...simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.
Welcome to America. I take it this is your first time visiting our lands?
I'd classify it as flamebait by the sheer fact that the OP singled out a politician, rather than the general "politicians". That will automatically bring out other trolls against/shills for said politician.
Generalized absolutes are rarely the way to go, unless the topic is politics.
I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.
I know, right? I had to argue with the company I work for FOREVER to let me use Audacity at work.
IT guy in charge: "It's open source, anyone could look at it and exploit it!" Me: "Or, since you seem to know everything, you could look at it and see if it's exploitable."
I think a big part of it (from the public's perspective, anyway) is a misconception about open source. Many non-technology-oriented people I know think open source automatically makes it less secure, since "anyone can see what makes it tick."
Personally, I think it has to do with money more than anything else (duh.)
Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC
Us: "We're aware that you're throttling and charging extra for certain sites!" ISP: "Awesome! Glad you're paying attention. By the way, here's your bill."
At what point do you draw the line between "slowing" and "stopping"?
Simple. Enact legislation (yes yes, I know) that would would say ISPs have to provide a minimum of 1/3rd the advertised speed when throttling technology is used. No muss, no fuss.
Well...a lot of the infrastructure that's currently being used was funded by taxpayers, and ISPs are already granted "legal monopoly or duopoly" status, so...
The ACLU has defended a lot of doucebags in their time, but one can't argue against their impartiality; they generally fall on the side of rights, regardless of how loony the person or group they are representing. Gotta give them credit for that.
I'm not sure I fully agree. Unless providers would completely block certain websites instead of merely slowing them, there wouldn't be a supression of free speech.
Honestly, I sided with the host doing nothing wrong. The way I saw it was like this:
Say I own a store. You walk in, start browsing around, turn the corner, and find yourself face to face with a black guy. You, being a racist neo-nazi (heh), start spouting off racial nastiness. As the store owner, it's my right to kick you out of the store if I want to. You're still free to say whatever you want to the guy, just not in my store.
You're allowed to say pretty much what you want, but like anything else, there's always consequences and the reactions of other people, both of which are beyond your control. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying it is.
Free speech isn't just a right...it's a responsibility.
I gotta say, after messing around with Sense, I can't freakin' STAND the stock Android OS look. I'm currently running xtrSense on my Eris, which is a freakin' GREAT rom...but yeah, stock Android is just fugly.
From that perspective, yes...but having a single hardware revision (outside of different storage sizes) makes things much simpler for people.
Can't play a game on your iPhone that's available in the Apple app store? The only reason why would be because you have an older model. With Android devices, it could be because of your screen resolution, or because you don't have a keypad, or any number of other things that aren't immediately apparent to the average consumer.
Personally, I'm an Android kind of guy (love my Eris! xtrSense, represent) because I enjoy having nigh-infinite flexibility and customization options available to me...but the Android hardware situation can be really confusing for people who don't realize the differences between all of the available handsets.
What Jobs was saying is exactly why, excluding fanboys on both sides, Android tends to be more popular with really geeky folks while the iPhone tends to be more popular with people that want their experience ready to go out of the box.
Spammers wouldn't exist if people didn't fall for their trickery. Not necessarily trying to play "blame the victim", but spam wouldn't exist if people take a few seconds and actually think things through.
What twisted logic. They don't like what he says so they take down his website.Yup, this screams "I love free speech"
Take a binger, sit down, and chill out. Simmons is still able to say his opinion, be heard, and pretty much do what he wants. A website being knocked out doesn't prevent the public from hearing what he has to say, nor does it prevent him from saying what he wants to say.
I'm not saying I agree with what Anon did, but fuckin' hell dude...it has nothing to do with "restricting free speech"...it has to do with pissing Simmons off.
And yes, there are other ways to communicate. Anonymous or any other entity does not have the right to limit that free speech.
And they haven't! Simmons can still say whatever he wants!
That's pretty much the case with me as well. There are a TON of "bedroom" and "local studio" musicians out there, putting out original and interesting music. I see no reason to line the pockets of rich fatcats who throw crumbs at the people that earn them money.
Next thing you know, you're gonna be saying that people against the Iraq/Afghanistan war are against America!
Seriously, how is this indicative of Anonymous being against free speech? Their very name suggests they support free speech. They didn't cut out his tongue, they didn't sew his mouth shut, and they haven't prevented him from saying what he wants; they just took his website down.
You do know there are ways other than a personal website to communicate...right?
Again though, the amount of money earned from album sales is piss compared to everything else (merchandising, touring, etc.) Why be so vocal about something that doesn't bring in much money, yet risks pissing off your fans...you know, the people that buy your merchandise and go to your concerts.
It always seems like it's the largest and most sucessful musicians that slam piracy and filesharing.
Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway? I thought income from record sales was minimal, compared to touring and merchandise...
Slashdot Mirror
...simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.
Welcome to America. I take it this is your first time visiting our lands?
I'd classify it as flamebait by the sheer fact that the OP singled out a politician, rather than the general "politicians". That will automatically bring out other trolls against/shills for said politician.
Generalized absolutes are rarely the way to go, unless the topic is politics.
I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.
I know, right? I had to argue with the company I work for FOREVER to let me use Audacity at work.
IT guy in charge: "It's open source, anyone could look at it and exploit it!"
Me: "Or, since you seem to know everything, you could look at it and see if it's exploitable."
I think a big part of it (from the public's perspective, anyway) is a misconception about open source. Many non-technology-oriented people I know think open source automatically makes it less secure, since "anyone can see what makes it tick."
Personally, I think it has to do with money more than anything else (duh.)
And taxpayers helped pay for the roads to your house and work, does that mean they get to dictate what happens in either one?
Yes, they do. It's called voting for a representative.
are paid to deliver information, believing they will deliver less information is a bit of paranoia and is bad business
Right...because no ISP has ever blocked traffic, right?
Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC
Us: "We're aware that you're throttling and charging extra for certain sites!"
ISP: "Awesome! Glad you're paying attention. By the way, here's your bill."
Yup. Awareness would solve everything.
At what point do you draw the line between "slowing" and "stopping"?
Simple. Enact legislation (yes yes, I know) that would would say ISPs have to provide a minimum of 1/3rd the advertised speed when throttling technology is used. No muss, no fuss.
I don't want net neutrality to become a partisan issue
It's a little late for that :(
Well...a lot of the infrastructure that's currently being used was funded by taxpayers, and ISPs are already granted "legal monopoly or duopoly" status, so...
The ACLU has defended a lot of doucebags in their time, but one can't argue against their impartiality; they generally fall on the side of rights, regardless of how loony the person or group they are representing. Gotta give them credit for that.
I'm not sure I fully agree. Unless providers would completely block certain websites instead of merely slowing them, there wouldn't be a supression of free speech.
Wow, I think I just sprained my sarcasm tendon.
Don't tell your doctor! He'll turn you over to the police!
Honestly, I sided with the host doing nothing wrong. The way I saw it was like this:
Say I own a store. You walk in, start browsing around, turn the corner, and find yourself face to face with a black guy. You, being a racist neo-nazi (heh), start spouting off racial nastiness. As the store owner, it's my right to kick you out of the store if I want to. You're still free to say whatever you want to the guy, just not in my store.
You're allowed to say pretty much what you want, but like anything else, there's always consequences and the reactions of other people, both of which are beyond your control. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying it is.
Free speech isn't just a right...it's a responsibility.
I gotta say, after messing around with Sense, I can't freakin' STAND the stock Android OS look. I'm currently running xtrSense on my Eris, which is a freakin' GREAT rom...but yeah, stock Android is just fugly.
Looking forward to a system-wide visual update.
From that perspective, yes...but having a single hardware revision (outside of different storage sizes) makes things much simpler for people.
Can't play a game on your iPhone that's available in the Apple app store? The only reason why would be because you have an older model. With Android devices, it could be because of your screen resolution, or because you don't have a keypad, or any number of other things that aren't immediately apparent to the average consumer.
Personally, I'm an Android kind of guy (love my Eris! xtrSense, represent) because I enjoy having nigh-infinite flexibility and customization options available to me...but the Android hardware situation can be really confusing for people who don't realize the differences between all of the available handsets.
Should have phrased it better...I didn't mean that's what he meant, I meant that what he said is a perfect indication as to why **continue my OP**
What Jobs was saying is exactly why, excluding fanboys on both sides, Android tends to be more popular with really geeky folks while the iPhone tends to be more popular with people that want their experience ready to go out of the box.
Spammers wouldn't exist if people didn't fall for their trickery. Not necessarily trying to play "blame the victim", but spam wouldn't exist if people take a few seconds and actually think things through.
Just saying.
What twisted logic. They don't like what he says so they take down his website.Yup, this screams "I love free speech"
Take a binger, sit down, and chill out. Simmons is still able to say his opinion, be heard, and pretty much do what he wants. A website being knocked out doesn't prevent the public from hearing what he has to say, nor does it prevent him from saying what he wants to say.
I'm not saying I agree with what Anon did, but fuckin' hell dude...it has nothing to do with "restricting free speech"...it has to do with pissing Simmons off.
And yes, there are other ways to communicate. Anonymous or any other entity does not have the right to limit that free speech.
And they haven't! Simmons can still say whatever he wants!
That's pretty much the case with me as well. There are a TON of "bedroom" and "local studio" musicians out there, putting out original and interesting music. I see no reason to line the pockets of rich fatcats who throw crumbs at the people that earn them money.
I'd much rather support only the musician.
Next thing you know, you're gonna be saying that people against the Iraq/Afghanistan war are against America!
Seriously, how is this indicative of Anonymous being against free speech? Their very name suggests they support free speech. They didn't cut out his tongue, they didn't sew his mouth shut, and they haven't prevented him from saying what he wants; they just took his website down.
You do know there are ways other than a personal website to communicate...right?
Again though, the amount of money earned from album sales is piss compared to everything else (merchandising, touring, etc.) Why be so vocal about something that doesn't bring in much money, yet risks pissing off your fans...you know, the people that buy your merchandise and go to your concerts.
Just doesn't make sense.
Absolutely not. Without highly knowledgable producers/engineers, most mainstream artists wouldn't be given a glance.
When it comes to music, high production values and experience can trump talent.
It always seems like it's the largest and most sucessful musicians that slam piracy and filesharing.
Weird. Don't they make most of their money by performing dozens of times a year, anyway? I thought income from record sales was minimal, compared to touring and merchandise...
I wish I could tell you...finding people that are more impressed by what's inside a computer than outside is getting harder and harder.