PPNSteve’s Comments

• Dec 27th, 2011 @ 11:59pm

  so..

  on GoDaddy Desperately Reaching Out To Try To Win People Back
  Does this mean we won't have to suffer through yet another lame, overpriced, under produced NoDaddy Super Bowl commercial?
  
  I sure hope so.
• Feb 14th, 2011 @ 8:52pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Amazon Announces It's Leaving Texas In Tax Dispute; Governor Blames Comptroller, Says He'll Fix

  ...
  Perry then asked the state legislature to make sure that it crafts some new rules that keep Amazon from leaving. Looks like Amazon just successfully called Texas' bluff.

  SO.. THAT is how you play Texas Hold 'em Poker.
  
  I have been edumacated now.

• Oct 27th, 2010 @ 7:14pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Local News Website Says You Need To Pay To Read Its Stories, Says It's Collecting Visitor IPs To Sue
  Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80 WOW, such a nice and well maintained site.
• Apr 22nd, 2010 @ 5:27pm

  why in hell..

  on Now, Apparently It's Not Just Content Providers That Are Getting A Free Ride On Broadband Networks, But Consumers Too
  .. would I, as a internet content provider (multiple websites, videos, podcasts, etc.), want to pay TWICE or more for delivery of my content? I ALREADY pay a provider for bandwidth and their peering/transit connections in order to have my content available to any web surfer. I would NEVER consider paying any end-user ISP for content delivery, ever.
  
  As a consumer, what doers my monthly internet bill pay for? I pay for an unbridled, unblocked connection to the internet. How I use it or what I do on it is ONLY my business.
  
  To me this is just the left behind telco's attempt to wring money out of an old, bad business plan.
• Jul 15th, 2009 @ 7:07am

  Deal Breaker

  on Not That It Matters... But Appeals Court Rejects Webcasters' Challenge Over Copyright Royalties
  From the NYT article: "All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments."
  This is a deal breaker for smaller or non-profit stations who may webcast for a hobby/to friends or as a reg'd 501(c) .org
  
  Something needs to be done about this GREED that has prevailed over this industry for a while now. Make the entry into this easier and competitive. Oh wait.. that's right, they DON'T want you broadcast their artists/music at all. well good luck to them ALL when the bottom falls out from all the gunshots in their feets.
• Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:37pm

  streaming != downloading

  on Is Streaming Really Replacing Downloading?
  Streaming is all good and fine for when you are at work or home and have access to a pc for the streams.
  
  Pretty much useless for loading your mp3 player, for remixing(fair use or not), or making a mix cd for your next road trip.. you can ONLY do these things with a physical file download (or cd rip, IF you wasted your money on the cd) in a high bitrate or lossless format.
  
  Streaming is for all intents and purposes, just like basic fm radio.. useful for s few things and that's it.
  
  This applies equally to BOTH video and audio sources.
• Jul 13th, 2009 @ 11:34am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Death For Webcasters

  on Why The New Webcasting Rates Are A Death Sentence For Webcasters
  Us very little guys are not even considered in all this madness... It seems all they seem to care about is profit and business models.. what about those of us that this webcasting we do isn't for profit? its for fun, friends and so forth..
  we have 0 chances of being legit as we're not addressed in these new rates or hell even in soundexchange's policies; we're considered that same as big inet radio (live365, pandora) when we're not 'big' or don't earn anything nor charge a fee.
  
  the whole thing is stupid and lame beyond madness.
• Jul 7th, 2009 @ 11:04am

  Re: Another reason CA has a huge deficit . . .

  on California Promises No Sales Tax Due To Affiliates To Keep Amazon/Overstock Affiliates Happy
  Well I run my business from California too.. its really not that bad, really! We get paid in IOU's with a whopping 3% interest.. our base rate for (good) credit clients is 12%
  
  *sigh*
  
  BTW, would you take this IOU instead of cash for my payment?
  
  The Governator has to deal with these bought and paid for idiots in the legislature
  
  OT: I'm all for this no tax as we also affiliate sell thru amazon (and others) on some of our sites.
• Jan 10th, 2009 @ 9:02am

  DRM Good for..

  on DRM Screws Users Again: eBooks About To Disappear Due To DRM Provider Shut Down
  "Has anyone found any thing that DRM is actually good for yet?"
  
  Pissing off the users who have it forced upon them and generating lots of stories like this one.
• Jan 16th, 2008 @ 8:18am

  remember... (as PPN)

  on Is Sarbanes-Oxley Forcing Apple To Charge You To Upgrade Your WiFi?
  A $0 update is STILL worth $0 in any accounting books anywhere.
  
  Should be entered as such IF they are so worried that (offering) patches to their products will violate Sarbanes-Oxley.
  
  Sarbanes-Oxley is for their mgmt to keep accurate records and so forth.. it should rarely effect any end-user process.
• Jan 16th, 2008 @ 7:58am

  remember... (as PPN)

  on NBC Universal Explains Why ISPs Should Filter Copyrighted Works
  even universal/nbc has to have an ISP.. so if, IF you get your wish, don't came crying back to anyone complaining that your copyrighted content was blocked by your isp as you try to transfer it between various divisions, etc.
  
  this overall is a very bad idea, and i hope that the Gov stands up to this corp buyout attempt.