No doubt there are companies that do computer work. But she would have had to PAY them. People don't expect that they might have to actually pay someone to fix their computers after they frak them up.
If a company permits a breach of a customer's personal info, each individual customer should be entitled to sue the living snot out of the lax company.
Where it is not right is the leniency shown towards downloaders. They are guilty as well. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever try to tell a judge you didn't see the speed limit sign?
Intellectual property is property, just as much as anything else is, and theft is theft.
If you create something, you have the perfect right to decide to give it away or if you want to be paid for your work. In the case of IP, you can release it via OSS / GNU, etc., or you can sell it if you want to be paid, or work for a company which sells your products. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be paid.
Those who defend illegal file sharing, ask yourself one question. What if someone decided to steal your paycheck?
Yea, I know. This post will get a poor rating from the communists who run these boards. Too frakkin' bad. Facts are facts, and just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can ignore them.
If you need a high priority, then pay for it. Otherwise your VOIP (or any other) traffic should be no higher priority than the guy next door who is just using web browser traffic. If your application doesn't work with this, fine. Pay for the priority you need, or wait till that application works better.
My traffic should not have to wait for yours because your application feels it's of more importance.
If we are both paying the same $ per month to the same ISP, why should your VOIP packets be given higher priority on the network than my MMORPG games' packets? I assure you, your VOIP packets are far less important to me than my games' packets, just as your VOIP packets are more important to you.
Neutrality is neutral. If you want to use an application over the 'net, it should be able to work with the net as it is, not have to be given preferred service to work. If it's traffic requires priority handling; giving preference to it's packets over those of others in order to work right, it isn't ready yet. Back to the drawing board for it.
In an ideal world, network operators would be required to just pass the traffic, whatever it is. No throttling, no playing favorites for VOIP, etc., just pass whatever it is along.
But, that's not gonna happen. People with dollars make the rules, and they can make more dollars playing favorites. So they're gonna play favorites.
I'm generally a conservative, who believes in as little govt. regulation as possible, but in this case, the private market has demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves, so the govt. should step in.
Until Apple decides to get off their elitist & overpriced high horse & compete with the Wintel platform on cost, they are never going to be more than a niche market player in the home computing market. And at this stage of the game, due to their own ineptness at marketing their product, they've allowed the Wintel platform to build what is by now probably an insurmountable lead. Hell, there is a reasonable chance that there are more computers running Linux in the U.S than there are Apples. Due to the nature of Linux, however, that would be difficult to document.
Yes, They have a nice OS. I've played with the "Hackintosh" distributions enough to know that. And it's based on BSD Unix, which I've always liked. But will I, or most U.S. consumers pay significantly more for a computer just because it has that little apple logo on it? Not a chance.
With anything, there is a point of no return; if you sink below that, you can't recover. Yes, they're making alot of noise with the success of ipods/etc, but as far as computers, they've been hovering around 5% of the market for years. For this reason, most major 3rd party support operations such as ISP's don't allocate alot of resources for them, there is always going to be some bit of software you want that won't run on them, so on & so forth. They can't start to gain dominance until these problems are solved, and they can't solve these problems at their current market share. Catch 22
Microsoft's dominance of the market happened for one reason, and one reason only. Apple was STUPID.
They were first to market, and had, what at the time was probably the clearly better product.
However, They also wanted to be greedy, and would not license out in order to keep the price high.
Does anyone remember the introduction of video tape recording to the U.S. market in the 70's? Sony (Betamax) vs JVC (VHS). Sony had the technically superior tape format. Better picture, better sound. But, they also wanted to be greedy, and would not license out in order to keep the price high. JVC, with the inferior product, did license out, so there was price competition on that side. Guess who won that war? This is actually a no-brainer. The US market will kill you for greed, every time.
Many years later, Apple made the same mistake. They wanted to be greedy, and their greed cost them their chance to become the dominant player. I actually like their OS, as it's based on BSD unix. But at this point in the game, they aren't going to ever be more than a niche market player. Interestingly enough, you still see Beta tapes in use too, in video production houses where quality matters more than price. Again, a niche market.
This is a surprise? You compress something, you lose something. period. End of discussion.
I've seen this trend coming for years, and have used it as a basis for arguing against downloadable music.
I don't give a hoot about the RIAA's whining about lost $, they've deserved a good shafting for a few decades now, what I object to is that the real damage being done by downloadable music forms such as mp3's is that they are going to make it damn near impossible to actually go out & buy a CD and get the better quality sound.
Sad to see that the actual mixing of the source material is catering to garbage as well. Even the CD's that you do buy are going to sound like crap.
I guess the only saving grace to all this is 99.8564% of what's being sold as music these days isn't, not by a long shot, and that most of the good stuff that I listen to was mastered way before all this nonsense started. And yes, I am an old fart. I have a working turntable that gets used on a regular basis, and listen to mostly older stuff. I do listen at home on a decent system, and yes, I can easily hear the difference between a CD or a record of a classic from the 70's and an MP3 of the same song.
Slashdot Mirror
This is hilarious.
I like the MAC OS; it is built on BSD Unix, and that is a good thing indeed.
However, the folks who are running this company have their head stuck so far up their arse they might as well do an appendectomy while they're there.
If Microsoft had pulled this stunt, they would have been ridiculed till the cows come home.
No doubt there are companies that do computer work. But she would have had to PAY them.
People don't expect that they might have to actually pay someone to fix their computers after they frak them up.
If a company permits a breach of a customer's personal info, each individual customer should be entitled to sue the living snot out of the lax company.
You had best not be suggesting that people who do not understand scientific principles be denied the right to vote.
If there is a gap in comprehension, it's up to the scientific community to explain things in terms they can relate to.
Who cares what Al Gore says? He's an idiot.
This is mostly right.
Where it is not right is the leniency shown towards downloaders. They are guilty as well. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever try to tell a judge you didn't see the speed limit sign?
Intellectual property is property, just as much as anything else is, and theft is theft.
If you create something, you have the perfect right to decide to give it away or if you want to be paid for your work. In the case of IP, you can release it via OSS / GNU, etc., or you can sell it if you want to be paid, or work for a company which sells your products. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be paid.
Those who defend illegal file sharing, ask yourself one question. What if someone decided to steal your paycheck?
Yea, I know. This post will get a poor rating from the communists who run these boards. Too frakkin' bad. Facts are facts, and just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can ignore them.
And doing so results in you getting arrested, in addition to you not getting.....
If you need a high priority, then pay for it. Otherwise your VOIP (or any other) traffic should be no higher priority than the guy next door who is just using web browser traffic. If your application doesn't work with this, fine. Pay for the priority you need, or wait till that application works better.
My traffic should not have to wait for yours because your application feels it's of more importance.
To use VOIP as an example.
If we are both paying the same $ per month to the same ISP, why should your VOIP packets be given higher priority on the network than my MMORPG games' packets? I assure you, your VOIP packets are far less important to me than my games' packets, just as your VOIP packets are more important to you.
Neutrality is neutral. If you want to use an application over the 'net, it should be able to work with the net as it is, not have to be given preferred service to work. If it's traffic requires priority handling; giving preference to it's packets over those of others in order to work right, it isn't ready yet. Back to the drawing board for it.
In an ideal world, network operators would be required to just pass the traffic, whatever it is. No throttling, no playing favorites for VOIP, etc., just pass whatever it is along.
But, that's not gonna happen. People with dollars make the rules, and they can make more dollars playing favorites. So they're gonna play favorites.
I'm generally a conservative, who believes in as little govt. regulation as possible, but in this case, the private market has demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves, so the govt. should step in.
Pity that it won't.
Ungh. Pipe dreams at best.
Until Apple decides to get off their elitist & overpriced high horse & compete with the Wintel platform on cost, they are never going to be more than a niche market player in the home computing market. And at this stage of the game, due to their own ineptness at marketing their product, they've allowed the Wintel platform to build what is by now probably an insurmountable lead. Hell, there is a reasonable chance that there are more computers running Linux in the U.S than there are Apples. Due to the nature of Linux, however, that would be difficult to document.
Yes, They have a nice OS. I've played with the "Hackintosh" distributions enough to know that. And it's based on BSD Unix, which I've always liked. But will I, or most U.S. consumers pay significantly more for a computer just because it has that little apple logo on it? Not a chance.
lol. That's funny. What ever this guy's been inhaling, it's pretty darned good.
With anything, there is a point of no return; if you sink below that, you can't recover. Yes, they're making alot of noise with the success of ipods/etc, but as far as computers, they've been hovering around 5% of the market for years. For this reason, most major 3rd party support operations such as ISP's don't allocate alot of resources for them, there is always going to be some bit of software you want that won't run on them, so on & so forth. They can't start to gain dominance until these problems are solved, and they can't solve these problems at their current market share. Catch 22
Microsoft's dominance of the market happened for one reason, and one reason only. Apple was STUPID.
They were first to market, and had, what at the time was probably the clearly better product.
However, They also wanted to be greedy, and would not license out in order to keep the price high.
Does anyone remember the introduction of video tape recording to the U.S. market in the 70's? Sony (Betamax) vs JVC (VHS).
Sony had the technically superior tape format. Better picture, better sound. But, they also wanted to be greedy, and would not license out in order to keep the price high. JVC, with the inferior product, did license out, so there was price competition on that side. Guess who won that war? This is actually a no-brainer. The US market will kill you for greed, every time.
Many years later, Apple made the same mistake. They wanted to be greedy, and their greed cost them their chance to become the dominant player. I actually like their OS, as it's based on BSD unix. But at this point in the game, they aren't going to ever be more than a niche market player. Interestingly enough, you still see Beta tapes in use too, in video production houses where quality matters more than price. Again, a niche market.
Have to agree with this point of view. Your ISP's acceptable use policy probably does NOT give you the right to resell or share your connection.
If you want wireless, buy it.
The same logic applies to CD's, movies, etc.
What if it was the product of YOUR work that was being stolen; YOU weren't being paid for your work? Still think stealing it is ok?
Too bad it won't do us any good . The environmental whack jobs will ties this up in the courts for centuries.
Ungh. Next we'll here people using this as a legal defense for all sorts of nonsense.
And, of course, we'll have the psychologists lining up at the door with expensive treatment options...
Geez, Rush, just throw the frakkin' MAC in the trash & buy a real computer. You can certainly afford it.
This is a surprise? You compress something, you lose something. period. End of discussion. I've seen this trend coming for years, and have used it as a basis for arguing against downloadable music. I don't give a hoot about the RIAA's whining about lost $, they've deserved a good shafting for a few decades now, what I object to is that the real damage being done by downloadable music forms such as mp3's is that they are going to make it damn near impossible to actually go out & buy a CD and get the better quality sound. Sad to see that the actual mixing of the source material is catering to garbage as well. Even the CD's that you do buy are going to sound like crap. I guess the only saving grace to all this is 99.8564% of what's being sold as music these days isn't, not by a long shot, and that most of the good stuff that I listen to was mastered way before all this nonsense started. And yes, I am an old fart. I have a working turntable that gets used on a regular basis, and listen to mostly older stuff. I do listen at home on a decent system, and yes, I can easily hear the difference between a CD or a record of a classic from the 70's and an MP3 of the same song.