Ad block plus. I didn't even know there were advertisements on slashdot until recently. And today I learned that there's a thing called Video Blights somewhere on the pages too.
Our purpose as citizens of the internet is not to get information, but instead to serve as eyeballs that consume advertisements. Do not reject your advertising overlords it will only lead to inner turmoil. Accept the peace and tranquility of the new Buick Regal, available now at select dealerships.
People would be pissed off that they'd have to manually start a Youtube video with a single click? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but they'd be immensely outnumbered by the people who want it the other way (no more searching down which tab just started blasting out sound).
They signed these deals decades ago, because the cable companies offered to do the installation of the cables themselves as long as they got a monopoly afterwords. This is expensive enough that no cable was going to make that sort of investment in a town unless they could guarantee a lucrative return. So today the companies refuse to share those cables and fight tooth and nail to remain a monopoly even if the city is willing to provide their own infrastructure. Today's anti-government attitude in many parts of the country work in favor of private citizen-hating corporations.
Compare to telephone service. There was a federally granted monopoly, but it came with requirements. The phone company (TPC) was required to provide universal service, even to areas that were not profitable. This was considered a basic service that everyone needed to have access to in order to make use of essential services. When the monopoly was broken up there was still the requirement that baby bells would have to share those physical wires still. Thus there was the possibility of competition, and competing services actualy sprung up that way. For the internet these shared wires meant that you often could get a choice of local DSL providers, some of which provided better prices and service than from the phone comapny. This same thing is NOT happening with higher speed internet, the cables aren't being shared, the monopolies aren't being broken up, competing infrastructure is being prevented from being built.
Some do complain about such monopolies. That's why we have various municipal water/power/gas providers, brought into existence by the voters.
The reason the cable companies now have a monopoly extends back to when municipalities granted them their monopolies, so it's ironic now that some state legislators are removing the ability for those same cities to opt out.
It doesn't help if you can't get LTE either. People often choose satellite because the only alternative is dialup (and dialup only works because in the distant past the government decided that connectivity was important enough that they mandated that the phone monopol must provide universal service). And the LTE is mediocre and overpriced; $60 month for a 10GB cap, and 5-12MBps. You won't be watching TV with that.
The cable companies probably don't count a lost customer as a statistic unless the customer goes with a competing service. They'll instead consider that this person is not a part of the market.
There is America. Then there is ThirdWorldLandia which sends us illegal immigrants and terrorists. Then there is Europia which is full of communists and yodelers. And then maybe there's Antarcticstan I think but no one goes there. Anyway, that's all the countries I know of.
Don't you realize it's election season? You are required by law to choose sides and throw away all logic. You must defend your team as being composed solely of saints and martyrs, and you must accuse the other team of being perverts and foreign agents.
You've never heard of "too big to prosecute"? The US government is full of wimps when it comes down to prosecuting the big boys. Even when it does seem like the government might succeed the bad guys just have to hold out a few more years until a new administration comes along and drops the case. Instead what happens usually is that the government apologizes profusely for even daring to consider new regulations that would have prevented the malfeasance in the first place, then all the regulators go on to get high paying jobs in the banking industry.
And congress along with the courts have a system of copyright that allows for various forms of fair use. You may make a backup copy for your own personal use, you may read your book at any time of day, you may reference some quotes from it, when you have finished the book you may sell it to someone else or present it as a give, etc.
EXCEPT if these are digital, then you are not allowed to do anything at all with the product you purchased without permissions. This is because congress failed to see that digital works should be just like physical works and instead were misled into thinking that hackers could do evil things if they weren't stopped. So you may technically be allowed to make a backup copy of your digital movie for your own personal use, but in order to do so you must first break the law. So in essence the DMCA has trumped copyright law.
Netflix itself doesn't care, except so far as it has made agreements with the media big boys that they will not show their programs in Canada. The reason Netflix would sue over this is to prevent the MAFIAA from sending out Bruno to break some kneecaps.
But the US DMCA law forbids you from making use of that treaty if you have to circumvent digital protections. "Digital" has become a new category of items that sit above copyright law.
This only applies because this is digital content. Are you prevented from buying a book in a US airport and then continue reading it after the plane lands in Canada? No. You can't technically watch the DVD of a movie outside the region it is for, but there are no restrictions on watching your own copy on film as long as no one else sees it. The laws and restrictions are very different and inconsistent between digital and physical goods.
This is because cryptography and DRM has given copyright holders all sorts of powers they never had before. No more watching movies at the wrong time, no more giving your games to your friends to play when you're done with them, you can even change your mind and revoke all copyright to your works or even grab back those books that you accidentally sold with a push of the button. None of that is feasible with physical copies without devolving into a totalitarian state. But they manage to get the government to agree with their warped world view by crying that someone is stealing their stuff.
There is also a great deal of inconsistency regarding copyright with various media. Physical books you can sell or regift or scribble in the margins or read it at any time and in any place. But you can't make a duplicate of it, or of a significant portion, and then give that duplicate to someone else. You're not even restricted from photocopying for your persoanl use. However a digital book may forbid all this, no resales, no gifting, no conversion to a more readable format, etc. Same with digital movies, games, music, etc. And in corner cases where the copyright law may allow this (making a backup), there are side rules in the US against circumventing any manufacturer supplied digital protections.
Is it socially acceptable to claim that retrieving a service that you have paid for is "stealing"? Now it may be illegal under various rules, but it's not the same as stealing. It's not even piracy. It's the same as watching a DVD that you paid for in the wrong region, it may be illegal in the local country's laws but it's not stealing. So being fast and loose with the definitions of words undermines her message. Scolding her daughter that using VPN is stealing is instead teaching the daughter that mom doesn't know what she's talking about despite being the head of a muddled organization.
I say if these companies can form in India and China and compete against American businesses, then let them. America doesn't have to be an incubator for those companies.
If it is too expensive to do business in America and an executive feels the need to hire cheap workers from emerging countries which allows the firing of expensive Americans, the they should move their damn company to India along with all the executives. Is their loyalty to the profits or to their nation? Why isn't our government cracking down on these treasonous and disloyal activities?
Legally one should be paying the H1-B workers equivalent pay to the displaced workers. Which is why Disney is skirting the rules and using a third party company who can then underpay the workers instead. The rationale and reasons for the existance of the H1-B program had NOTHING to do with saving money, and companies continually go to congress and beg with crocodile tears that they need more and more H1-B workers because no one locally can do these highly technical and highly skilled jobs. If your analysis is correct that this is about getting cheaper workers rather than the lack of qualified owrkers, then this means that these companies are LYING to congress. In my book that's immoral and unethical, but sadly those are considered virtues in business.
So I don't really blame the companies here for being bastards, everyone should know by now that they're all bastards. Who I blame is the government, they're elected by the people to represent and defend and protect the people, and instead they're selling us out. They need to enforce the spirit of the H1-B program and jail those executives who lied in order to higer H1-B workers who did not meet the requirements of the H1-B program.
What's wrong with protectionism? Do you dump your children and get new ones if they are cheaper? No, you don't because your children are valuable to you. The fact that the American government wants to throw way their workers who are loyal citizens and replace them with foreigners who are cheaper proves that it does not value its own chidlren. The whole purpose of having a an elected government is to protect its citizens rather than to treat the citizens as disposable commodities.
The workers are not a commodity, they are real people. Protecting real people should be considered a virtue. There are more important things in the world than profits, and congress needs to learn this. The whole point of protectionism is that they should be protecting me, even if I'm not a CEO, and if they won't protect me then why should I vote for them?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking for a blocker for those annoying hosts file advertisements.
Ad block plus. I didn't even know there were advertisements on slashdot until recently. And today I learned that there's a thing called Video Blights somewhere on the pages too.
Our purpose as citizens of the internet is not to get information, but instead to serve as eyeballs that consume advertisements. Do not reject your advertising overlords it will only lead to inner turmoil. Accept the peace and tranquility of the new Buick Regal, available now at select dealerships.
People would be pissed off that they'd have to manually start a Youtube video with a single click? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but they'd be immensely outnumbered by the people who want it the other way (no more searching down which tab just started blasting out sound).
This whole problem is also solved by having adblock. Seriously, anyone who puts up with "animations on the side" needs to start blocking these.
They signed these deals decades ago, because the cable companies offered to do the installation of the cables themselves as long as they got a monopoly afterwords. This is expensive enough that no cable was going to make that sort of investment in a town unless they could guarantee a lucrative return. So today the companies refuse to share those cables and fight tooth and nail to remain a monopoly even if the city is willing to provide their own infrastructure. Today's anti-government attitude in many parts of the country work in favor of private citizen-hating corporations.
Compare to telephone service. There was a federally granted monopoly, but it came with requirements. The phone company (TPC) was required to provide universal service, even to areas that were not profitable. This was considered a basic service that everyone needed to have access to in order to make use of essential services. When the monopoly was broken up there was still the requirement that baby bells would have to share those physical wires still. Thus there was the possibility of competition, and competing services actualy sprung up that way. For the internet these shared wires meant that you often could get a choice of local DSL providers, some of which provided better prices and service than from the phone comapny. This same thing is NOT happening with higher speed internet, the cables aren't being shared, the monopolies aren't being broken up, competing infrastructure is being prevented from being built.
Some do complain about such monopolies. That's why we have various municipal water/power/gas providers, brought into existence by the voters.
The reason the cable companies now have a monopoly extends back to when municipalities granted them their monopolies, so it's ironic now that some state legislators are removing the ability for those same cities to opt out.
It doesn't help if you can't get LTE either. People often choose satellite because the only alternative is dialup (and dialup only works because in the distant past the government decided that connectivity was important enough that they mandated that the phone monopol must provide universal service). And the LTE is mediocre and overpriced; $60 month for a 10GB cap, and 5-12MBps. You won't be watching TV with that.
The cable companies probably don't count a lost customer as a statistic unless the customer goes with a competing service. They'll instead consider that this person is not a part of the market.
I actually forgot that Pokemon was a game instead of a TV show.
How much Dice do you need to get an entry level job?
There is America. Then there is ThirdWorldLandia which sends us illegal immigrants and terrorists. Then there is Europia which is full of communists and yodelers. And then maybe there's Antarcticstan I think but no one goes there. Anyway, that's all the countries I know of.
Don't you realize it's election season? You are required by law to choose sides and throw away all logic. You must defend your team as being composed solely of saints and martyrs, and you must accuse the other team of being perverts and foreign agents.
You've never heard of "too big to prosecute"? The US government is full of wimps when it comes down to prosecuting the big boys. Even when it does seem like the government might succeed the bad guys just have to hold out a few more years until a new administration comes along and drops the case. Instead what happens usually is that the government apologizes profusely for even daring to consider new regulations that would have prevented the malfeasance in the first place, then all the regulators go on to get high paying jobs in the banking industry.
And congress along with the courts have a system of copyright that allows for various forms of fair use. You may make a backup copy for your own personal use, you may read your book at any time of day, you may reference some quotes from it, when you have finished the book you may sell it to someone else or present it as a give, etc.
EXCEPT if these are digital, then you are not allowed to do anything at all with the product you purchased without permissions. This is because congress failed to see that digital works should be just like physical works and instead were misled into thinking that hackers could do evil things if they weren't stopped. So you may technically be allowed to make a backup copy of your digital movie for your own personal use, but in order to do so you must first break the law. So in essence the DMCA has trumped copyright law.
They have fewer words in the Canadian language. For convenience, all civil violations regarding copyright issues are called "stealing" there.
Netflix itself doesn't care, except so far as it has made agreements with the media big boys that they will not show their programs in Canada. The reason Netflix would sue over this is to prevent the MAFIAA from sending out Bruno to break some kneecaps.
But the US DMCA law forbids you from making use of that treaty if you have to circumvent digital protections. "Digital" has become a new category of items that sit above copyright law.
This only applies because this is digital content. Are you prevented from buying a book in a US airport and then continue reading it after the plane lands in Canada? No. You can't technically watch the DVD of a movie outside the region it is for, but there are no restrictions on watching your own copy on film as long as no one else sees it. The laws and restrictions are very different and inconsistent between digital and physical goods.
This is because cryptography and DRM has given copyright holders all sorts of powers they never had before. No more watching movies at the wrong time, no more giving your games to your friends to play when you're done with them, you can even change your mind and revoke all copyright to your works or even grab back those books that you accidentally sold with a push of the button. None of that is feasible with physical copies without devolving into a totalitarian state. But they manage to get the government to agree with their warped world view by crying that someone is stealing their stuff.
There is also a great deal of inconsistency regarding copyright with various media. Physical books you can sell or regift or scribble in the margins or read it at any time and in any place. But you can't make a duplicate of it, or of a significant portion, and then give that duplicate to someone else. You're not even restricted from photocopying for your persoanl use. However a digital book may forbid all this, no resales, no gifting, no conversion to a more readable format, etc. Same with digital movies, games, music, etc. And in corner cases where the copyright law may allow this (making a backup), there are side rules in the US against circumventing any manufacturer supplied digital protections.
Is it socially acceptable to claim that retrieving a service that you have paid for is "stealing"? Now it may be illegal under various rules, but it's not the same as stealing. It's not even piracy. It's the same as watching a DVD that you paid for in the wrong region, it may be illegal in the local country's laws but it's not stealing. So being fast and loose with the definitions of words undermines her message. Scolding her daughter that using VPN is stealing is instead teaching the daughter that mom doesn't know what she's talking about despite being the head of a muddled organization.
Slashdot is social media in a way...
I say if these companies can form in India and China and compete against American businesses, then let them. America doesn't have to be an incubator for those companies.
If it is too expensive to do business in America and an executive feels the need to hire cheap workers from emerging countries which allows the firing of expensive Americans, the they should move their damn company to India along with all the executives. Is their loyalty to the profits or to their nation? Why isn't our government cracking down on these treasonous and disloyal activities?
Legally one should be paying the H1-B workers equivalent pay to the displaced workers. Which is why Disney is skirting the rules and using a third party company who can then underpay the workers instead. The rationale and reasons for the existance of the H1-B program had NOTHING to do with saving money, and companies continually go to congress and beg with crocodile tears that they need more and more H1-B workers because no one locally can do these highly technical and highly skilled jobs. If your analysis is correct that this is about getting cheaper workers rather than the lack of qualified owrkers, then this means that these companies are LYING to congress. In my book that's immoral and unethical, but sadly those are considered virtues in business.
So I don't really blame the companies here for being bastards, everyone should know by now that they're all bastards. Who I blame is the government, they're elected by the people to represent and defend and protect the people, and instead they're selling us out. They need to enforce the spirit of the H1-B program and jail those executives who lied in order to higer H1-B workers who did not meet the requirements of the H1-B program.
What's wrong with protectionism? Do you dump your children and get new ones if they are cheaper? No, you don't because your children are valuable to you. The fact that the American government wants to throw way their workers who are loyal citizens and replace them with foreigners who are cheaper proves that it does not value its own chidlren. The whole purpose of having a an elected government is to protect its citizens rather than to treat the citizens as disposable commodities.
The workers are not a commodity, they are real people. Protecting real people should be considered a virtue. There are more important things in the world than profits, and congress needs to learn this. The whole point of protectionism is that they should be protecting me, even if I'm not a CEO, and if they won't protect me then why should I vote for them?