as do legally intoxicated drivers, so this is no lite
> thing for me personally... and I would have probably done differently
> above had it happened recent
Jacob Albretsen wrote:
On Tuesday 21 August 2007, Scott Barlow wrote:
On 8/21/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any lawyers or police officers that can explain to me what I
am missing?
Suggestions? Comments?
Kenneth,
I happen to have a neighbor that would probably be
On Tuesday 21 August 2007, Scott Barlow wrote:
> On 8/21/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are there any lawyers or police officers that can explain to me what I
> > am missing?
> >
> > Suggestions? Comments?
>
> Kenneth,
>
> I happen to have a neighbor that would probably be int
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 17:36 -0600, Mister E wrote:
> ps - recent studies show that cell phone users, while driving, have the
> same reaction time as do legally intoxicated drivers, so this is no lite
> thing for me personally
A study at the University of Utah, no less. It showed the people who
w
Alex Esplin wrote:
On 8/21/07, Mister E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The rest is fairly true. Citations are a revenue generator. Has been
that way for the last couple of decades I've had dealings in this area.
Originally meant to be a deterrent, citations are now viable income
streams for most
On 8/21/07, Mister E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rest is fairly true. Citations are a revenue generator. Has been
> that way for the last couple of decades I've had dealings in this area.
>Originally meant to be a deterrent, citations are now viable income
> streams for most cities and tow
On 8/21/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They allow you to download and upload all you can with the bandwidth
> caps they have in place (and advertise) which is unlimited usage.
Actually they really aren't "unlimited" see:
http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
That blog was started beca
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
Steve wrote:
Feel lucky that you yourself were not cited, to be perfectly frank.
Yes you were on the phone with dispatch, but on the whole never try to
stop a hit and run driver. Thats breaking a lot of laws. I know I
very nearly evaded a citation myself last summer when
--- Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Welcome to Utah, this is pretty standard fare especially for
> Utah county.
It's not just Utah. A few years ago I was rear-ended on the
freeway by a drunk driver north of Denver. Both vehicles were
totalled.
His insurance paid off the loan on my truck, and
> I could have been cited for following the driver who hit me? That
would
> seem as ridiculous as suing McDonalds for burning yourself with hot
> coffee, or suing a hope owner because you fell through their skylight
> when trying to rob them! I know the rules... the victim is guilty
> because he/
--- Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I don't agree, why can't they? They have the right to
> refuse service to anyone -- just like a restaurant can if
> you're not wearing shoes. If you don't like their service, take
> your business elsewhere.
Why exactly do you suppose that
Blocking torrents is completely different than "unlimited" usage.
They allow you to download and upload all you can with the bandwidth
caps they have in place (and advertise) which is unlimited usage. At
the same time, they are restricting some of the less used (by number of
customers) ports
--- Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue here isn't what services should or should not be
> open, but what makes the company providing the service money,
> and what loses them money.
Then let your customers know up front what they are and aren't
allowed to do on your network. If
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> I could have been cited for following the driver who hit me? That would
> seem as ridiculous as suing McDonalds for burning yourself with hot
> coffee, or suing a hope owner because you fell through their skylight
> when trying to rob them! I know the rules... the victim
Steve wrote:
> Feel lucky that you yourself were not cited, to be perfectly frank.
> Yes you were on the phone with dispatch, but on the whole never try to
> stop a hit and run driver. Thats breaking a lot of laws. I know I
> very nearly evaded a citation myself last summer when a guy in a SUV
> h
Just another thought, but the car dealer would likely be liable as well.
On 8/21/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As sad as this sounds.. She was probably smoking hot. That is why
> > she got off free.
>
> Yeah… how long did you say the officers were in her house?
>
>
>
As sad as this sounds.. She was probably smoking hot. That is why
she got off free.
Yeah… how long did you say the officers were in her house?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/o
Welcome to Utah, this is pretty standard fare especially for Utah county.
It has to do with the fact that a substantial amount of revenue is
generated from the issuance and enforcement of relatively low level
citations against those for whom enforcement will be easy, i.e. Middle
Income, stable folk
On 8/21/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking, if the roles were reversed, I am fairly certain that I
> would have spend the night in jail, and probably would have accrued all
> 3 citations. How on Earth did she get off Scott free?
As sad as this sounds.. She was pr
On 8/21/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Are there any lawyers or police officers that can explain to me what I
> am missing?
>
> Suggestions? Comments?
>
>
Kenneth,
I happen to have a neighbor that would probably be interested in hearing
your story:
http://provoinjurylaw.co
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> On 8/21/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The weird part is that because they couldn't find the guy who
> did it anymore it became a hit and run which to our delight did not
> require us to pay the deductible. Your insurance may vary, of course.
We aren'
On 8/21/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> Suggestions? Comments?
Wild. I'm sorry you went through that. My comment is that we had
someone smash our car in a parking lot. The guy who did it gave us a
phone number and said that the car he was driving was borrowed. We
gav
This is very much off topic, other than it happened in the Orem area,
and I just wanted to vent and hopefully get suggestions from my fellow
geeks.
Last Friday at around 7pm I was driving home north on 1200 West in
Orem. I stopped at the 800 North stop light with one car in front of
me. A silver
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 19:01 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Corey Edwards wrote:
> > Let me give you a better example with some hard figures. As you may have
> > inferred (I certainly do not attempt to hide it), I work for an ISP. We
> > offer wireless service and occasionally will see problems
> On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:33 -0600, Clint Savage wrote:
> Let me give you a better example with some hard figures. As you may have
> inferred (I certainly do not attempt to hide it), I work for an ISP. We
> offer wireless service and occasionally will see problems caused by p2p
> filesharing. The
Back to the almighty dollar.
You block http, you loose 99% of customers. You block torrent, you
loose 2% of your customers, all of which cost a lot more than they bring in.
And yes, they are perfectly within their legal rights to block VoIP if
they want to, especially if they have a valid bu
> I agree with you Clint. They have ever right to throttle your
> connection, generally-speaking. But it's a concerning precedent when your
> ISP decides they determine what services you can and can not connect to.
>
> Let's say they want you to use Comcast digital phone service. Maybe they
> start
On 8/21/07, u235sentinel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately Comcast doesn't care. They are a Government sponsored
> monopoly and will do whatever they please to whomever they please.
>
> The ONLY way this can be solved it with an infrastructure as provided by
> Utopia or Verizon FioS.
>
>
Not long ago, Clint Savage proclaimed...
> I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing
> their TOS is appropriate. I don't think that's the issue here though.
> The real issue is:
>
> If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across
> their wires, what's
> Just curious, what other options are there? I can get 8Mb/s with Comcast.
> The only other option I can think of is Qwest - are there other decent
> solutions for internet/phone/TV that will be just as cost-effective? I want
> out so bad, but can't come up with a better solution - there's simpl
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:33 -0600, Clint Savage wrote:
> On 8/21/07, Corey Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about an ISP blocking the latest virus/worm? Would you rather they
> > didn't block that traffic? Wouldn't an ISP be considered derelict of
> > duty if they failed to block it?
>
On 8/21/07, Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > While I don't agree, why can't they? They have the right to refuse
> > service to anyone—just like a restaurant can if you're not wearing
> > shoes. If you don't like their service, take your business elsewhere.
>
> And I will take my busine
> I think this is all backwards. A business doesn't have to do what the
> customers wants... HOWEVER, it certainly helps their business to grow and
> expand and keep loyal customers. How many people believe that microsoft
> should open source or do whatever and they don't. Or feel they are unfa
> I don't think it's as black and white as you're painting it. They're
> looking at it as, "since when do we not have the right to say what
> types of traffic we transmit across our own network."
>
> Most people, I think, would agree that ISPs are not obligated to allow
> known spam across. Where
On 8/21/07, Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/21/07, Corey Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:02 -0600, Clint Savage wrote:
> > > I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing
> > > their TOS is appropriate. I don't think that's the i
On 8/21/07, Corey Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:02 -0600, Clint Savage wrote:
> > I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing
> > their TOS is appropriate. I don't think that's the issue here though.
> > The real issue is:
> >
> > If Comcast c
On 8/21/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That still doesn't make what they are doing illegal or unethical,
> does it?
Having a monopoly on High Speed internet? Unethical? You decide. If
you could only get TV through one cable provider (no OTA, no
satellite) and that cable pr
On 8/21/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I will take my business elsewhere. That we can agree on.
> >
> > The point is that if they can control a particular type of protocol,
> > what's to stop them from saying "well http is costing us too much so
> > we'll start limitin
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:02 -0600, Clint Savage wrote:
> I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing
> their TOS is appropriate. I don't think that's the issue here though.
> The real issue is:
>
> If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across
> their
I should also point out that "going away" from a particular service
provider isn't always an option when the access is needed/required.
Again, how do you fight something when you *must* have it?
Is it _really_ your only solution? Where are you located?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptograp
In many places along the wasatch front, there is no "elsewhere"
(except dial-up). If there was a viable alternative "elsewhere" many
of us would take our business there.
That still doesn't make what they are doing illegal or unethical,
does it?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic s
And I will take my business elsewhere. That we can agree on.
The point is that if they can control a particular type of protocol,
what's to stop them from saying "well http is costing us too much so
we'll start limiting it"
Nothing. Don't they have the right to provide whatever service they
> Taking my service away from comcast means that they have one less
> person providing them with residual income. Eventually, enoug people
> will take their hard earned money elsewhere and they'll have to do
> something. That's what this is about!
I should also point out that "going away" from a
On 8/21/07, Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across
> their wires, what's to stop them (or another major/minor ISP) from
> doing it to other protocols/traffic. Since when is it illegal to use
> bittorrent? Since when does an IS
> While I don't agree, why can't they? They have the right to refuse
> service to anyone—just like a restaurant can if you're not wearing
> shoes. If you don't like their service, take your business elsewhere.
And I will take my business elsewhere. That we can agree on.
The point is that if they
On 8/21/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> shoes. If you don't like their service, take your business elsewhere.
In many places along the wasatch front, there is no "elsewhere"
(except dial-up). If there was a viable alternative "elsewhere" many
of us would take our business
If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across
their wires, what's to stop them (or another major/minor ISP) from
doing it to other protocols/traffic. Since when is it illegal to use
bittorrent? Since when does an ISP have the right to say what types
of traffic I can send?
I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing
their TOS is appropriate. I don't think that's the issue here though.
The real issue is:
If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across
their wires, what's to stop them (or another major/minor ISP) from
doing
On 8/21/07, Matthew Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, August 21, 2007 9:39 am, Jason Hall wrote:
> > My isp is unlimited, but does mention in very easy to find parts of the
> > contract that after 12gb, they might rate-limit (not block) certain P2P
> > services. Great, they were up-
On Tue, August 21, 2007 9:39 am, Jason Hall wrote:
> My isp is unlimited, but does mention in very easy to find parts of the
> contract that after 12gb, they might rate-limit (not block) certain P2P
> services. Great, they were up-front about it, had reasonable amounts, and
> I know what I'm get
On 8/21/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The issue here isn't what services should or should not be open, but
> what makes the company providing the service money, and what looses them
> money.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is what *should* happen, and w
On 8/21/07, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The issue here isn't what services should or should not be open, but
> what makes the company providing the service money, and what looses them
> money.
>
> Say they charge $30/month for the cable modem service. After
> infrastructure cost
The issue here isn't what services should or should not be open, but
what makes the company providing the service money, and what looses them
money.
Say they charge $30/month for the cable modem service. After
infrastructure costs (helpdesk, installation, fiber runs, routers,
servers, etc) a
Sorry for the cross-post, but I think this one is worth it.
I've come to the conclusion that the way that companies like Comcast
and Dell work is by us making a stink. Recently, a post caught my
attention and I want to do my part to stop the tiered internet before
it starts.
My friend Christer E
59 matches
Mail list logo
