Yes. Maverick really is that bad. We can argue fiscal opinions and schools of thought until we're blue in the face. But that thought wearies me. I'd rather focus on hard evidence.
We've proven that tax cuts are not a fiscally responsible way to balance a budget or stimulate an economy. We know this because any administration that's overseen one has overseen horrific national debt, and the latest has been the worst in history by orders of magnitude. This isn't opinion. It is cold, hard fact.
The Democratic philosophy is one of higher tax responsibility, true. That's a tough pill to swallow, but the theory is that greater services are delivered as a result (again, this one can vary by implementation). Perhaps the next administration will be able to utilize an internet tax to help subsidize the rolling out improvements network infrastructure, fiber to the home and such. We can only hope. And vote.
You're absolutely correct. Here's the story you're referring to.
Resorting to patent lawsuits is NOT a sign of a confident/competent tech company. There's a good chance this will cause a backlash if it fails, which in my opinion is what Seagate richly deserves. Litigation must not become a viable business strategy.
I sure hope they get in contact with the folks at the openChrome Project. They've developed a very capable drive for the VIA Unichrome embedded video chipset, which is used on most of their boards nowadays. It'd be good to see some collaboration on this front.
The top two "contributors" on the list are "None" (13.9%) and "Unknown" (12.9%).
Regarding the former, I think it is very much worth noting, more than Novell's increased contributions, that so much is still being done by independent contributors. As for the latter, what exactly does that mean? How can we not know where changes come from. That's a bit disconcerting.
I have to concur. The article is laced with derisive comments against the EFF and the like for coming down on the Comcast so hard for its throttling packages. There's something inherently defective in the TCP standard, I believe this now after reading the article. However, that doesn't mean that forging packets is _fair practice_, or an acceptable engineering solution. Yes, there's an engineering problem to solve. No, you aren't allowed to violate the Terms of Service to solve it.
So what Lessig proposes is to just give every department a sum of money and depend on that department to spend it. I guess if you think that this is a good idea you might oppose earmarks.
That's my thinking, yes. If you have a problem with your local transportation department, then you should take it up with them. The idea of our system of government is dividing power between the Federal, State, and Local levels. Earmarking breaches this principle by micromanaging the appropriation process, or doing the state/local levels' jobs for them.
To me, it's a question of who you trust. I'd prefer to keep some degree (not all, mind you) of authority in the local levels of government, since they are much more accessible to me. Thus, it's easier for me to hold those officials accountable.
This is a terrible idea. If there are no earmarks then only the President has the ability to direct spending.
You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of earmarks. It refers to riders attached to spending bills that stipulate exactly where the money goes, usually diverting funding to pet projects instead of the original intent of the bill. It does not refer to any spending bill. Congress can still pass funding for public schools, the EPA, whatever. They just can't slide in a small-print line to send X amount of this bill to My Brother Joe's Construction Company, etc.
Well I didn't take that personally at all, although I think we do not feel the same way about the transient properties of the internet. I do not wish there to be sweeping regulations of cyberspace itself. I want the network infrastructure to be answerable to the public. The content itself, that which gives cyberspace its intransient and unrestrained properties, should remain fully free and neutral. It's not terribly different from phone or television, which are publicly controlled but privately implemented.
Really, this is the only way we'll be able to get decent broadband advancement in the US, since there's no private drive to do so. And, moreover, we'll be able to enact real net neutrality legislation to ensure filtering drivel like this never sees the light of day.
The answer is there should not be the censorship, that is half the problem.
You're right in that sense, but for the purposes of precedent, it is important to decide which entities have the power of oversight. Currently, ISPs have been free to regulate themselves, and the telecom companies behind them have been quick to enact unfair and illegal terms of service as a result (read: Comcast). Yes, censorship isn't the answer, but eventually internet communication is going to need to be regulated. That much is known.
And just because most people aren't willing to hold their governments accountable for their actions doesn't mean they can't. As Net Neutrality and Technology issues become more and more central to political platforms, it will be important for political candidates to make their positions known on these issues, which puts the voters in control (or, in as much control as they've ever been).
Reason #2 would be because of lackluster hardware support. My girlfriend wanted to migrate to Ubuntu, but there are no drivers available for her PCMCIA wireless card. So, Linux is unacceptable for her.
In many places it is illegal to put things like large batteries, CRT monitors/TVs, and other very hazardous materials in the garbage. We just need to extend this infrastructure to electric car batteries as well. The real problem is making sure any private companies in charge of this recycling effort don't just sell them off to developing countries, but ACTUALLY follow through and recycle.
Finally some good news! Too bad it's still anonymous. I'd love to know who broke the barrier.
Why is Verizon so against the concept of a 700MHz open network when they've stated that they're going to open up their own network some time this year?
Interesting to see how different people in different areas react to this topic. I live in Boston, which has decent-but-not-the-greatest public transit. I take a bus to work, and the transit to the station + the bus ride itself add up to about 45 minutes to an hour, which is actually not much longer than the driving (maybe an extra 15 minutes on a good day).
So people with money get to work faster, and people with out will get taxed more. Sounds like a great idea.
Incorrect. The people without money, and also the sensible people, will start taking public transportation. The elitists in the equation are actually the people who continue to drive regardless of the negative reinforcement. And they can pay all they want.
I'd actually say that I'd get more usability out of a cheap shuttlebox, and might just buy one. This thing is my ideal Mythbox backend machine: something small and power-savvy that can sit in a closet.
Last I heard, it was impossible to buy a ThinkPad without Vista pre-installed. I'm indeed concerned about being able to run Linux (it tends to be flexible enough, and distros nowadays are getting much better at hardware support). However, I utterly refuse to pay for a computer without being given a choice as to what software I am paying for.
Considering this, now that I think about it, I am getting more and more worried about this running Linux at all, like you. Wasn't Microsoft hardware device-signing the Next Big Step?
I used to think so, back when I was still in school. I was a freshman when Facebook started up, and times were indeed good. There was some measure of reason and privacy, as the format was still structured and regular.
I graduated just as everything started tumbling downhill. It really began when the site was opened up to the public instead of being restricted to college students and alumni. The end result was that Facebook now had a cash cow and was ready to milk it. It's somewhat depressing; I was hoping to keep in touch with my friends with the help of Facebook, but had to purge my account and then disable it (in that order) because I knew it could no longer be trusted to not sell my information.
I'd love to see another secure, closed networking platform emerge. It wouldn't be able to compete, however, so I doubt that'll happen. Facebook would serve as a wonderful business card repository if it were SAFE. But it isn't. I am not comfortable with Facebook for the same reason that I'm not comfortable handing my business card to every advertising company that asks for it. The fact that so many people ARE is what scares me.
You're correct though, I was too harsh in calling online social networking a fad. Its current methodology seems transient, but that depends on people's willingness to put up with it.
A good counterpoint, albeit indeed exaggerated. There are more alternatives to Facebook than there are telecom companies. But the next one to get big will simply follow the same business model (chicken and egg problem, but the problem exists nonetheless). My advice is useful because social networking is not nearly as essential as telephone communication. It's the latest internet craze, but that doesn't mean it is essential by any means. It's a commodity pass-time, at best. The take-home message from the Facebook debacle(s) is that we are not, as a culture, prepared for this phenomenon. The concept of creating a public profile is (should be) becoming less appealing as users realize that the network creators would like to demolish the walls that separate private from public.
Or you could sever all ties to the internet, "opt-out" and go and live under a rock, is that the choice that what you call 'capitalism' has given us?
OR, you could stop using Facebook and move on to another social networking site. If people still continue to use it, despite the blatant invasion of privacy, then the Facebook team will see it as a job well done. I ditched FB last summer when they made it clear their databases were open to ad mining, and haven't looked back. Continued controversy simply amuses me.
Anybody who continues to use facebook is either already living under a rock (and not hearing all of this), or is simply foolish.
It's just that it's more blatant in gaming media because their stock in trade is reviews.
The problem is that this isn't the case. Their stock in trade is game advertisement space. Reviews are what bring in the eyeballs that allow them to justify the going rate for said space. That's the problem that has existed all along, but people are just starting to notice. The organizations serve the gaming industry, not the gamers themselves. The two are very different bodies. And one has very deep pockets.
This might generate an interesting new source of revenue for the Storm botnet. Lease out DDOS horsepower, as it currently being done, to the highest bidding government. Scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably on eBay, then Craigslist wouldn't be able to leave negative feedback.
What I don't get is how in the hell they can get away with charging customers over $300 in some cases to alpha test this shit for them.
The better question is how to get them alpha test with a smile on their faces, like Apple managed to do with early Leopard adopters.
Yes. Maverick really is that bad. We can argue fiscal opinions and schools of thought until we're blue in the face. But that thought wearies me. I'd rather focus on hard evidence.
We've proven that tax cuts are not a fiscally responsible way to balance a budget or stimulate an economy. We know this because any administration that's overseen one has overseen horrific national debt, and the latest has been the worst in history by orders of magnitude. This isn't opinion. It is cold, hard fact.
The Democratic philosophy is one of higher tax responsibility, true. That's a tough pill to swallow, but the theory is that greater services are delivered as a result (again, this one can vary by implementation). Perhaps the next administration will be able to utilize an internet tax to help subsidize the rolling out improvements network infrastructure, fiber to the home and such. We can only hope. And vote.
You're absolutely correct. Here's the story you're referring to.
Resorting to patent lawsuits is NOT a sign of a confident/competent tech company. There's a good chance this will cause a backlash if it fails, which in my opinion is what Seagate richly deserves. Litigation must not become a viable business strategy.
I sure hope they get in contact with the folks at the openChrome Project. They've developed a very capable drive for the VIA Unichrome embedded video chipset, which is used on most of their boards nowadays. It'd be good to see some collaboration on this front.
The top two "contributors" on the list are "None" (13.9%) and "Unknown" (12.9%).
Regarding the former, I think it is very much worth noting, more than Novell's increased contributions, that so much is still being done by independent contributors. As for the latter, what exactly does that mean? How can we not know where changes come from. That's a bit disconcerting.
I have to concur. The article is laced with derisive comments against the EFF and the like for coming down on the Comcast so hard for its throttling packages. There's something inherently defective in the TCP standard, I believe this now after reading the article. However, that doesn't mean that forging packets is _fair practice_, or an acceptable engineering solution.
Yes, there's an engineering problem to solve. No, you aren't allowed to violate the Terms of Service to solve it.
So what Lessig proposes is to just give every department a sum of money and depend on that department to spend it. I guess if you think that this is a good idea you might oppose earmarks.
That's my thinking, yes. If you have a problem with your local transportation department, then you should take it up with them. The idea of our system of government is dividing power between the Federal, State, and Local levels. Earmarking breaches this principle by micromanaging the appropriation process, or doing the state/local levels' jobs for them.
To me, it's a question of who you trust. I'd prefer to keep some degree (not all, mind you) of authority in the local levels of government, since they are much more accessible to me. Thus, it's easier for me to hold those officials accountable.
2) support the abolition of "earmarks"
This is a terrible idea. If there are no earmarks then only the President has the ability to direct spending.
You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of earmarks. It refers to riders attached to spending bills that stipulate exactly where the money goes, usually diverting funding to pet projects instead of the original intent of the bill. It does not refer to any spending bill. Congress can still pass funding for public schools, the EPA, whatever. They just can't slide in a small-print line to send X amount of this bill to My Brother Joe's Construction Company, etc.
In a few years, they'd just take away the ability to write negative reviews in order to "improve the user experience."
Well I didn't take that personally at all, although I think we do not feel the same way about the transient properties of the internet. I do not wish there to be sweeping regulations of cyberspace itself. I want the network infrastructure to be answerable to the public. The content itself, that which gives cyberspace its intransient and unrestrained properties, should remain fully free and neutral. It's not terribly different from phone or television, which are publicly controlled but privately implemented.
Really, this is the only way we'll be able to get decent broadband advancement in the US, since there's no private drive to do so. And, moreover, we'll be able to enact real net neutrality legislation to ensure filtering drivel like this never sees the light of day.
The answer is there should not be the censorship, that is half the problem.
You're right in that sense, but for the purposes of precedent, it is important to decide which entities have the power of oversight. Currently, ISPs have been free to regulate themselves, and the telecom companies behind them have been quick to enact unfair and illegal terms of service as a result (read: Comcast). Yes, censorship isn't the answer, but eventually internet communication is going to need to be regulated. That much is known.
And just because most people aren't willing to hold their governments accountable for their actions doesn't mean they can't. As Net Neutrality and Technology issues become more and more central to political platforms, it will be important for political candidates to make their positions known on these issues, which puts the voters in control (or, in as much control as they've ever been).
Reason #2 would be because of lackluster hardware support. My girlfriend wanted to migrate to Ubuntu, but there are no drivers available for her PCMCIA wireless card. So, Linux is unacceptable for her.
In many places it is illegal to put things like large batteries, CRT monitors/TVs, and other very hazardous materials in the garbage. We just need to extend this infrastructure to electric car batteries as well. The real problem is making sure any private companies in charge of this recycling effort don't just sell them off to developing countries, but ACTUALLY follow through and recycle.
Finally some good news! Too bad it's still anonymous. I'd love to know who broke the barrier.
Why is Verizon so against the concept of a 700MHz open network when they've stated that they're going to open up their own network some time this year?
Interesting to see how different people in different areas react to this topic. I live in Boston, which has decent-but-not-the-greatest public transit. I take a bus to work, and the transit to the station + the bus ride itself add up to about 45 minutes to an hour, which is actually not much longer than the driving (maybe an extra 15 minutes on a good day).
So people with money get to work faster, and people with out will get taxed more. Sounds like a great idea.
Incorrect. The people without money, and also the sensible people, will start taking public transportation. The elitists in the equation are actually the people who continue to drive regardless of the negative reinforcement. And they can pay all they want.
I'd actually say that I'd get more usability out of a cheap shuttlebox, and might just buy one. This thing is my ideal Mythbox backend machine: something small and power-savvy that can sit in a closet.
Last I heard, it was impossible to buy a ThinkPad without Vista pre-installed. I'm indeed concerned about being able to run Linux (it tends to be flexible enough, and distros nowadays are getting much better at hardware support). However, I utterly refuse to pay for a computer without being given a choice as to what software I am paying for.
Considering this, now that I think about it, I am getting more and more worried about this running Linux at all, like you. Wasn't Microsoft hardware device-signing the Next Big Step?
VMWare
I used to think so, back when I was still in school. I was a freshman when Facebook started up, and times were indeed good. There was some measure of reason and privacy, as the format was still structured and regular.
I graduated just as everything started tumbling downhill. It really began when the site was opened up to the public instead of being restricted to college students and alumni. The end result was that Facebook now had a cash cow and was ready to milk it. It's somewhat depressing; I was hoping to keep in touch with my friends with the help of Facebook, but had to purge my account and then disable it (in that order) because I knew it could no longer be trusted to not sell my information.
I'd love to see another secure, closed networking platform emerge. It wouldn't be able to compete, however, so I doubt that'll happen. Facebook would serve as a wonderful business card repository if it were SAFE. But it isn't. I am not comfortable with Facebook for the same reason that I'm not comfortable handing my business card to every advertising company that asks for it. The fact that so many people ARE is what scares me.
You're correct though, I was too harsh in calling online social networking a fad. Its current methodology seems transient, but that depends on people's willingness to put up with it.
A good counterpoint, albeit indeed exaggerated. There are more alternatives to Facebook than there are telecom companies. But the next one to get big will simply follow the same business model (chicken and egg problem, but the problem exists nonetheless). My advice is useful because social networking is not nearly as essential as telephone communication. It's the latest internet craze, but that doesn't mean it is essential by any means. It's a commodity pass-time, at best. The take-home message from the Facebook debacle(s) is that we are not, as a culture, prepared for this phenomenon. The concept of creating a public profile is (should be) becoming less appealing as users realize that the network creators would like to demolish the walls that separate private from public.
Or you could sever all ties to the internet, "opt-out" and go and live under a rock, is that the choice that what you call 'capitalism' has given us?
OR, you could stop using Facebook and move on to another social networking site. If people still continue to use it, despite the blatant invasion of privacy, then the Facebook team will see it as a job well done. I ditched FB last summer when they made it clear their databases were open to ad mining, and haven't looked back. Continued controversy simply amuses me.
Anybody who continues to use facebook is either already living under a rock (and not hearing all of this), or is simply foolish.
It's just that it's more blatant in gaming media because their stock in trade is reviews.
The problem is that this isn't the case. Their stock in trade is game advertisement space. Reviews are what bring in the eyeballs that allow them to justify the going rate for said space. That's the problem that has existed all along, but people are just starting to notice. The organizations serve the gaming industry, not the gamers themselves. The two are very different bodies. And one has very deep pockets.
This might generate an interesting new source of revenue for the Storm botnet. Lease out DDOS horsepower, as it currently being done, to the highest bidding government. Scary.