What happens if you run a site that does _nothing_ but post CC images in a slide-show fashion along side advertisements?
Maybe that shows direct profit from the images?
What if they type a one paragraph "article" or "review" once a month or so and put that on some sub page, along with CC images and ads?
What if they put that "article" or "review" on the main page, along with CC images and ads?
Where is the line?
In my opinion, if you're being paid merely for having your site (through advertisement agreements), anything on that site is now for personal and/or commercial gain. The whole idea is to entice users to come, increasing advertising profits. Anything on that site is meant to draw in users. It's a direct correlation, the way I see it.
Frankly, I think Apple is a very good company for its shareholders. Its also great if you want something that (generally) just works without thinking. With that "ease" comes the problem of very limited choices. You're on an entirely proprietary platform, especially on their phones, ipod, ipad, etc. That's part of what makes it such an easy to use system.
That's not an inherently bad point, but it is one that makes me not want their products. Why? Because I like to run programs I want to run. If you make a program and I want to run it, I want the choice to do so. I don't want Steve Jobs saying "oh, I'm sorry, that doesn't work for us so we're not going to allow it to be distributed.".
That entirely kills the deal for me.
Plus the smug attitude Apple tends to take with regards to their sense of superiority. To sum it up nicely with a recent paraphrase of a quote: "You're holding our phone wrong". Great thing to tell your customers and great thing for those that aren't customers to hear. No, Apple didn't make a design that is sub-par in certain situations, no, you're holding it wrong. Holy arrogance.
I admit their gadgets are neat and tidy and seem to work with zero brain power in most cases. But me being a tech geek, I like to toy around with my toys. I like to get things working that normally wouldn't or that need tweaking to get a power use out of it (classic hacking).
On the other hand, am I a Linux fanboi? God no. I like it because it's free and allows me to hack around. Is it perfect? Holy crap far from it. The amount of times I've wanted to pull my hair out because simple things just don't work out of the box (sound, graphics, etc, etc). Am I a Windows fanboi? Eek, no. It does the job for things I need Windows for (apps I use for work, certain games, etc). But on a whole, Windows ends up being full of security risks and bloat like no other.
The one thing MS does allow you to do, besides pay them a lot of money, is install whatever you want. So that's a plus.
Apple charges you a lot and tells you exactly what you can and can't run. But if the twelve apps you want to run happen to be stuff Apple allows, enjoy! Just don't complain when there is some tool you want to hack around with that Apple simply says, no, you can't have it for x and y reasons.
So do I hate apple for legitimate reasons or just because they are fun to hate? They don't work for me. That's the way I see it. I want to mess around with my devices and not be told I'm not allowed.
However, I will agree that since I don't use them, they are easy to knock, but I try to do so only when it is deserved and not merely because its fashionable to do so.
TL;DR - I don't like their offerings at their prices along with their strict, allowed vs not allowed walled garden.
I'm not really sure what stance you're taking as four words doesn't really tell me your angle.
But I'm honestly curious.
Not to godwin, and again, I'm entirely serious as well as curious here. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, how would you have dealt with Hitler and the Nazi regime without spilling blood?
Of course, if you sign your rights away to the digital version of your work, it's theirs. Not arguing that point in any way. But for those that haven't explicitly signed away any rights/privileges/licenses to their digital versions, it should be theirs.
No one can say that they have some implicit right to your version of work that isn't already covered by a contract. It just doesn't work that way, and rightfully so.
Publishers, whether it be of music, books, etc, all seem to have this idea that they are entitled to more of the profits than the people who actually _created_ the work.
Now, in the case of physical items, such as printed books, etc, there is the issue of mass producing it, distribution, deals with resellers, etc, etc. I can see where merely _creating_ the original can potentially pale in comparison to the work it takes to actually make/move/sell the item.
But, in the case of digital distribution, it takes next to nothing to make after the initial eBook/PDF is created. Merely the cost of duplicating those bits which equates to a tiny amount of electricity and then a little bit more plus bandwidth to push the item. Pennies. Sold with a _heafty_ profit margin.
Why would a publisher need to take all this profit? Or even a large percentage? They have next to no costs associated with the make/move/sell aspect of digital distribution. Sure, some guy at the end of the road, such as Amazon, needs an online storefront to actually make the sale, but beyond that these things are pretty much on par with Star Trek Replicators. Poof! another copy! Poof! Ten million more!
Damn straight the creators get the majority of the cut on this form of media/distribution. No need for presses, warehouses, massive shipping requirements, shelf space, etc, etc, etc.
PC's are built using standard form factors. This allows PC's to have parts easily changed out and/or replaced. Crunching it down as tight as possible would eliminate a lot of choices for upgrades and probably just make it a proprietary device with proprietary components. If that's what you're after, there are many proprietary choices on the market today.
Exactly, why innovate or come up with new ideas when there are old things that could potentially do the same thing! You're seriously arguing that they should be purchasing $50-100 desktops and locking them up instead of spreading around $35 ultra portable tablets?
"India has unveiled the prototype of a $35 basic touchscreen tablet aimed at students, which it hopes to bring into production by 2011. The government plans to subsidize the tablets so the cost to students could be $20; and eventually, they hope the cost will fall to $10 per unit."
Sounds like the unit actually costs $35 to make in India.
With initial subsidy: $20
Cost drop with sustained subsidy: $10 hopefully (cheaper parts, etc)
You know it won't be a great PC for $35, but if it has WiFi, does basic web browsing (non-flash, etc, just JavaScript) and can display PDF's/eBooks.. WIN!. A take anywhere and not worry about it PC.
I'm going to have to agree. For $35 I'd pick one up just to see what it does. Even if I had to get a wireless kb/mouse to use it, it would still be an interesting toy. The funny part is, the wireless kb/mouse combo might cost more than the tablet!
It's both 55% and 110 proof. Just because you don't "like" the unit of measurement doesn't mean that every manufacturer of alcohol must all of a sudden stop using the unit. I would also submit that those who purchase the $765 beer probably know what "proof" means. You, on the other hand, probably should be finding other hobbies to spend your cash on, alcohol doesn't appear to be something you like and/or know much about.
Add another layer to your tinfoil hat.. I'm not saying what you're suggesting can't happen, but that's not the goal of net neutrality and imagining worst case, back room, scenarios is pointless to argue about.
Onto "Free market solves everything" mantra. No, it will not solve anything unless the fiber that is laid down (read: already there) is open to equal opportunity leasing at fair prices (which means it has to be governmentally regulated) that the small ISP can afford. Otherwise the costs of entry into the market are way too huge and the telco's will simply drop their price enough to not allow the little guy running new fiber to profit, thus sinking their business.
Think about it, if you have no right to their fiber, you have to run your own across the city. That will cost millions, easily. You ignore the cost as you think you can make it up later so you start running fiber. The telco's in the area decide, hey, it's costing them millions, lets just drop our prices to make everyone using them switch to us. Now all your subscribers jump ship because ATT just dropped their service plans to $1 a year. You go under, they buy you out, thanks for the new fiber.
Free market won't work with entrenched telco's who already have the fiber in place plus the will and means to bully you out of the market.
You do realize that net neutrality is the _absence_ of filtering, right?
See, the whole idea is that an ISP that also owns other companies, or is affiliated somehow, can't step in and decide what is and isn't viewable, charge more, etc.
I'm not sure if you want to ween someone onto firearms.
The kid was apparently itching to go military, which is great as we need people willing to fight for our rights! But from the tone it sounded like he was gungho on firearms and wanted to join the guys who shoot lots of them since it was fun in games.
A healthy dose of reality, in my opinion, is a good starter. Show him how difficult and how dangerous they can be before you give him a taste of putting real holes in things, or people.
In short, weapons are to be respected. Starting you off on a weapon that is easy to _not_ respect isn't the best strategy, in my opinion. Let him feel a powerful weapon and if he shows respect and an appetite to learn more, awesome!
It's harder to get a scoop that will be picked up globally (internet) versus just local? Why isn't that hard to imagine?
Journalists no longer have to beat the other local journalists to the punch, they have to beat _every_ journalist to the punch. Welcome to the internet.
Exactly, if you can provide proof of employment with the government on a classified project (which means you held a clearance), I'm sure your prospective employer would be more apt to choose you over Joe whose resume lists Geek Squad as his last employer. Even if your duties are entirely blank.
Labeling people as enemy combatants and detaining them without trial sucks and is deplorable. I'd be at a total loss for what to do if I, or someone I cared for, was in that situation. But comparing what happens to a relatively small group of people (GITMO detainees) and what happens to the entire population of China (freedom of speech/access to information) are again, in two totally different leagues. I'm not in any way suggesting I support, let alone tolerate GITMO, but we're talking apples and oranges.
Just putting this out there, but helping prop up failing businesses is not, at least in my opinion, as bad as oppressing your population's "right" to have access to otherwise publicly available information.
I see where you are trying to equate the two, but they really are in two different leagues.
I think it would go more along the lines of, "If a user is on the phone with 911 and their hand happens to bridge the uninsulated antenna's does the possibility of the call dropping increase to an unacceptable level?".
Doesn't insulating it technically make it no longer truly external? Whether it is encased in 10 inches of plastic or 1/4 mm, it's still protected from conductive surfaces, which is the point.
Nobody ever leaves uninsulated antennas exposed on mobile phones (such as what Apple has done with the 4G), which is exactly how I interpreted the OP.
It is most certainly broad if you can't distinguish between discussing a Consumer Report's report about a product on that products forums versus maliciously damaging someone's property.
Those two things are really quite different with the only correlation being writing down words on a medium. The distinction is the form, the intent, and the forum.
I play games (not wow anymore, thankfully) to escape the realities of life. I play to just dissolve into a game world for 15 minutes, an hour, whatever. I don't need to make a comment on the forums that some 12 year old doesn't like who then turns around and uses my unique real life name to then go to my facebook and post my pictures with penises drawn all over it. Sounds harmless and in reality I wouldn't be hurt by it, but it's just unnecessary BS I'd have to put up with that involves me, personally, in real life.
With my name, you can easily find out what my personal address is, what my phone number is, etc. Who is to say a disgruntled 12 year old guildmate, of whom I just kicked out of the guild, won't simply start prank calling me. Or, I get 4 chan'd by the same jerk and thousands of people start pranking me. I would call that a very real form of IRL griefing.
It's a game where irrational kids frequent. This isn't a professional support forum for diagnosing routing issues where you can post with very little chance of an enraged 12 year old trying to annoy you in real life.
But above and beyond all of that... I should simply have the right to not provide my personal information when I choose. Not when Blizzard chooses.
Absolute M.F. Win on that users part. Probably got a ban but drove the point home faster than any other method I can think of.
PII is so scary to give out. Anyone with google can simply pop your name in and can come up with google street view pictures of your house with your car in the driveway.
Games are for fun, relaxing, and escaping reality. Not providing _your_ reality to random internet citizens to scrutinize at will.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens if you run a site that does _nothing_ but post CC images in a slide-show fashion along side advertisements?
Maybe that shows direct profit from the images?
What if they type a one paragraph "article" or "review" once a month or so and put that on some sub page, along with CC images and ads?
What if they put that "article" or "review" on the main page, along with CC images and ads?
Where is the line?
In my opinion, if you're being paid merely for having your site (through advertisement agreements), anything on that site is now for personal and/or commercial gain. The whole idea is to entice users to come, increasing advertising profits. Anything on that site is meant to draw in users. It's a direct correlation, the way I see it.
Frankly, I think Apple is a very good company for its shareholders. Its also great if you want something that (generally) just works without thinking. With that "ease" comes the problem of very limited choices. You're on an entirely proprietary platform, especially on their phones, ipod, ipad, etc. That's part of what makes it such an easy to use system.
That's not an inherently bad point, but it is one that makes me not want their products. Why? Because I like to run programs I want to run. If you make a program and I want to run it, I want the choice to do so. I don't want Steve Jobs saying "oh, I'm sorry, that doesn't work for us so we're not going to allow it to be distributed.".
That entirely kills the deal for me.
Plus the smug attitude Apple tends to take with regards to their sense of superiority. To sum it up nicely with a recent paraphrase of a quote: "You're holding our phone wrong". Great thing to tell your customers and great thing for those that aren't customers to hear. No, Apple didn't make a design that is sub-par in certain situations, no, you're holding it wrong. Holy arrogance.
I admit their gadgets are neat and tidy and seem to work with zero brain power in most cases. But me being a tech geek, I like to toy around with my toys. I like to get things working that normally wouldn't or that need tweaking to get a power use out of it (classic hacking).
On the other hand, am I a Linux fanboi? God no. I like it because it's free and allows me to hack around. Is it perfect? Holy crap far from it. The amount of times I've wanted to pull my hair out because simple things just don't work out of the box (sound, graphics, etc, etc). Am I a Windows fanboi? Eek, no. It does the job for things I need Windows for (apps I use for work, certain games, etc). But on a whole, Windows ends up being full of security risks and bloat like no other.
The one thing MS does allow you to do, besides pay them a lot of money, is install whatever you want. So that's a plus.
Apple charges you a lot and tells you exactly what you can and can't run. But if the twelve apps you want to run happen to be stuff Apple allows, enjoy! Just don't complain when there is some tool you want to hack around with that Apple simply says, no, you can't have it for x and y reasons.
So do I hate apple for legitimate reasons or just because they are fun to hate? They don't work for me. That's the way I see it. I want to mess around with my devices and not be told I'm not allowed.
However, I will agree that since I don't use them, they are easy to knock, but I try to do so only when it is deserved and not merely because its fashionable to do so.
TL;DR - I don't like their offerings at their prices along with their strict, allowed vs not allowed walled garden.
Ya, I hate Apple and its products as much as the next anti-fanboi, but this submission just comes across as.. juvenile?
One step away from an ad hominem attack.
I'm not really sure what stance you're taking as four words doesn't really tell me your angle.
But I'm honestly curious.
Not to godwin, and again, I'm entirely serious as well as curious here. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, how would you have dealt with Hitler and the Nazi regime without spilling blood?
What other solution was there?
Of course, if you sign your rights away to the digital version of your work, it's theirs. Not arguing that point in any way. But for those that haven't explicitly signed away any rights/privileges/licenses to their digital versions, it should be theirs.
No one can say that they have some implicit right to your version of work that isn't already covered by a contract. It just doesn't work that way, and rightfully so.
Publishers, whether it be of music, books, etc, all seem to have this idea that they are entitled to more of the profits than the people who actually _created_ the work.
Now, in the case of physical items, such as printed books, etc, there is the issue of mass producing it, distribution, deals with resellers, etc, etc. I can see where merely _creating_ the original can potentially pale in comparison to the work it takes to actually make/move/sell the item.
But, in the case of digital distribution, it takes next to nothing to make after the initial eBook/PDF is created. Merely the cost of duplicating those bits which equates to a tiny amount of electricity and then a little bit more plus bandwidth to push the item. Pennies. Sold with a _heafty_ profit margin.
Why would a publisher need to take all this profit? Or even a large percentage? They have next to no costs associated with the make/move/sell aspect of digital distribution. Sure, some guy at the end of the road, such as Amazon, needs an online storefront to actually make the sale, but beyond that these things are pretty much on par with Star Trek Replicators. Poof! another copy! Poof! Ten million more!
Damn straight the creators get the majority of the cut on this form of media/distribution. No need for presses, warehouses, massive shipping requirements, shelf space, etc, etc, etc.
PC's are built using standard form factors. This allows PC's to have parts easily changed out and/or replaced. Crunching it down as tight as possible would eliminate a lot of choices for upgrades and probably just make it a proprietary device with proprietary components. If that's what you're after, there are many proprietary choices on the market today.
Exactly, why innovate or come up with new ideas when there are old things that could potentially do the same thing! You're seriously arguing that they should be purchasing $50-100 desktops and locking them up instead of spreading around $35 ultra portable tablets?
"India has unveiled the prototype of a $35 basic touchscreen tablet aimed at students, which it hopes to bring into production by 2011. The government plans to subsidize the tablets so the cost to students could be $20; and eventually, they hope the cost will fall to $10 per unit."
Sounds like the unit actually costs $35 to make in India.
With initial subsidy: $20
Cost drop with sustained subsidy: $10 hopefully (cheaper parts, etc)
You know it won't be a great PC for $35, but if it has WiFi, does basic web browsing (non-flash, etc, just JavaScript) and can display PDF's/eBooks.. WIN!. A take anywhere and not worry about it PC.
I'm going to have to agree. For $35 I'd pick one up just to see what it does. Even if I had to get a wireless kb/mouse to use it, it would still be an interesting toy. The funny part is, the wireless kb/mouse combo might cost more than the tablet!
It's both 55% and 110 proof. Just because you don't "like" the unit of measurement doesn't mean that every manufacturer of alcohol must all of a sudden stop using the unit. I would also submit that those who purchase the $765 beer probably know what "proof" means. You, on the other hand, probably should be finding other hobbies to spend your cash on, alcohol doesn't appear to be something you like and/or know much about.
Add another layer to your tinfoil hat.. I'm not saying what you're suggesting can't happen, but that's not the goal of net neutrality and imagining worst case, back room, scenarios is pointless to argue about.
Onto "Free market solves everything" mantra. No, it will not solve anything unless the fiber that is laid down (read: already there) is open to equal opportunity leasing at fair prices (which means it has to be governmentally regulated) that the small ISP can afford. Otherwise the costs of entry into the market are way too huge and the telco's will simply drop their price enough to not allow the little guy running new fiber to profit, thus sinking their business.
Think about it, if you have no right to their fiber, you have to run your own across the city. That will cost millions, easily. You ignore the cost as you think you can make it up later so you start running fiber. The telco's in the area decide, hey, it's costing them millions, lets just drop our prices to make everyone using them switch to us. Now all your subscribers jump ship because ATT just dropped their service plans to $1 a year. You go under, they buy you out, thanks for the new fiber.
Free market won't work with entrenched telco's who already have the fiber in place plus the will and means to bully you out of the market.
You do realize that net neutrality is the _absence_ of filtering, right?
See, the whole idea is that an ISP that also owns other companies, or is affiliated somehow, can't step in and decide what is and isn't viewable, charge more, etc.
Did anyone else read the title as "Forced Aids Coming To OS X?".
While I'm no Apple fan, I was starting to think they were dirtier than I had previously thought.
I'm not sure if you want to ween someone onto firearms.
The kid was apparently itching to go military, which is great as we need people willing to fight for our rights! But from the tone it sounded like he was gungho on firearms and wanted to join the guys who shoot lots of them since it was fun in games.
A healthy dose of reality, in my opinion, is a good starter. Show him how difficult and how dangerous they can be before you give him a taste of putting real holes in things, or people.
In short, weapons are to be respected. Starting you off on a weapon that is easy to _not_ respect isn't the best strategy, in my opinion. Let him feel a powerful weapon and if he shows respect and an appetite to learn more, awesome!
Did you even look at the downloads page?:
http://www.snort.org/snort-downloads
Second link is "source".
If you want the 3.0 source go to:
http://www.snort.org/snort-downloads/snort-3-0/
Maybe these weren't the sources you were looking for?
It's harder to get a scoop that will be picked up globally (internet) versus just local? Why isn't that hard to imagine?
Journalists no longer have to beat the other local journalists to the punch, they have to beat _every_ journalist to the punch. Welcome to the internet.
Exactly, if you can provide proof of employment with the government on a classified project (which means you held a clearance), I'm sure your prospective employer would be more apt to choose you over Joe whose resume lists Geek Squad as his last employer. Even if your duties are entirely blank.
Labeling people as enemy combatants and detaining them without trial sucks and is deplorable. I'd be at a total loss for what to do if I, or someone I cared for, was in that situation. But comparing what happens to a relatively small group of people (GITMO detainees) and what happens to the entire population of China (freedom of speech/access to information) are again, in two totally different leagues. I'm not in any way suggesting I support, let alone tolerate GITMO, but we're talking apples and oranges.
Just putting this out there, but helping prop up failing businesses is not, at least in my opinion, as bad as oppressing your population's "right" to have access to otherwise publicly available information.
I see where you are trying to equate the two, but they really are in two different leagues.
I think it would go more along the lines of, "If a user is on the phone with 911 and their hand happens to bridge the uninsulated antenna's does the possibility of the call dropping increase to an unacceptable level?".
Doesn't insulating it technically make it no longer truly external? Whether it is encased in 10 inches of plastic or 1/4 mm, it's still protected from conductive surfaces, which is the point.
Nobody ever leaves uninsulated antennas exposed on mobile phones (such as what Apple has done with the 4G), which is exactly how I interpreted the OP.
It is most certainly broad if you can't distinguish between discussing a Consumer Report's report about a product on that products forums versus maliciously damaging someone's property.
Those two things are really quite different with the only correlation being writing down words on a medium. The distinction is the form, the intent, and the forum.
I play games (not wow anymore, thankfully) to escape the realities of life. I play to just dissolve into a game world for 15 minutes, an hour, whatever. I don't need to make a comment on the forums that some 12 year old doesn't like who then turns around and uses my unique real life name to then go to my facebook and post my pictures with penises drawn all over it. Sounds harmless and in reality I wouldn't be hurt by it, but it's just unnecessary BS I'd have to put up with that involves me, personally, in real life.
With my name, you can easily find out what my personal address is, what my phone number is, etc. Who is to say a disgruntled 12 year old guildmate, of whom I just kicked out of the guild, won't simply start prank calling me. Or, I get 4 chan'd by the same jerk and thousands of people start pranking me. I would call that a very real form of IRL griefing.
It's a game where irrational kids frequent. This isn't a professional support forum for diagnosing routing issues where you can post with very little chance of an enraged 12 year old trying to annoy you in real life.
But above and beyond all of that... I should simply have the right to not provide my personal information when I choose. Not when Blizzard chooses.
Absolute M.F. Win on that users part. Probably got a ban but drove the point home faster than any other method I can think of.
PII is so scary to give out. Anyone with google can simply pop your name in and can come up with google street view pictures of your house with your car in the driveway.
Games are for fun, relaxing, and escaping reality. Not providing _your_ reality to random internet citizens to scrutinize at will.