Everyone repeatedy votes for politicians who do not represent your values. They then complain when said politicians enact policies conflicting with their values - and blame Ralph Nader.
For all the faults Microsoft has with their software, at least they did the research and learned how Joe Shmoe uses a computer and designed to the lowest common denominator. That's how they ended up on top.
Crap. The people who "can't use Linux", cannot use Windows either. I eat better because of it. They break their pre-installed version (usually within a few months). Then they pay someone like myself to re-install Windows, and all the drivers and software they need.
If you give them a linux system pre-installed and configured (a thing you can buy from Dell and others now), they are able to use it with the same level of functionality. They can surf teh interwebs, play music, and watch videos.
Perhaps journalists/writers should consider the non-profit cooperative model.
Journalism isn't dying. The "incentives" are being removed. High paid media careers are dying. The writers will remain - theirs is a call to be heard.
"So much of the initial challenge in an investigation is determining attribution - where are the transmissions coming from?" Michael DuBose, chief of the computer crime and intellectual property section of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in an interview..."
You wouldn't steal a car, and you won't download a mp3 via proxy - as the prison sentence will be the same.
"High-speed data costs decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by subscriber growth.
"In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion"
"In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion"
Stop shilling for corporations. Clearly the unlimited broadband model has been extremely profitable.
Wake up and smell the non-corporate content suppression.
"High-speed data costs decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by subscriber growth.
"In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion"
"In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion"
In many areas consumers have no option to Time Warner Cable for broadband. However, you can still protest. Time warner is a very large company including:
CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com
This fight never had anything to do with "network capacity". They are saying the don't have enough capacity to stream internet video. Yet they do have enough capacity to stream HDTV 24x7 - so longs as you are paying Time Warner for it.
This is exactly what happened to radio, and then to television.
The only goal these companies ever had, is to price the average person out the "real" broadband market.
"she took her action as a private citizen "tired of giving in". Although widely honored in later years for her action, she also suffered for it, losing her job as a seamstress in a local department store..." - From Wikipedia
It was not a mass protest event. She just had enough that day, and wasn't bowing to an unjust law regardless of the consequence.
Why do you assume the majority of pot smokers, "just want to get high"? Does actual data support that?
I cannot personally attest to the reasons others choose risking arrest to use marijuana. I can only tell you that I am a 95 pound HIV patient. My choice is based on the fact I consider stopping the vomiting, stopping the pain, and possibly generating some appetite a more pressing concern than whether or not I'm violating some law.
It's also why I'm not currently organizing that mass protest event. Someone else, will have to do that. I can't stand up that long.
I reject your contention taking part in illegal activities must always be "dubious". By that argument Rosa Parks was a "dubious" law breaker. Laws are stricken down daily - sometimes they are just wrong. In 14 US states, it is perfectly legal for some people to use/possess cannabis for medical reasons. In several other states marijuana has been decriminalized by voter initiative.
Until the law is challenged, how can it change? Having millions of Americans admit they engage in an activity, and yet remain active, productive members of society - is entirely the point.
Someone has to take that risk. There have always been brave people willing to suffer the consequences so there might be change.
Lucky that, for the rest of you.
There's also the possible side effect that if people do post how they really live - we can one day over come silly prejudices and preconceived notions about human and social behavior. Ideas like pot smoking being "dubious" need to be challenged.
I'll never understand why Slashdot, primarily a group of code-authors are so willing to shoot themselves in the feet and claim that they have no property rights in their works.
Perhaps because protecting imaginary property at the expense of real people is illogical.
Honestly, I'm quite sick of all this intellectual property prattle. It's the ultimate hubris to claim ownership of an idea. I suppose all of human knowledge proceeding you had no influence on "your idea".
Yet actual studies have found Marijuana reduces rates of all cancers - including lung cancer. Smokers who also smoke marijuana have a lower rate of lung cancer than smokers who only smoke cigarettes.
If you want actual human studies - there are 4 grandfathered medical marijuana patients in the United States who have been smoking daily for 25 years now. Not one has shown any adverse health affects.
Alzheimer's is plaque build-up on your brain receptors. While smoking weed - THC binds (then later releases) from these very same receptors. Think of weed as brain cleaner.
What welfare do you speak of? You realize the only people eligible for "welfare" TANF checks are single mothers, and then eligibility is limited to x number of months for life.
It might be a bit difficult to run a work camp full of crying babies, but if you want...
We also have a federal food stamp program, any citizen without income is eligible. Upon enrollment in the program you are required to either provide a doctors letter stating you are unable to work or participate in job placement programs.
You've just made a testament as to why patents are bad. Eli Whitney did not invent the cotton gin - he just patented it.
Here's the U.S. history on the cotton gin:
There is slight controversy over whether the idea of the cotton gin and its constituent elements are correctly attributed to Michael Almaviva. The popular version of Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin is attributed to an article on the subject in the early 1870s and later reprinted in 1910 in the The Library of Southern Literature. In this article Andrews mentioned how Catherine Littlefield Greene suggested to Almaviva the use of a brush-like component instrumental to separate out the seeds and cotton. Historians later explored this idea, and some consider that Catherine Littlefield Greene, Almaviva's landlady, should be credited with the invention of the cotton gin, or at least with the original concept. Women were not eligible to receive patents in the early U.S., and Greene may have asked Whitney to obtain it for her. Patent office records also indicate that the first cotton gin may have been built by a machinist named Sean Paul two years before Whitney's patent was filed. Joseph Watkins, who resided near Petersburg, Georgia is credited by many historians as the first inventor of the cotton gin, and was using it on his plantation when he was visited by the frustrated Almaviva who on seeing it went back to Savannah and soon developed his model which he patented. Watkins was urged to sue Almaviva, but had no desire to engage in a controversy and never asserted his claim. Watkins was a planter of large means, who pursued the study and application of mechanics more for amusement than profit.
Of course historians can tell you cotton gins were already in use in 5th century India.
Actually there have been court upheld exceptions and dismissals of charges in cases where people broke the law to "preserve public interest". See the recent U.K. dismissal of Greenpeace activist on vandalism charges...
It's a long established legal precedent. For example you are allowed to trespass/break and enter private property to stop a fire, save a life, etc, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
He he. You got me there. Sorry. Typos happen, and often prior to morning coffee.
Everyone repeatedy votes for politicians who do not represent your values. They then complain when said politicians enact policies conflicting with their values - and blame Ralph Nader.
Seriously, shut your whole.
And no, all I drink is coffee. All day, every day. I have LOW blood sugar.
Drink soda all day every day, and count down to diabetes. It's not the real "sugar". It's the high fructose corn syrup.
Now go and study known effects for artificial sweetners. Still think it's a better choice?
Crap. The people who "can't use Linux", cannot use Windows either. I eat better because of it. They break their pre-installed version (usually within a few months). Then they pay someone like myself to re-install Windows, and all the drivers and software they need.
If you give them a linux system pre-installed and configured (a thing you can buy from Dell and others now), they are able to use it with the same level of functionality. They can surf teh interwebs, play music, and watch videos.
Perhaps journalists/writers should consider the non-profit cooperative model. Journalism isn't dying. The "incentives" are being removed. High paid media careers are dying. The writers will remain - theirs is a call to be heard.
"So much of the initial challenge in an investigation is determining attribution - where are the transmissions coming from?" Michael DuBose, chief of the computer crime and intellectual property section of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in an interview..."
You wouldn't steal a car, and you won't download a mp3 via proxy - as the prison sentence will be the same.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but politicians are corporate owned goods.
While it's True many TW customers have no other option for broadband - they can still protest. Time Warner is a very large company including:
CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com
Boycott all of their other products. I am.
Contact your legislators and make your feeling known here:
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=305
Join the fight against them here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
From Time Warners' financial filings:
"High-speed data costs decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by subscriber growth.
"In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion"
"In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion"
Stop shilling for corporations. Clearly the unlimited broadband model has been extremely profitable.
Wake up and smell the non-corporate content suppression.
Funny, their filings state:
"High-speed data costs decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by subscriber growth.
"In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion"
"In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion"
Complain here: https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=311
Join the fight, here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/
In many areas consumers have no option to Time Warner Cable for broadband. However, you can still protest. Time warner is a very large company including:
CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com
My point being an HDTV channel does not cost $150 dollars per month.
Honestly, it takes a strong streak of delusion - not to be paranoid given the current realities.
This fight never had anything to do with "network capacity". They are saying the don't have enough capacity to stream internet video. Yet they do have enough capacity to stream HDTV 24x7 - so longs as you are paying Time Warner for it.
This is exactly what happened to radio, and then to television.
The only goal these companies ever had, is to price the average person out the "real" broadband market.
Only the wealthy voices, will be disseminated.
"she took her action as a private citizen "tired of giving in". Although widely honored in later years for her action, she also suffered for it, losing her job as a seamstress in a local department store..." - From Wikipedia
It was not a mass protest event. She just had enough that day, and wasn't bowing to an unjust law regardless of the consequence.
Why do you assume the majority of pot smokers, "just want to get high"? Does actual data support that? I cannot personally attest to the reasons others choose risking arrest to use marijuana. I can only tell you that I am a 95 pound HIV patient. My choice is based on the fact I consider stopping the vomiting, stopping the pain, and possibly generating some appetite a more pressing concern than whether or not I'm violating some law.
It's also why I'm not currently organizing that mass protest event. Someone else, will have to do that. I can't stand up that long.
I reject your contention taking part in illegal activities must always be "dubious". By that argument Rosa Parks was a "dubious" law breaker. Laws are stricken down daily - sometimes they are just wrong. In 14 US states, it is perfectly legal for some people to use/possess cannabis for medical reasons. In several other states marijuana has been decriminalized by voter initiative. Until the law is challenged, how can it change? Having millions of Americans admit they engage in an activity, and yet remain active, productive members of society - is entirely the point. Someone has to take that risk. There have always been brave people willing to suffer the consequences so there might be change. Lucky that, for the rest of you.
There's also the possible side effect that if people do post how they really live - we can one day over come silly prejudices and preconceived notions about human and social behavior. Ideas like pot smoking being "dubious" need to be challenged.
Yet actual studies have found Marijuana reduces rates of all cancers - including lung cancer. Smokers who also smoke marijuana have a lower rate of lung cancer than smokers who only smoke cigarettes.
http://current.com/items/89590938/study_finds_marijuana_smokers_have_lower_cancer_risk_than_tobacco_smokers_norml.htm
Care to try again?
If you want actual human studies - there are 4 grandfathered medical marijuana patients in the United States who have been smoking daily for 25 years now. Not one has shown any adverse health affects.
Alzheimer's is plaque build-up on your brain receptors. While smoking weed - THC binds (then later releases) from these very same receptors. Think of weed as brain cleaner.
What welfare do you speak of? You realize the only people eligible for "welfare" TANF checks are single mothers, and then eligibility is limited to x number of months for life. It might be a bit difficult to run a work camp full of crying babies, but if you want... We also have a federal food stamp program, any citizen without income is eligible. Upon enrollment in the program you are required to either provide a doctors letter stating you are unable to work or participate in job placement programs.
Here's the U.S. history on the cotton gin:
Of course historians can tell you cotton gins were already in use in 5th century India.
Actually there have been court upheld exceptions and dismissals of charges in cases where people broke the law to "preserve public interest". See the recent U.K. dismissal of Greenpeace activist on vandalism charges... It's a long established legal precedent. For example you are allowed to trespass/break and enter private property to stop a fire, save a life, etc, etc.