Okay. Let's suppose I'm Google, and I have expenses to pay, so I put ads on my site. However people from British Telecom are seeing ads from Phorm instead. How does the money flowing into Phorm pay my google.com bills? The answer of course is that it does not.
So we're back to what I said before: "BT is removing my revenue-source and jeopardizing my ability to continue providing a Free website."
As far as I can tell the U.S., States, and other courts enforce the Supreme Law quite well. Not perfectly, but better than if we had no Supreme Law to protect our free speech.
It surely violates the webowners' rights, who PAID to have their ads appear on your screen, but instead British Telecom is blocking them: "BT Webwise also personalizes the online advertising you see when browsing on participating websites by linking ads to your interests. For example, if you search for a weekend trip to Paris or visit pages related to Paris, BT Webwise would replace the standard ads....."
I know if I was Google, Apple, Microsoft, or some other website, I would not be happy.
Ads are what pay my bills. How dare BT remove my revenue-source and jeopardize my ability to continue providing a Free website to my customers?
P.S. I have done SOME online gaming. It's just that it's been a long time - back in the days of TradeWars (pure text BBS game) and Populous and 2 k modems.
did somebody say "free"??? I like "free".:-) Alright. I'm new to online gaming. What do I need to play this game? Is dialup good enough or do I need broadband? Is the software downloadable?
They don't see negative reviews, so they never think anything is amiss. ("Out of sight; out of mind.") Removing negative reviews is an effective strategy for BT to use.
As someone who's been banned from a couple forums, I can attest that "forums are private and there's no requirement for free speech". In other words the owner of the forum can be a dictatorial censor is that's what he wishes; it's his forum. Same applies to British Telecom.
The only catch: If BT is a government-owned company, then the government may be in violation of its own laws. Too bad the U.K. doesn't have some "supreme law of the land" to act as a contract which the government must follow, and provides guarantees such as free speech which cannot be over-ruled by a politician.
If Linux users represent 1/2% of the population and he gets 1 million viewers per year, that's only 5000 lost users.
Not very many people use Linux..... its total number is probably less than the number of people who used the Commodore Amiga OS back in the day..... and the Amiga OS ultimately died. (Yes I know a few diehards like me still use it, but for all practical purposes, it's on its deathbed.) Not supporting Linux Viewers is not going to seriously harm webowners.
What I'd really like to see is Apple port its Macintosh OS X over to the IBM PC hardware - give us an alternative that actually has a chance of overthrowing the Microsoft WinOS monopoly.
Realistically, how many viewers did he lose? 1000? Not very many people use Linux..... its total number is probably less than the number of people who used the Commodore Amiga OS back in the day..... and the Amiga OS ultimately died. (Yes I know a few diehards like me still use it, but for all practical purposes, it's on its deathbed.) Not supporting Linux is not going to seriously harm webowners.
What I'd really like to see is Apple port its Macintosh OS X over to the IBM PC hardware - give us an alternative that actually has a chance of overthrowing the Microsoft WinOS monopoly.
Well if it's any consolation, I used Silverlight to watch the Olympics on nbc.com.
It sucked.
Hopefully other users will also recognize its suckitude and avoid it with a passion. To date the best player I've found is on cwtv.com, since it can dynamically adjust the video speed as high as 2000kbit/s or as low as 128k, and yet still produce a watchable image. Watching MS Silverlight on my slow connection barely worked at all, but I've never had any problem with CW's "mplayer" application.
Pretty much. Soon you won't be able to access television for free. You'll have to join cable, join dish, or pay extra for non-speed-limited TV streams over the internet.
Ooops..... spoke too soon. I just learned that FOX Broadcasting will soon offer FOX News on the digital subchannels (X.2 or X.3), which means everyone will be able to enjoy the pleasure of watching middle-of-the-road, hanging-on-the-fence, moderate centrist reporting.
(Instead of socialist-leaning, big-government-loving CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or PBS.)
>>>a 40mW device at a distance of 300 yards is NOT going to overpower a 40000W device at a distance of 20 or 30 miles.
You're a twit. If you can't understand simply math, you're also ignorant. Almost all of my stations are 50-60 miles away. By the time a distant television signal travels 50-60 miles, it's degraded to only ~10 [micro]watts. A 40,000 microwatt TV Band device can easily overpower that.
>>>The proper response to a law that you disagree with is not to disobey the law.
You need to go read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience". It was the document which Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. Dubois, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King followed, and they changed the course of history. Unjust laws are meant to be ignored..... and if they are unConstitutional, they should be actively denigrated as "nonlaws".
Yes true, but now that the easement rights have been granted, why only ONE cable company? There's enough room in the underground pipes to run four or five cables, each owned by Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, Verizon, et cetera. Then it's not a monopoly but Pro-choice, where the consumer decides which company he/she wants.
Consumers now have the choice of Dish, Directv, or Cable Monopoly, which is okay, but it would be so much better if they have 4 or 5 cable companies to choose from, not just one.
I'm not going to let someone drive off with my $25,000 car. That represents a year of my life that I spent earning that money. He has the choice to walk off (as he did last week), but if he chooses to ignore my warning & come towards me, then I'm going to shoot to kill.
In that case HE is the one who choose to end his life. Suicide by gun.
That's a tragedy, but I'm not forfeiting my life to save a baby. Charge that as manslaughter against the man I shot dead, because it was HIS action that precipitated the events on that day.
The alternative, where the murderer leaves me lying in a pool of my own blood, is NOT going to happen. I can't believe you think I should choose that option as "better" than self-defense.
>>>And as a popular american saying goes "Your rights end right where mine starts".
Precisely. When the thief decides to attack me, he's infringing on my Right to Life and I have the Right of Self-Defense to do whatever it takes to protect my life. It that requires lethal force to stop a man twice my weight, so be it. He shouldn't have crossed that boundary of attacking me.
By that reasoning the government has a right to invade your private home where you've been selling games/videos/whatever on Ebay, because you're operating a company. Small, yes, but still business in action.
You are in severe denial if you think the thieves don't have guns. They are as easy to import (or make) as illegal drugs. Outlawing guns merely makes it easier for the gun-owning criminals to win.
Which is why every person should be armed with either a gun, or a stunner, or mace. The thief, not knowing is he's about to get killed/stunned/sprayed, might rethink his lifestyle choices and quit attacking armed citizens.
Whoever told you this, lied. Prior to the Civil War most people operated private businesses. They owned printing presses, shoe-making shops, clothing shops, and any other item people might need. Even the family farm was a kind of business (grow food - sell it to the townies or city-dwellers). The plantation was the ultimate business, shipping either cotton or tobacco all around the world. One enterprising American even started an ice business where he shipped ice from the north pole into the States so people could keep their stored food chilled.
They did NOT need to get a license to operate these shops or businesses - they simply opened them up and started selling.
SOME of ye said over-the-air HDTV is no longer needed because we can just watch the internet...
Let it die ye said.
Hmmm. How am I supposed to do that if Bell-Canada is throttling me to 500 kbit/s or less? Last I checked that's not enough to carry a 1920x1080 HD video. I guess we DO need over-the-air television after all.
>>>It's recognized by even the most free market-fanatic economists that the government has a responsibility to break up monopolies. >>>
If the monopoly was CREATED by the government, then yes. But in a truly free market a monopoly only exists for a short time, because new companies or technologies introduce alternatives. Like when MP3s replaced the CD monopoly. Or when Satellite services, or Verizon FiOS, or internet websites provided cheaper, better alternatives to the Comcast television monopoly.
"Free market fanatics" don't think the government needs to do anything, because competitors rise up and break-up the monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. Let's suppose I'm Google, and I have expenses to pay, so I put ads on my site. However people from British Telecom are seeing ads from Phorm instead. How does the money flowing into Phorm pay my google.com bills? The answer of course is that it does not.
So we're back to what I said before: "BT is removing my revenue-source and jeopardizing my ability to continue providing a Free website."
As far as I can tell the U.S., States, and other courts enforce the Supreme Law quite well. Not perfectly, but better than if we had no Supreme Law to protect our free speech.
It surely violates the webowners' rights, who PAID to have their ads appear on your screen, but instead British Telecom is blocking them: "BT Webwise also personalizes the online advertising you see when browsing on participating websites by linking ads to your interests. For example, if you search for a weekend trip to Paris or visit pages related to Paris, BT Webwise would replace the standard ads....."
I know if I was Google, Apple, Microsoft, or some other website, I would not be happy.
Ads are what pay my bills. How dare BT remove my revenue-source and jeopardize my ability to continue providing a Free website to my customers?
P.S. I have done SOME online gaming. It's just that it's been a long time - back in the days of TradeWars (pure text BBS game) and Populous and 2 k modems.
Yes very sad but...
did somebody say "free"??? I like "free". :-) Alright. I'm new to online gaming. What do I need to play this game? Is dialup good enough or do I need broadband? Is the software downloadable?
Most people aren't that smart.
They don't see negative reviews, so they never think anything is amiss. ("Out of sight; out of mind.") Removing negative reviews is an effective strategy for BT to use.
Well...
As someone who's been banned from a couple forums, I can attest that "forums are private and there's no requirement for free speech". In other words the owner of the forum can be a dictatorial censor is that's what he wishes; it's his forum. Same applies to British Telecom.
The only catch: If BT is a government-owned company, then the government may be in violation of its own laws. Too bad the U.K. doesn't have some "supreme law of the land" to act as a contract which the government must follow, and provides guarantees such as free speech which cannot be over-ruled by a politician.
Realistically, how many viewers did he lose?
If Linux users represent 1/2% of the population and he gets 1 million viewers per year, that's only 5000 lost users.
Not very many people use Linux..... its total number is probably less than the number of people who used the Commodore Amiga OS back in the day..... and the Amiga OS ultimately died. (Yes I know a few diehards like me still use it, but for all practical purposes, it's on its deathbed.) Not supporting Linux Viewers is not going to seriously harm webowners.
What I'd really like to see is Apple port its Macintosh OS X over to the IBM PC hardware - give us an alternative that actually has a chance of overthrowing the Microsoft WinOS monopoly.
Realistically, how many viewers did he lose? 1000? Not very many people use Linux..... its total number is probably less than the number of people who used the Commodore Amiga OS back in the day..... and the Amiga OS ultimately died. (Yes I know a few diehards like me still use it, but for all practical purposes, it's on its deathbed.) Not supporting Linux is not going to seriously harm webowners.
What I'd really like to see is Apple port its Macintosh OS X over to the IBM PC hardware - give us an alternative that actually has a chance of overthrowing the Microsoft WinOS monopoly.
Well if it's any consolation, I used Silverlight to watch the Olympics on nbc.com.
It sucked.
Hopefully other users will also recognize its suckitude and avoid it with a passion. To date the best player I've found is on cwtv.com, since it can dynamically adjust the video speed as high as 2000kbit/s or as low as 128k, and yet still produce a watchable image. Watching MS Silverlight on my slow connection barely worked at all, but I've never had any problem with CW's "mplayer" application.
Pretty much. Soon you won't be able to access television for free. You'll have to join cable, join dish, or pay extra for non-speed-limited TV streams over the internet.
Ooops..... spoke too soon. I just learned that FOX Broadcasting will soon offer FOX News on the digital subchannels (X.2 or X.3), which means everyone will be able to enjoy the pleasure of watching middle-of-the-road, hanging-on-the-fence, moderate centrist reporting.
(Instead of socialist-leaning, big-government-loving CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or PBS.)
>>>a 40mW device at a distance of 300 yards is NOT going to overpower a 40000W device at a distance of 20 or 30 miles.
You're a twit. If you can't understand simply math, you're also ignorant. Almost all of my stations are 50-60 miles away. By the time a distant television signal travels 50-60 miles, it's degraded to only ~10 [micro]watts. A 40,000 microwatt TV Band device can easily overpower that.
It's commonsense (40000>>>10).
>>>The proper response to a law that you disagree with is not to disobey the law.
You need to go read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience". It was the document which Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. Dubois, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King followed, and they changed the course of history. Unjust laws are meant to be ignored..... and if they are unConstitutional, they should be actively denigrated as "nonlaws".
Yes true, but now that the easement rights have been granted, why only ONE cable company? There's enough room in the underground pipes to run four or five cables, each owned by Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, Verizon, et cetera. Then it's not a monopoly but Pro-choice, where the consumer decides which company he/she wants.
Consumers now have the choice of Dish, Directv, or Cable Monopoly, which is okay, but it would be so much better if they have 4 or 5 cable companies to choose from, not just one.
Proto-mammals are not mammals.
I'm not going to let someone drive off with my $25,000 car. That represents a year of my life that I spent earning that money. He has the choice to walk off (as he did last week), but if he chooses to ignore my warning & come towards me, then I'm going to shoot to kill.
In that case HE is the one who choose to end his life. Suicide by gun.
That's a tragedy, but I'm not forfeiting my life to save a baby. Charge that as manslaughter against the man I shot dead, because it was HIS action that precipitated the events on that day.
The alternative, where the murderer leaves me lying in a pool of my own blood, is NOT going to happen. I can't believe you think I should choose that option as "better" than self-defense.
>>>And as a popular american saying goes "Your rights end right where mine starts".
Precisely. When the thief decides to attack me, he's infringing on my Right to Life and I have the Right of Self-Defense to do whatever it takes to protect my life. It that requires lethal force to stop a man twice my weight, so be it. He shouldn't have crossed that boundary of attacking me.
By that reasoning the government has a right to invade your private home where you've been selling games/videos/whatever on Ebay, because you're operating a company. Small, yes, but still business in action.
You might want to rethink your position.
You are in severe denial if you think the thieves don't have guns. They are as easy to import (or make) as illegal drugs. Outlawing guns merely makes it easier for the gun-owning criminals to win.
Which is why every person should be armed with either a gun, or a stunner, or mace. The thief, not knowing is he's about to get killed/stunned/sprayed, might rethink his lifestyle choices and quit attacking armed citizens.
Whoever told you this, lied. Prior to the Civil War most people operated private businesses. They owned printing presses, shoe-making shops, clothing shops, and any other item people might need. Even the family farm was a kind of business (grow food - sell it to the townies or city-dwellers). The plantation was the ultimate business, shipping either cotton or tobacco all around the world. One enterprising American even started an ice business where he shipped ice from the north pole into the States so people could keep their stored food chilled.
They did NOT need to get a license to operate these shops or businesses - they simply opened them up and started selling.
What was that?
SOME of ye said over-the-air HDTV is no longer needed because we can just watch the internet...
Let it die ye said.
Hmmm. How am I supposed to do that if Bell-Canada is throttling me to 500 kbit/s or less? Last I checked that's not enough to carry a 1920x1080 HD video. I guess we DO need over-the-air television after all.
>>>It's recognized by even the most free market-fanatic economists that the government has a responsibility to break up monopolies.
>>>
If the monopoly was CREATED by the government, then yes. But in a truly free market a monopoly only exists for a short time, because new companies or technologies introduce alternatives. Like when MP3s replaced the CD monopoly. Or when Satellite services, or Verizon FiOS, or internet websites provided cheaper, better alternatives to the Comcast television monopoly.
"Free market fanatics" don't think the government needs to do anything, because competitors rise up and break-up the monopoly.