You see, this is precisely the kind of news that I hate reading. The kind where they make a big deal out of something someone did just because someone was there to take the next step for them. I, too, played with all of those theorems and numbers when I was in my earlier math classes. And I, too, played with that number and those triangles. But did I show anyone? No. No one around these parts cares about such things. I have attended so-called National Schools of Excellence since the second grade, and none of them really care! They only care about being in control and producing higher standardized test scores - nothing more. They don't care about establishing connections for us. They don't care about furthering us. They just want us to get up and out and make them look better.
Josh, if you're out there and just happen to be reading this, count your lucky stars, and thank that teacher of yours. My teachers would have either not cared or taken credit for themselves.
I didn't say that I was a Linux expert, I just said that I know Linux... I would say that I am a Windows expert, though. Windows is not hard to keep running properly, as long as you avoid software conflicts and understand the registry. I've found that the majority of problems with Windows are not from Microsoft, but from abusively installing and uninstalling skillions of programs and applications, or rarely running any type of diagnostic software like scandisk and disk defragmenter. Rarely do the former, and often do the latter, and your Windows machine should be fine.
I agree that Windows is better. I still run them both, though not on the same system. I run Linux at work, and it's... just... not... right. I'm really hoping that the entire world doesn't go the way of Linux in the next few years.
I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced. What's so great about this piece of software again? I visited the web page and tried to gather enough information to decide for myself, but I really just need a few second, third, and umpteenth opinions.
I hate to say so, but I still prefer Windows over Linux because Windows has 18 gazillion pieces of software to use that cover nearly all of my wants and needs. Linux, therefore, is only a hassle to run right now. (Of course it works much better than Windows as a server, but that's another story that we've all read, right?)
It could actually be the COPA, but I don't really recall. If the article was on the top of the "Post Comment" page, then I could right click and open a link in a new window and find out. I'm too lazy to go about it any other way, though.:-)
It's the Children's Internet Protection Act (hence the CIPA in the article's title), not the Children's Online Protection Act.
My response to the article? I don't think that the government should mandate "the use of filtering software in schools and libraries receiving federal grants for computers or Internet access." In other words, I am in support of the groups challenging the law. I believe that each institution should decide how it would like the internet to be censored from its subjects, depending on the nature of the institution. Filtering software will never be perfect anyway, and quite often the filtering software filters out sites that are very useful and helpful.
In short, I believe that better rules and regulations within each institution should be established, and the law should go. When someone views something he/she shouldn't, he/she should be disciplined accordingly. Filtering software is not perfect, and can be quite a nuisance.
<Forrest Gump>And that's all I have to say about that.</Forrest Gump>
I live my life under the impression that they're watching anyway. Online, offline, whatever. It makes no difference. What makes anyone think that the NSA or CIA doesn't have everything on tape anyway? I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, because I don't see any reason for what I am speaking of to be labeled as a conspiracy, but we're being watched.
I don't see any huge problem with the RIAA asking for money from certain ISPs for "losing" money.....I say services such as @home could invoke a small fee to allow connections to Napster...
I would have a big problem with this; as I just stated, noone of the RIAA is selling MP3s, and it is relying on other industries to subsidize its continued existance simply because they're incapable of adapting their business model to changes in technology.
I actually agree with you in principle, but in order to please the RIAA, something is necessary, or the mp3 itself could be rendered extinct.
You see, following the baseball team versus television model, I think that the RIAA should be paying the Internet Service Providers for exposing users like you and me to the music that they would otherwise never hear, and therefore would never buy.
The radio stations in my town suck. We have one rock station, one classic rock station, one hits station, two rap stations, several country (blah), one oldies, and a few others that I've lost track of. This means no modern rock or metal or punk or anything that I consider to be my taste in music. Even our rock station sucks. What does this mean? This means that my CD collection is growing because of the exposure to music online, especially through the use of Napster. I scan the music charts, heed the words of friends, pay attention to reviews, and I download the music that seems worthy. If it warrants it, I go out and by the album. In the last three weeks I have bought five new albums - all of which I had completely downloaded on Napster first to make sure they were worth the buy. Oh, and if something isn't worth it, meaning if I don't like it, I simply delete it. The RIAA is completely stupid, methinks.
I liked my idea as a shell, but when you draw it out in such detail I begin to like it less. You make it sound as though the cable company will charge us for the amount of time that we watch TV. If this were the case, we would probably have fewer couch potatoes in America.
If internet access is metered, monitored, and billed, despite the wonderful idea that it is, there will be some very serious outcries from those that don't believe their bandwidth usage warrants the fees. This is a "pay less" world... Why can't people like Bill Gates just share with all of us?:-)
That's because it SHOULD be free! When are you idiots going to realize that this world does not revolve around money?! No matter how much the big businesses of the world have you convinced, our real purpose to live is simply to live, not to make money. Money has nothing to do with a good life.
Perhaps I have a little communist in me. Such a society would never work because people like you are here to counter it. However, idealy, everyone working together and for each other would make the perfect society. Could you imagine an even distribution of wealth? Could you imagine the world without any concept of wealth? Here, everyone have this, everyone have that... keyword... FREE.
And do you know what would be so great about that? We would all be working our hardest simply to make sure we were all equal. But no, in our society, back in reality, we will always be fighting over the almighty dollar. It isn't worth it.
There are those of you that insult those like me for wanting things free. There are those like me that realize that nothing comes for free, sadly. The closest thing I've got to free is free will, my ability to choose, but even that comes with a price...
_______
And who the hell modded my comments that started this conversation down for being a troll? I brought what I felt was a good idea and loads of conversation to the table, and that's trolling? Who's definition of trolling are you using?
We pay for cable, we see baseball games on TV. Baseball teams pay for the coverage.
We pay for Internet, we hear music through the internet. Music industry bitches for the increase in sales, claiming that they are losing money as a result.
The way I see it, the RIAA has no room to bitch about anything, and if they do, it has nothing to do with the people, but the ISPs. Depending on the amount of bandwidth used on Napster's service on certain ISPs, I don't see any huge problem with the RIAA asking for money from certain ISPs for "losing" money. (Then again, I still don't see where the RIAA is "losing" money.) Still, this would only incite a rise in the price for the average person to get online, which would still be a nuissance.
But tell me, would a very slight increase in price be worth the ability to use Napster? I say services such as @home could invoke a small fee to allow connections to Napster, or those that don't pay the extra fee can have the servers blocked. I don't see why it should be any more than a couple bucks per month, but any ISP would make it more than necessary.
These are very loose ideas. Feel free to poke and probe them.
Was my idea that good? I was just speaking my mind. It's amazing what that can get you, sometimes. Speaking of mod points, I just acquired some. I'm still not 100% sure how that works. This is only my second time.
But enough of that. You do raise a good question. Who is willing to get this started? If I had the ability, I would. Hopefully enough eyes will see this to incite some form of rebellion somewhere. All wonderful new things have a beginning... maybe someone with the right talents will find this cause worthy of a little work, whether by my notion or otherwise.
I think that the CDDB should be a service that allows anyone to use it, as long as it is financially stable. It can be a very useful, and therefore very loved, service if it does not give in to the way of the anal retentive music industry and try to charge for every little detail of life. In short, if the CDDB turns cheap, I say we turn up a new CD database. Hell, we can make it a community-based site. I don't suppose it would take more than a couple of weeks for some of the 'net's elites to initiate such a service.
Werd to free music. Werd to free information. Werd to the people.
You forget. This is the CIA. Are you trying to tell me that they are not cataloguing? If you are, forgive me, but you're crazy! That's just the part they're not telling you about...
I don't quite like the idea that they have the ability to separate one voice from the next digitally, but I guess that in some distant future all that will be done flawlessly and we'll all be screwed as far as that goes.
And by the time that happens, they will also have a very firm grasp on digital voice production, meaning so much for the freedom of speech... or so much against, I should say.
And open source? Hah! Let's just open source the Pentagon while we're at it... Actually, I wouldn't mind knowing what really happened to Marilyn Monroe...
Thanks Matt. If I were a moderator, or if any moderators were still cruising this articles comments to "notice" you, I think you would be moderated up for that.:-)
I would guess that this would have all kinds of support from the prp-Open Source side of the world. Printing up your own usually implies the ability, no matter the difficulty, to modify and individualize, which is what open source is all about, right?
I see Information Technology as a major that prepares one for the business world by concentrating on computers, but not as a means of becoming a software developer. If that were my goal, I would major in Computer Science. I am more interested in being one of the higher-ups in a company, such as a network administrator or a variety of other things. This is also why I like the idea of getting a second major in Business Management. Business plus technology... talk about two things that won't go away. Now if I can only incorporate politics into that, I will have education on all the things that will never die!
I would be curious to see, based on this technology, what Starry Night would have looked like, had he painted it on my birthday. Or yours, for that matter. Or any other time. Someone should write a Starry Night generator. Yeah...
I have been against companies' "rights" to words or phrases in cases such as this for as long as I have been able to comprehend the concept of it. The fact is that words are simply words; fundamental parts of a language. One company owning a word that had previously been simply a part of every day speech is preposterous. However, in the event that a company invents a word, such as "Microsoft," I see no problem with owning a copyright over the word.
I find it sickening every time I read about someone being sued over using every day words. It is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
If you know how something works, you're less likely to screw it up.
Josh, if you're out there and just happen to be reading this, count your lucky stars, and thank that teacher of yours. My teachers would have either not cared or taken credit for themselves.
Funny, I was thinking of U2 with pizza toppings. Did anyone else notice that "Bono" submitted "The Edge" article?
I didn't say that I was a Linux expert, I just said that I know Linux... I would say that I am a Windows expert, though. Windows is not hard to keep running properly, as long as you avoid software conflicts and understand the registry. I've found that the majority of problems with Windows are not from Microsoft, but from abusively installing and uninstalling skillions of programs and applications, or rarely running any type of diagnostic software like scandisk and disk defragmenter. Rarely do the former, and often do the latter, and your Windows machine should be fine.
So in other words, this is the software that just might make Linux manageable? I might have to try it out...
I agree that Windows is better. I still run them both, though not on the same system. I run Linux at work, and it's ... just ... not ... right. I'm really hoping that the entire world doesn't go the way of Linux in the next few years.
I hate to say so, but I still prefer Windows over Linux because Windows has 18 gazillion pieces of software to use that cover nearly all of my wants and needs. Linux, therefore, is only a hassle to run right now. (Of course it works much better than Windows as a server, but that's another story that we've all read, right?)
It could actually be the COPA, but I don't really recall. If the article was on the top of the "Post Comment" page, then I could right click and open a link in a new window and find out. I'm too lazy to go about it any other way, though. :-)
My response to the article? I don't think that the government should mandate "the use of filtering software in schools and libraries receiving federal grants for computers or Internet access." In other words, I am in support of the groups challenging the law. I believe that each institution should decide how it would like the internet to be censored from its subjects, depending on the nature of the institution. Filtering software will never be perfect anyway, and quite often the filtering software filters out sites that are very useful and helpful.
In short, I believe that better rules and regulations within each institution should be established, and the law should go. When someone views something he/she shouldn't, he/she should be disciplined accordingly. Filtering software is not perfect, and can be quite a nuisance.
<Forrest Gump>And that's all I have to say about that.</Forrest Gump>
Now what is this about some kind of attacks? :-)
I would have a big problem with this; as I just stated, noone of the RIAA is selling MP3s, and it is relying on other industries to subsidize its continued existance simply because they're incapable of adapting their business model to changes in technology.
I actually agree with you in principle, but in order to please the RIAA, something is necessary, or the mp3 itself could be rendered extinct.
You see, following the baseball team versus television model, I think that the RIAA should be paying the Internet Service Providers for exposing users like you and me to the music that they would otherwise never hear, and therefore would never buy.
The radio stations in my town suck. We have one rock station, one classic rock station, one hits station, two rap stations, several country (blah), one oldies, and a few others that I've lost track of. This means no modern rock or metal or punk or anything that I consider to be my taste in music. Even our rock station sucks. What does this mean? This means that my CD collection is growing because of the exposure to music online, especially through the use of Napster. I scan the music charts, heed the words of friends, pay attention to reviews, and I download the music that seems worthy. If it warrants it, I go out and by the album. In the last three weeks I have bought five new albums - all of which I had completely downloaded on Napster first to make sure they were worth the buy. Oh, and if something isn't worth it, meaning if I don't like it, I simply delete it. The RIAA is completely stupid, methinks.
If internet access is metered, monitored, and billed, despite the wonderful idea that it is, there will be some very serious outcries from those that don't believe their bandwidth usage warrants the fees. This is a "pay less" world... Why can't people like Bill Gates just share with all of us? :-)
Perhaps I have a little communist in me. Such a society would never work because people like you are here to counter it. However, idealy, everyone working together and for each other would make the perfect society. Could you imagine an even distribution of wealth? Could you imagine the world without any concept of wealth? Here, everyone have this, everyone have that... keyword... FREE.
And do you know what would be so great about that? We would all be working our hardest simply to make sure we were all equal. But no, in our society, back in reality, we will always be fighting over the almighty dollar. It isn't worth it.
There are those of you that insult those like me for wanting things free. There are those like me that realize that nothing comes for free, sadly. The closest thing I've got to free is free will, my ability to choose, but even that comes with a price...
_______
And who the hell modded my comments that started this conversation down for being a troll? I brought what I felt was a good idea and loads of conversation to the table, and that's trolling? Who's definition of trolling are you using?
If I weren't the person you were responding to, I would moderate you up. Very nice analysis. I cannot really respond in any other way.
We pay for cable, we see baseball games on TV. Baseball teams pay for the coverage.
We pay for Internet, we hear music through the internet. Music industry bitches for the increase in sales, claiming that they are losing money as a result.
The way I see it, the RIAA has no room to bitch about anything, and if they do, it has nothing to do with the people, but the ISPs. Depending on the amount of bandwidth used on Napster's service on certain ISPs, I don't see any huge problem with the RIAA asking for money from certain ISPs for "losing" money. (Then again, I still don't see where the RIAA is "losing" money.) Still, this would only incite a rise in the price for the average person to get online, which would still be a nuissance.
But tell me, would a very slight increase in price be worth the ability to use Napster? I say services such as @home could invoke a small fee to allow connections to Napster, or those that don't pay the extra fee can have the servers blocked. I don't see why it should be any more than a couple bucks per month, but any ISP would make it more than necessary.
These are very loose ideas. Feel free to poke and probe them.
But enough of that. You do raise a good question. Who is willing to get this started? If I had the ability, I would. Hopefully enough eyes will see this to incite some form of rebellion somewhere. All wonderful new things have a beginning... maybe someone with the right talents will find this cause worthy of a little work, whether by my notion or otherwise.
I've never been to FreeBD.org. Is it any good? :-)
Werd to free music. Werd to free information. Werd to the people.
You forget. This is the CIA. Are you trying to tell me that they are not cataloguing? If you are, forgive me, but you're crazy! That's just the part they're not telling you about...
I don't quite like the idea that they have the ability to separate one voice from the next digitally, but I guess that in some distant future all that will be done flawlessly and we'll all be screwed as far as that goes.
And by the time that happens, they will also have a very firm grasp on digital voice production, meaning so much for the freedom of speech ... or so much against, I should say.
And open source? Hah! Let's just open source the Pentagon while we're at it... Actually, I wouldn't mind knowing what really happened to Marilyn Monroe...
Thanks Matt. If I were a moderator, or if any moderators were still cruising this articles comments to "notice" you, I think you would be moderated up for that. :-)
I would guess that this would have all kinds of support from the prp-Open Source side of the world. Printing up your own usually implies the ability, no matter the difficulty, to modify and individualize, which is what open source is all about, right?
(Okay, not everything.)
I would be curious to see, based on this technology, what Starry Night would have looked like, had he painted it on my birthday. Or yours, for that matter. Or any other time. Someone should write a Starry Night generator. Yeah...
I find it sickening every time I read about someone being sued over using every day words. It is absurd.