you must be american, where your government whether you like it or not, built the foundations of the internet.
as much as you may not like having had your tax dollars spent on something as monumental as the internet, (and I'll admit, it is OLD for the most part) the money you invested benefited the world in ways most people will never imagine. just think, the 2-3 thousand dollars in taxes you've paid in your life time towards this cause, has provided a larger impact on the face of this earth than most any development in the last hundred years.
like buying a cell phone or a car, being the first kid on the block with the newest toys and gadgets does have it's drawbacks in the long run.
and to be completely honest, it's your mentality that's holding them back. if every american would be willing to take a 1% tax increase for broadband spending, the nation could roll out one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, spanning hundreds of 100Gb links across the entire country.
countries like japan didn't have to watch and see what kind of technology they'd need, they just spent taxpayers dollars on established equipment from american development firms. they spent their tax money on fast lines and big equipment. america spent it's money on paying people to come up with the stuff.
when the american public stands back and admits that the money they need to spend transcends what any single "broadband access" company will ever make, people will realize that governments handing those lines to telco's was one of the best things to ever happen.
that's a bit of a stretch, taking the "making a copy of something is stealing! the original owner now doesn't have their... wait a second here..." approach, doesn't quite work here.
a better analogy would be asking the store clerk to give you a copy of the CD you just bought on a USB stick you provide, because you don't have a licensed device in which to play a CD.
or even buying a video, and downloading the subtitles because you're deaf.
the cost to provide IP transit into a datacenter is MUCH lower than it is to provide you a Service Level Agreement of that speed/bandwidth into your home.
if you want to see the SLA costs for something like what your hosting provider pays, get yourself a thousand people willing to sign a document stating that they'll provide content that people want (legally, of course) and call Bell Business solutions.
at $300/month for a 1.544Mbps line with 500GB of transfer, you'll understand why your 10-16down/1up Mbps connection might come with the limits it does.
from the point of view of a wire technician, I'm happy to announce that I have the solution! I'll run you a wire from wherever you want, to wherever you want! all YOU have to do is pay for the materials, licenses for disturbing public ground, licenses for using common utility poles, licenses for crossing property not owned by you, and minimum wage for my time, and I'll happy provide you a connection uncapped with as much bandwidth as you could ever want, while I hand you a SLA stating that fact.
then I'll get your home, and likely everything you own in trade to cover even a portion of the bill.
as much as we may not like over subscription and the general lack of bandwidth, it's a fact of life that these systems cost huge amounts of money to install, maintain, and peer. hell, the material cost along to get your packet from your property line to the local loop is in the hundreds here in canada. and that won't even get you a finished jack in a new home!
it's funny that people completely fail to see that:
exactly what you said, is how the world works.
people don't "magically determine" what they do and don't like, it comes to them through experience.
personally, when sitting on a couch, and searching against hope through the darkness that I'll find the damn pause button on a remote frustrates me. having the ability to queue the video on a device of my choosing and being able to encode it into a format that gives me the control to script the features that I need for my unique situation works best.
I think IMHO that the media industry needs to learn that people would rather not watch something, than be forced to watch it "the way the studio makes the most money". you can't shove a SLA down the throat of a home owner about how they use their house, but you can about the way they watch their movies? that's just crazy talk!
the entire basis of stock market is "speculative value".
a company, when announcing some future ordeal, balloons with growth from stock purchasers that now feel the company is going to have more net assets when said announcement comes to fruition.
if the then lose faith along the way or are simply overshadowed by another company along the path, the stocks are sold off to people that think that the company will rebound, or people that are interested in a longer duration investment.
very little money ever changes hands in stocks. because it's all proposed potential values, only delta's are ever submitted from member to member.
Very few people will ever care. the world that people assume to exist in the stock market rises and falls as people feel more and more secure with their transactions.
yet things like this make people feel less secure with their limited knowledge over the system. in return, removing capitol from the market.
the more complex a system built on trust get's, the more likely it is to fall apart.
The American government will have to claim a military state over everywhere they distribute copyrighted content to, to "get this under control".
only when the majority of people in the world are sitting at their computers with an armed guard watching to ensure that each and every one of us is complying with american copyright laws, will they get to maintain their fucking Draconian laws.
at which point, the people getting paid to watch people will begin thinking they're "entitled to a little piracy, as they're the ones enforcing it" and that whole system will fall apart.
which brings us back to the issue at hand. change. continue changing to meet the needs of your people, or stand aside and let somebody else try.
because what you're doing obviously isn't working.
by exposing these private details even to somebody that you think you trust, you're still giving them away. what that person does with them is up to them.
I respectfully disagree though, privacy is a very binary thing. unless you want to go live in a cave and stop using modern systems, it's time to get over it.
that's exactly what I was just thinking.
personally, I have no issue with the information I give to a site like that going anywhere the owner's want it to.
that's why it's on the internet in the first place
what the hell for?
do you also think that it should be against the law to send pictures of your grandmother over the internet? but what if somebody takes offence to them?
or in a more related case, taking pictures of a burning home? people unwillingly and without consent were harmed, and you're saying it should be illegal to distribute these photos?
censorship. it's a word very few people understand. uncensored does not mean "we get to cover up the obviously illegal things"
I wish I had points to mod you up.
there should NEVER be a law preventing somebody from sharing of receiving information, regardless of what it is.
though I agree that the aforementioned content shouldn't be there in the first place, and that the people who were making it have broken a law, I cannot willingly say that I support any law preventing people from talking/distributing something, ever.
Japan looks the other way at illustrated graphics with rape context? and guess what: suddenly the rate of violent crimes goes down.
if nobody's getting hurt, why is it illegal?
I second the above opinion. your will is your own,
but please, stop Microsoft from showing me ad's for funeral homes in Georgia. I really, really don't care.
Not true at all.
it's a fairly well documented process and fairly standard to disable all user interaction with the update process using Group Policy on Windows Domains.
Windows Sever Update Services(WSUS) goes out online and get's updates, your IT dept. deploys them to several test machines to ensure compatibility, and then the patch is approved in WSUS. the clients at the user level have no control over what is forced onto work machines.
If that's true, then this case is closed. Plain and simple.
At the same time, is Google responsible for this? They've clearly instructed the hotographers NOT to do exactly this, and they did anyways, is this not a personal issue?
Isint that just what they're doing though?
Closed source "commercial" apps arte just a way of telling somebody what they can and can't do, for a random lisence fee.
I'd be more than happy to use Commercial open source apps, ones that I can verify, and modify as I please, to make my job more efficient.
nobody want's to get stuck with a tool that only does half a job,
once you pay for it, that's exactly what you're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
you must be american, where your government whether you like it or not, built the foundations of the internet.
as much as you may not like having had your tax dollars spent on something as monumental as the internet, (and I'll admit, it is OLD for the most part) the money you invested benefited the world in ways most people will never imagine. just think, the 2-3 thousand dollars in taxes you've paid in your life time towards this cause, has provided a larger impact on the face of this earth than most any development in the last hundred years.
like buying a cell phone or a car, being the first kid on the block with the newest toys and gadgets does have it's drawbacks in the long run.
and to be completely honest, it's your mentality that's holding them back. if every american would be willing to take a 1% tax increase for broadband spending, the nation could roll out one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, spanning hundreds of 100Gb links across the entire country.
countries like japan didn't have to watch and see what kind of technology they'd need, they just spent taxpayers dollars on established equipment from american development firms. they spent their tax money on fast lines and big equipment. america spent it's money on paying people to come up with the stuff.
when the american public stands back and admits that the money they need to spend transcends what any single "broadband access" company will ever make, people will realize that governments handing those lines to telco's was one of the best things to ever happen.
that's a bit of a stretch, taking the "making a copy of something is stealing! the original owner now doesn't have their... wait a second here..." approach, doesn't quite work here.
a better analogy would be asking the store clerk to give you a copy of the CD you just bought on a USB stick you provide, because you don't have a licensed device in which to play a CD.
or even buying a video, and downloading the subtitles because you're deaf.
the cost to provide IP transit into a datacenter is MUCH lower than it is to provide you a Service Level Agreement of that speed/bandwidth into your home.
if you want to see the SLA costs for something like what your hosting provider pays, get yourself a thousand people willing to sign a document stating that they'll provide content that people want (legally, of course) and call Bell Business solutions.
at $300/month for a 1.544Mbps line with 500GB of transfer, you'll understand why your 10-16down/1up Mbps connection might come with the limits it does.
People want bandwidth, and people want speed.
from the point of view of a wire technician, I'm happy to announce that I have the solution! I'll run you a wire from wherever you want, to wherever you want! all YOU have to do is pay for the materials, licenses for disturbing public ground, licenses for using common utility poles, licenses for crossing property not owned by you, and minimum wage for my time, and I'll happy provide you a connection uncapped with as much bandwidth as you could ever want, while I hand you a SLA stating that fact.
then I'll get your home, and likely everything you own in trade to cover even a portion of the bill.
as much as we may not like over subscription and the general lack of bandwidth, it's a fact of life that these systems cost huge amounts of money to install, maintain, and peer. hell, the material cost along to get your packet from your property line to the local loop is in the hundreds here in canada. and that won't even get you a finished jack in a new home!
is it illegal to torrent a copy if you purchased a copy and have no optical drives in which to play it?
just a though.
it's funny that people completely fail to see that:
exactly what you said, is how the world works.
people don't "magically determine" what they do and don't like, it comes to them through experience.
personally, when sitting on a couch, and searching against hope through the darkness that I'll find the damn pause button on a remote frustrates me. having the ability to queue the video on a device of my choosing and being able to encode it into a format that gives me the control to script the features that I need for my unique situation works best.
I think IMHO that the media industry needs to learn that people would rather not watch something, than be forced to watch it "the way the studio makes the most money". you can't shove a SLA down the throat of a home owner about how they use their house, but you can about the way they watch their movies? that's just crazy talk!
Well, I guess that shows that even though WE can install Ubuntu on a Mac, they have trouble with even that.
I imagine this may have wonderful potential applications in commercial goods transportation, though it's still a few years off.
the entire basis of stock market is "speculative value".
a company, when announcing some future ordeal, balloons with growth from stock purchasers that now feel the company is going to have more net assets when said announcement comes to fruition.
if the then lose faith along the way or are simply overshadowed by another company along the path, the stocks are sold off to people that think that the company will rebound, or people that are interested in a longer duration investment.
very little money ever changes hands in stocks. because it's all proposed potential values, only delta's are ever submitted from member to member.
Very few people will ever care. the world that people assume to exist in the stock market rises and falls as people feel more and more secure with their transactions.
yet things like this make people feel less secure with their limited knowledge over the system. in return, removing capitol from the market.
the more complex a system built on trust get's, the more likely it is to fall apart.
something like: U2hpdCBNeSBEYWQgU2F5cw== see how long it takes for groups to figure it out.
The American government will have to claim a military state over everywhere they distribute copyrighted content to, to "get this under control".
only when the majority of people in the world are sitting at their computers with an armed guard watching to ensure that each and every one of us is complying with american copyright laws, will they get to maintain their fucking Draconian laws.
at which point, the people getting paid to watch people will begin thinking they're "entitled to a little piracy, as they're the ones enforcing it" and that whole system will fall apart.
which brings us back to the issue at hand. change. continue changing to meet the needs of your people, or stand aside and let somebody else try.
because what you're doing obviously isn't working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_sovereignty
Here here. It's funny that you'd respond to the exact type of person that the comic was referring to.
the WTFPL licence.
by exposing these private details even to somebody that you think you trust, you're still giving them away. what that person does with them is up to them.
I respectfully disagree though, privacy is a very binary thing. unless you want to go live in a cave and stop using modern systems, it's time to get over it.
Privacy should have died years ago.
that's exactly what I was just thinking. personally, I have no issue with the information I give to a site like that going anywhere the owner's want it to. that's why it's on the internet in the first place
what the hell for? do you also think that it should be against the law to send pictures of your grandmother over the internet? but what if somebody takes offence to them? or in a more related case, taking pictures of a burning home? people unwillingly and without consent were harmed, and you're saying it should be illegal to distribute these photos? censorship. it's a word very few people understand. uncensored does not mean "we get to cover up the obviously illegal things"
I wish I had points to mod you up. there should NEVER be a law preventing somebody from sharing of receiving information, regardless of what it is. though I agree that the aforementioned content shouldn't be there in the first place, and that the people who were making it have broken a law, I cannot willingly say that I support any law preventing people from talking/distributing something, ever. Japan looks the other way at illustrated graphics with rape context? and guess what: suddenly the rate of violent crimes goes down. if nobody's getting hurt, why is it illegal?
I second the above opinion. your will is your own, but please, stop Microsoft from showing me ad's for funeral homes in Georgia. I really, really don't care.
Not true at all. it's a fairly well documented process and fairly standard to disable all user interaction with the update process using Group Policy on Windows Domains. Windows Sever Update Services(WSUS) goes out online and get's updates, your IT dept. deploys them to several test machines to ensure compatibility, and then the patch is approved in WSUS. the clients at the user level have no control over what is forced onto work machines.
If that's true, then this case is closed. Plain and simple.
At the same time, is Google responsible for this? They've clearly instructed the hotographers NOT to do exactly this, and they did anyways, is this not a personal issue?
Isint that just what they're doing though? Closed source "commercial" apps arte just a way of telling somebody what they can and can't do, for a random lisence fee. I'd be more than happy to use Commercial open source apps, ones that I can verify, and modify as I please, to make my job more efficient. nobody want's to get stuck with a tool that only does half a job, once you pay for it, that's exactly what you're doing.