They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc...
No they didn't, why do you think they were regulated in the first place? The taxpayers paid for that. Verizon and co have been getting billions from the government in the form of grants, tax breaks, and whatnot with the promise of fiber for all that they have not even come close to fulfilling. You paid for that line, they are just ensuring only they are allowed to abuse you over it. These are the same people demanding laws preventing municipalities from providing internet access.
Think about it: while Windows Vista is a great operating system
I am thinking about it, and I have never heard anyone who has used it make that claim. The best parts of Vista were cut out long before launch, the result is a mess reminiscent of Millennium Edition.
There are people out there that work hard to create content that will enrich other people's lives. Sometimes those people do it so much (aka job) they have to rely on income in order to eat and live. Why shouldn't those people have the right not to have that content stolen?
It is amusing that you find a relationship between DRM somehow preventing content from being stolen. Can you point to a single instance where a creative work has been DRMed and NOT been made available for free in some means? I've got nothing against creative people making money, I'm not saying that all creative works should be free. Do whatever you want to protect your digital property, but if you are going to inconvenience my legit, legal, purchased use of it on the almost ludicrous chance that your poorly thought out DRM might in some way prevent privacy (hint: it never has, not even once), then I'm going to avoid it.
Notice that this story was not about a software pirate (yargh) complaining that MS DRM is preventing him from illegally copying software, this is a legit user being inconvenienced by DRM. The problem with DRM (besides every implementation of it in existence being based on cryptographic fallacies) is that it does not do anything to stop piracy, it just annoys legit end users.
So I think saying "DRM sucks" is a popular catchphrase but it is unreasonable to think everything in this life should be free.
I agree, but between our totally screwed up government, horribly broken justice system and "above the law" corporate conglomerates calling the shots, our isps raping us is really not the greatest of our concerns right now.
You want to run a server without hassle? get a business account. I have Comcast workplace at my home and I get 6m/768k with 6 static ip addresses and no port blocking or restriction on servers for $100/month.
Look, I'm not totally happy about it, but this is how it works today. You want a restrictive, "client only" connection to the internet you can do that for $20-$60 a month. You want a real internet connection you are going to have to pay $100+ a month in most places (in the US).
Frankly, I am hoping the ISPs finally just come clean and admit that their bottom tier service is client only, practically web/email only. There is a market for that and there is nothing really wrong with them selling it that way.
Verizon's FIOS service supposedly has a comparably priced business tier as well, and they are laying fiber on my street as we speak. I might check that out when it lights up (although I generally find Verizon slightly more evil than Comcast).
Yeah but it's always said: your gun will be taken away from you, period. Disarming can't be both possible and impossible at the same time.
By who? I never said that. There are plenty of examples where someone was attacked and having a gun drove off the attack (or killed the attacker). There are also plenty of example where the person's gun was taken away from them. It all comes down to the situation, mental state of the people involved, and luck. The deck is always stacked in favor of the attacker though, gun or not.
I don't know why, I know a pretty significant number of people who own firearms who have had no training whatsoever. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but I assume that is the norm.
It just occured to me that whenever someone is talking about carrying a gun, he is reminded that his attacker is likely to take the gun away from him and kill him. But, when someone is talking about disarming an attacker in self-defense, he's immediately reminded that disarming an armed attacker is 100% impossible and can never be done by anyone.
You are confusing the roles of attacker and defender.
An attacker with a gun knows the attack is going to take place, therefore has the gun out, aimed at the person he is attacking, finger on the trigger, and is prepared. I wouldn't say 100% impossible, but I imagine it would be damn near impossible to take the gun away from this person without it going off in your direction.
The defender in my example was being pummeled, presumably not in control of the situation and going for a gun would likely be noticed. Even in a situation where the fight has not broken out yet, the person doing the attacking is likely larger, more aware of the situation (being attacked, mugged, etc. can be very disorienting) and if he notices you going for a gun could possibly get it out of your hands before you draw, un-safety (if applicable), aim, and fire. The deck is stacked in the favor of the attacker generally, and this is by design. A gun on the defender can save him, but only if drawn at the right moment (too late and you are being beaten and that is not a good position to draw a gun in) and by someone who knows how to use it under duress. Pulling a gun and clicking it a few times because the safety is on gives the attacker time to remove it from you. Survival in life or death situations has as much to do with mental preparedness than anything else. If you are not mentally prepared to use a firearm (and comfortable in your resolve and competence with it) then you probably should not be carrying one because it is quite possible your attacker is.
Carrying a concealed firearm is not an automagic "get out of street crime free" card, you have to know how to use it (under stress, not shooting at paper at the range on a sunny day), and just as important, when to use it. You cannot go kneecapping anyone who makes you nervous on the street, but you also do not want to wait until you are getting pummeled when it would very easy for one or your assailants to disarm and shoot you.
Also, let's not for a second pretend that the police, media, and public would view you as a hero for shooting a kid in the kneecap. After all of this friends testified that they were on their way to volunteer at the homeless shelter and this angry mean bastard on a bike tried to molest one of them and then shot him in the leg as he tried to escape, you would be vilified in the media and possibly facing hard time. Ironically only video cameras would be able to exonerate you (unless you had witnesses, but street thugs tend to avoid place with lots of witnesses).
Point being, if you are going to carry a gun, get lots of training (should be mandatory). It should be more/better training that police officers get. I've been to ranges with many of them and their safety practices and general incompetence regarding their sidearms is often downright frightening. Also assume that if you do fire on someone, you are going to spend the rest of your life in jail (makes no difference if you are in the right or not). So do not do so unless it is a matter of life of death (not bruised ego).
I'll concede that gladly, both sides are equally adding to the nightmare that passes for political discourse in the US. However to say that the problem is the progressives (or liberals, or conservatives, or Whigs, or Tories, whatever) is rather oversimplifying it.
And what Bush is doing this country is abysmal, but to call him a Nazi is to be somewhat ignorant as to what actually happened in Germany last century; it is not nearly that bad yet. However (Godwin asise), it is not totally unreasonable to draw parallels between certainly tactics of the Bush admin and the Nazis in their rhetoric and justifications for what they do. However, using fear and xenophobia to coerce a population into willingly handing over rights and protections is certainly nothing new in any era.
Eh, it is ok if you use user the right firefox add ons and set your google cookies as session cookies, and only log in when you want to check email (as opposed to just search the web).
Otherwise they are no different than any other ISP with an email service. What makes you think AOL, Hotmail, or Bob's House 'o Internet actually deletes all of your mail?
If you are that paranoid, you need to run your own mail server and only use encrypted email. Which you can also do with gmail and the right firefox plugin (FireGPG).
I fully expect google to someday roll out a similar service someday that lets you search through the pages you have tagged. That would be very useful.
Guess I should have read all of the comments in this story before replying. I would have learned about Google Notebook which looks like exactly what I was thinking of.
I'm normally not a web 2.0 bandwagon type of person, but del.icio.us is probably the most useful thing for this that I have ever run across.
pros: -tagging -descriptions -accessible from anywhere -really simple to add to (with firefox plugin) -searchable
cons: -web pages are ephemeral -del.icio.is itself could go away someday, and I'm not sure how to back it up locally
The best way to address the issue of web pages being ephemeral is to, as others have said, print to pdf. You mac people have it nice in this regard, but it is not hard to set up on windows or *ix.
I also mentioned that del.icio.us was searchable, but only the tags, titles, and descriptions. I fully expect google to someday roll out a similar service someday that lets you search through the pages you have tagged. That would be very useful.
I also like the suggestion of a personal wiki, but more for keeping track of little "tips and tricks" that I stumble upon rather than entire web pages.
Slashdot Mirror
They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc...
No they didn't, why do you think they were regulated in the first place? The taxpayers paid for that. Verizon and co have been getting billions from the government in the form of grants, tax breaks, and whatnot with the promise of fiber for all that they have not even come close to fulfilling. You paid for that line, they are just ensuring only they are allowed to abuse you over it. These are the same people demanding laws preventing municipalities from providing internet access.
I doubt it makes much difference to a 4 year old whether or not photography is involved while they are being sexually assaulted.
I imagine it makes it a little worse knowing that for the rest of your life sickos will be trading images of you being molested like baseballs cards.
Think about it: while Windows Vista is a great operating system
I am thinking about it, and I have never heard anyone who has used it make that claim. The best parts of Vista were cut out long before launch, the result is a mess reminiscent of Millennium Edition.
Actually you can buy thousands and they still will not care unless you start talking about migrating to Linux/openoffice. Then they suddenly care.
There are people out there that work hard to create content that will enrich other people's lives. Sometimes those people do it so much (aka job) they have to rely on income in order to eat and live. Why shouldn't those people have the right not to have that content stolen?
It is amusing that you find a relationship between DRM somehow preventing content from being stolen. Can you point to a single instance where a creative work has been DRMed and NOT been made available for free in some means?
I've got nothing against creative people making money, I'm not saying that all creative works should be free. Do whatever you want to protect your digital property, but if you are going to inconvenience my legit, legal, purchased use of it on the almost ludicrous chance that your poorly thought out DRM might in some way prevent privacy (hint: it never has, not even once), then I'm going to avoid it.
Notice that this story was not about a software pirate (yargh) complaining that MS DRM is preventing him from illegally copying software, this is a legit user being inconvenienced by DRM. The problem with DRM (besides every implementation of it in existence being based on cryptographic fallacies) is that it does not do anything to stop piracy, it just annoys legit end users.
So I think saying "DRM sucks" is a popular catchphrase but it is unreasonable to think everything in this life should be free.
Hello, non sequitur.
Second Life is really 3D IRC, with a much poorer frame rate than the old-skool IRC.
And the various MMORPGs are just IRC with Auto-Attack.
And IRC is just multiplayer notepad
(apologies to bash.org)
Finkployd
I agree, but between our totally screwed up government, horribly broken justice system and "above the law" corporate conglomerates calling the shots, our isps raping us is really not the greatest of our concerns right now.
We pay a surplus for all of the NSA monitoring gear and the record keeping the ISPs need to do for the RIAA/MPAA.
Finkployd
I haven't used bt in a while (I pretty much only use it for downloading linux install disks). I'll try it later and check back.
I would be surprised if they are blocking/throttling ANYTHING, since I believe that would be a violation of the contract I signed with them.
You want to run a server without hassle? get a business account. I have Comcast workplace at my home and I get 6m/768k with 6 static ip addresses and no port blocking or restriction on servers for $100/month.
Look, I'm not totally happy about it, but this is how it works today. You want a restrictive, "client only" connection to the internet you can do that for $20-$60 a month. You want a real internet connection you are going to have to pay $100+ a month in most places (in the US).
Frankly, I am hoping the ISPs finally just come clean and admit that their bottom tier service is client only, practically web/email only. There is a market for that and there is nothing really wrong with them selling it that way.
Verizon's FIOS service supposedly has a comparably priced business tier as well, and they are laying fiber on my street as we speak. I might check that out when it lights up (although I generally find Verizon slightly more evil than Comcast).
Finkployd
That is what I do, and Comcast is not all that bad. 6m/768k and 6 static IPs with no restrictions on server or port blocking for $100/month.
Finkployd
Ok, then to answer your original question (which appeared to be directed toward my position), I don't know why some people say that.
Yeah but it's always said: your gun will be taken away from you, period. Disarming can't be both possible and impossible at the same time.
By who? I never said that. There are plenty of examples where someone was attacked and having a gun drove off the attack (or killed the attacker). There are also plenty of example where the person's gun was taken away from them. It all comes down to the situation, mental state of the people involved, and luck. The deck is always stacked in favor of the attacker though, gun or not.
Finkployd
I don't know why, I know a pretty significant number of people who own firearms who have had no training whatsoever. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but I assume that is the norm.
Finkployd
It just occured to me that whenever someone is talking about carrying a gun, he is reminded that his attacker is likely to take the gun away from him and kill him. But, when someone is talking about disarming an attacker in self-defense, he's immediately reminded that disarming an armed attacker is 100% impossible and can never be done by anyone.
You are confusing the roles of attacker and defender.
An attacker with a gun knows the attack is going to take place, therefore has the gun out, aimed at the person he is attacking, finger on the trigger, and is prepared. I wouldn't say 100% impossible, but I imagine it would be damn near impossible to take the gun away from this person without it going off in your direction.
The defender in my example was being pummeled, presumably not in control of the situation and going for a gun would likely be noticed. Even in a situation where the fight has not broken out yet, the person doing the attacking is likely larger, more aware of the situation (being attacked, mugged, etc. can be very disorienting) and if he notices you going for a gun could possibly get it out of your hands before you draw, un-safety (if applicable), aim, and fire. The deck is stacked in the favor of the attacker generally, and this is by design. A gun on the defender can save him, but only if drawn at the right moment (too late and you are being beaten and that is not a good position to draw a gun in) and by someone who knows how to use it under duress. Pulling a gun and clicking it a few times because the safety is on gives the attacker time to remove it from you. Survival in life or death situations has as much to do with mental preparedness than anything else. If you are not mentally prepared to use a firearm (and comfortable in your resolve and competence with it) then you probably should not be carrying one because it is quite possible your attacker is.
Finkployd
Carrying a concealed firearm is not an automagic "get out of street crime free" card, you have to know how to use it (under stress, not shooting at paper at the range on a sunny day), and just as important, when to use it. You cannot go kneecapping anyone who makes you nervous on the street, but you also do not want to wait until you are getting pummeled when it would very easy for one or your assailants to disarm and shoot you.
Also, let's not for a second pretend that the police, media, and public would view you as a hero for shooting a kid in the kneecap. After all of this friends testified that they were on their way to volunteer at the homeless shelter and this angry mean bastard on a bike tried to molest one of them and then shot him in the leg as he tried to escape, you would be vilified in the media and possibly facing hard time. Ironically only video cameras would be able to exonerate you (unless you had witnesses, but street thugs tend to avoid place with lots of witnesses).
Point being, if you are going to carry a gun, get lots of training (should be mandatory). It should be more/better training that police officers get. I've been to ranges with many of them and their safety practices and general incompetence regarding their sidearms is often downright frightening. Also assume that if you do fire on someone, you are going to spend the rest of your life in jail (makes no difference if you are in the right or not). So do not do so unless it is a matter of life of death (not bruised ego).
Finkployd
Problems like this happen all the time.
To Windows. I just don't get why it is tolerated.
Finkployd
I'll concede that gladly, both sides are equally adding to the nightmare that passes for political discourse in the US. However to say that the problem is the progressives (or liberals, or conservatives, or Whigs, or Tories, whatever) is rather oversimplifying it.
And what Bush is doing this country is abysmal, but to call him a Nazi is to be somewhat ignorant as to what actually happened in Germany last century; it is not nearly that bad yet. However (Godwin asise), it is not totally unreasonable to draw parallels between certainly tactics of the Bush admin and the Nazis in their rhetoric and justifications for what they do. However, using fear and xenophobia to coerce a population into willingly handing over rights and protections is certainly nothing new in any era.
Finkployd
The problem today is that there are so many simple-minded "progressives" who are incapable of even TRYING to see the other side of an issue.
I'm sorry, I keep forgetting. Which side was the one that constantly claims anyone who is against their specific policies is with the terrorists?
Finkployd
Eh, it is ok if you use user the right firefox add ons and set your google cookies as session cookies, and only log in when you want to check email (as opposed to just search the web).
Otherwise they are no different than any other ISP with an email service. What makes you think AOL, Hotmail, or Bob's House 'o Internet actually deletes all of your mail?
If you are that paranoid, you need to run your own mail server and only use encrypted email. Which you can also do with gmail and the right firefox plugin (FireGPG).
Finkployd
You know, you could have avoided a lot of trouble if you had published your Russian businessman criticizing webpage anonymously...
Finkployd
The cost varies.
Too bad the reliability doesn't
Finkployd
Very nice, I was not aware of this. I'm going to have to try it out.
Thank you
I fully expect google to someday roll out a similar service someday that lets you search through the pages you have tagged. That would be very useful.
Guess I should have read all of the comments in this story before replying. I would have learned about Google Notebook which looks like exactly what I was thinking of.
Finkployd
I'm normally not a web 2.0 bandwagon type of person, but del.icio.us is probably the most useful thing for this that I have ever run across.
pros:
-tagging
-descriptions
-accessible from anywhere
-really simple to add to (with firefox plugin)
-searchable
cons:
-web pages are ephemeral
-del.icio.is itself could go away someday, and I'm not sure how to back it up locally
The best way to address the issue of web pages being ephemeral is to, as others have said, print to pdf. You mac people have it nice in this regard, but it is not hard to set up on windows or *ix.
I also mentioned that del.icio.us was searchable, but only the tags, titles, and descriptions. I fully expect google to someday roll out a similar service someday that lets you search through the pages you have tagged. That would be very useful.
I also like the suggestion of a personal wiki, but more for keeping track of little "tips and tricks" that I stumble upon rather than entire web pages.
Finkployd