I worked for 3 years at a company which hired a lot of contract-based PC Technicians to do 2nd level support. During the last year I was with them (about 3 years ago now) a flood of newly annointed MCSE's began rolling in as contractors. I worked on the 3rd level Engineering team, and had to rely heavily on the techs to take and run with something we implemented.
At one point, we had a system that used basic DOS machines for a special batch transaction process. there were half a dozen of these PCs installed in a rack in the data center. During the implementation, I asked the tech's supervisor if she could have one of them install a clean DOS base on these PCs in preperation for the developer to install his app.
I received a concerned phone call a short time afterward, stating that non of "her people" knew DOS. A group of 6 MCSE's, and not a single member "knew DOS"!
I walked over to their area and asked them if they ever used a "Command Prompt". When they all replied "yes" - I explained to them that that WAS DOS. I then walked away shaking my head mumbling something about career-change fly-by-night-tech school graduates.
A couple hours later, I had to take the whopping 3 DOS 6.22 diskettes and "teach" her techs how to install it!
Just thought you might appreciate this, maybe not.
Again you show your lack of knowledge. Stocks and shares are not tangible. As you have to resort to insults - if brains were dynamite, you would not have enough to blow your hat off.
OK, let's follow your stock analogy, since it fits better than land does. I'll ask a simple question:
Can I sell you common stock in corporation "My Analogy, Inc." if in fact "My Analogy, Inc." has issued no common stock? Or if there is no actual corporation call "My Analogy, Inc."?
Answer - NO! That would be considered fraud, and I'd be subject to criminal prosecution for attempting to do so.
So, if the domain "myanalogyinc.com" does not exist, how can it be considered property? The fact you register the name without a legitimate domain using it, is more like fraud than land speculation or a stock investment.
Does this make sense to you yet? Registering domain names under the guise of speculating/squatting/etc. is an abuse of the DNS system and it's purpose. Plain and simple.
sorry, but domain names are not the equivalent of land or other tangible property. A DNS domain name is only a lookup reference to an IP address. If there is no valid, in production, IP address, then the DNS Domain name should not be reserved!
This abuse of the DNS system by people, whether called squatters, speculators, or fscking jerks, is still an abuse of the DNS system
You don't arbitrarily grab whatever IP addresses you want, do you? NO! You request a block from available addresses when needed. Your analogy is a complete fantasy made up by people who bought into the "get rich quick on the Internet" hype.
If you were unable to work, then how did you pay for the domain registrations? Seems that essential items like food, clothes, and shelter would be a more appropriate use of funds.
As for being your Intellectual Property, give me a break! If you use someone elses Trademarked name, you're using their Intellectual Property!
Domain names are not equivalent to land or other tangible products one would "invest" in. People who take advantage of a system such as DNS to make a quick buck are nothing but Losers in my book!
Apparently, you misinterpreted my intent. I am not arguing against the assertions of Livingston's article, just pointing out that his examples were not the most supportive of his points.
Procter & Gamble Co., the largest U.S. maker of household products, has bought thousands of domains. They have been sitting on many for five years. Are they squatters also?
If Procter & Gamble Co. owns thousands of domains for the purpose of reselling them, then yes, they are squatters. The point is that he used a squatter case as an example of a transfer from a non-squatter, which is an incorrect example.
You do not believe in free speech?
I most certainly do, I am just pointing out that the status quo in disputes seems to be that this would be a fair ruling.
I have read through some of their other arbitration rulings, and have found some I completely disagree with - and that would have made better examples for the points Livingston made.
They were appointed by the US government with the agreement of *most* countries involved in Internet related affairs. This removed the power previously held exclusively by Network Solutions, and gave it to this committee consisting of global representatives (at least in theory).
Although I am disturbed by this situation, the examples in Livingston's article are incorrect.
He states that the crew.com case involved a "small business" and not a squatter, yet the company that registered it had 50+ domain names of registered companies it was selling. Seems to be a squatter to me.
Likewise, the montyroberts.com dispute involves a person using it for negative commentary about the actual plaintiff. This would be considered misuse under most arbitrators review.
I agree with his concerns, just wish he used more appropriate examples of the abuses WIPO has performed.
Although in terms of media hype, I may agree to some extent to the "Intel's a threat to Sun" idea, in the datacenter (where it matters) Intel can't get even close to what Sun can do.
I just upgraded a Sun E6500 box last weekend to 24 UltraSparc processors and 17GB of RAM. Name a single intel-based system that can get even close to that. Perhaps in a few years there'll be something, but it will be brand new and unproven in the real world. Meanwhile, Sun will have advanced even further.
The complaint was that a major street was being blocked. You certainly have the right to use another route. What I said was that an inconvenience should not be used to criminalize an assembly.
The right of assembly like all other rights has its limits. If you are willing to go along with that then reasonable people can have a discussion.
I am a very reasonable person, and I agree that certain limits be placed on speech and assembly. I do not, however, believe that the impact on traffic is a significant factor in this respect.
So.. the right to assembly does not all apply to all venues at all times. In fact, the framers of the constitution probably invisioned indoor meetings when they wrote in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" than massive outdoor gatherings.
Perhaps growing up in MA gave me a more detailed review of events, but I'll refresh your memory (or perhaps enlighten you):
One of the most significant "assembly" of people around the time of the birth of this country, was the Boston Tea Party. Perhaps you learned a bit of this in History class? In an effort to demonstrate their intolerance of the taxes imposed by the King, those future Americans stormed aboard a ship and dumped the cargo of tea overboard into Boston Harbor.
Considering this was an important event leading to the Revolution, I'm certain the Founding Fathers considered such actions may be necessary again, if the government they were forming ever acted as the King had.
Permits are needed to ensure your right to assemble while also ensuring that you don't lock down the city for eveyone else.
Again, it is my interpretation of the Constitution that I have the right to assembly. The requirement of a permit may be misused in a veriety of ways, for example:
1) as a source of revenue
2) as a method to "deny" a person/group from assembling
3) as a method to collect information on participants for illicit purposes
For item 1, one should not have to pay a fee to perform a Constitutional right. For item 2, this would be a flagrant abuse of Constitutional rights. For item 3, one should not have to disclose to anyone, personal information for undisclosed purposes.
Seams to me that you're just upset you had to sit in traffic - talk about a "poor baby"
Where in the US Constitution does it state that a citizen needs to obtain a permit to protest? I have a right to protest in any manner as long as I don't impede the rights of others. Blocking an intersection may cause an inconvience for motorists, but it does NOT impede their constitutional rights. Last time I check, there was no ammendment regarding a "right to drive down Main street".
Also, as has been reported - individuals were arrested NOT for protesting, but for merely carrying a specific brand cell phone! THAT is not a crime (although using some manufacturer's {MS} products should be)!
I don't know about you, but I don't just randomly cast my furniture about and expect my house to slide a chair beneath my rear when I wish to sit. I organize it just like I do files on my computer. The Sofa goes in the Parlor and the Tub in the Bathroom just as Documents go in/doc and Executables in/bin. Stuctured organization of physical items is natural, and necessary for humans (and docs & execs are physical - an magnetic arrangement of electronically stored information).
A ping and traceroute would be the first step at automating a more detailed investigation. If you're trying to get accurate information, in a timely manner (like a business would want to do), you'd want to target any further probing at active IP addresses. I believe the article mentioned that they were looking for more "stealthly" methods to continue their probing. This implies that they are not done yet, and may initiate more intrusive probes in the future. I believe this is what is so concerning to people - it is to me!
OK, using your anology about mapping a non-gated community, this isn't about simply driving down the street snapping pictures of the houses. A ping is a test to see if a host is "alive" - so the anology would have to be extended to the mapper knocking on the door to see which houses are actually occupied. Just because an address block is registered, does not mean that every address is being utilized. If all they were doing was "taking photographs of the neighborhood", then they simply need to find out who has which address blocks registered. Knocking on every door to see who's home is far more invasive than you imply.
*You're a bunch of incompetent idiots who refused to properly secure your systems/networks - so disable the tools that reveal your stupidity*
That's a pretty bold and irresponsible statement to make. If he has examples of specific institutions doing specific things in a vulnerable manner, than he should be assisting those institutions/individuals correct the vulnerability - NOT advocating the banning of useful, and (FTP at least) an often critical component of the systems.
If I, being the student, am preparing a presentation to be played back from my laptop computer - I need a digital sample of the material. If I get an anolog version of the movie, I have no way to get it into digital format on my laptop (I don't own a video capture card). So that solution would be not only impractical, but impossible for me personally.
Fair use states basically, if I own the digital version of the movie, I am entitled to extract samples for use as stated above.
I would check the contract you signed when brought aboard the agency. If YOU signed a clause stating that all IP would belong to them - then chances are the former firm did as well. However, whether they did or not - if YOU did, then they're suing the wrong party. It would be the agency you contract with who is allegedly infringing their code (which may be why they're representing you... can you say s-c-a-p-e-g-o-a-t?)
If your contract doesn't specify that the IP you create belongs to them, then chances are neither did the first firm's. In this case, yes - YOU ARE infringing on their copyrighted work. You would be best to redo the entire site from scratch, not using anything from what they left behind.
In either case - GET YOUR OWN LAWYER ASAP! Either you are up the creak, or you're being set as the scapegoat. Remember - The Ad Agencies attornies represent the Ad Agency FIRST! You're merely a secondary consideration.
In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider?s activities must meet the following conditions:
The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user initiates the transfer via their local client program
The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.
The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.
Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary.
With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT contained on Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.
The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.
With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT modified by Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.
So basically, I don't see what you're argument is... Perhaps you should be familiar with the Napster service before spouting your horn.
they ask if Anakin is supposedly "the one who will bring balance to The Force". If Anakin (as we already know) is destined to become the focal point of the Dark Side, we would need an equally powerful counterpart on the Light Side - in order to have balance. Perhaps it is JarJar who will bring this balance to The Force...
Damn! Will you please stop this hideous attempt to "Corporatize" all of society?
The heart of the problem with this whole WAVE America program, is that incompotent legislators have turned over a social problem to a commercial enterprise. The results - surprise - a plan that puts profits ahead of any sense of moral, ethical, social, or democratic consideration!
Your suggestion that the entire educational system be turned into the very same type of corporatist's cornucopea is completely irresponsible. How many times have social concerns been turned over to commercial interests in the name of Privatization, with the result worse than before?
Let's consider Health Care - the big Privatization push which has resulted in the medical decisions for patients being made by HMO/Managed Care companies, based upon profit/loss projections - rather than Doctors, based upon medical necessity. I personally, have an enormous issue with this - everytime I change employers, or health insurance plans, I run into the same prescription problem over and over again. The medication I need to take daily, is not listed on the "Formulary" of these companies. Although I am refilling medication which was initially prescribed years ago. Each and every time, I have to jump through hoops to get my doctor's assistants to forward a correctly worded pre-authorization request to the new company. I then have to wait for someone with a calculator in their accounting department to decide whether or not to honor this request, and issue approval for the medication!
What, I ask, would be the true benefit of "Privatizing" the Education system? Do you truly believe that insane, politically motivated, unethical, immoral, irresponsible policies are going to simply vanish without a trace? Or, instead, will they be replaced by insane, corporatist motivated, unethical, immoral, irresponsible policies? I think the latter!
The solution to Social Problems should be solved via Social Solutions, not Commercial or Religious Solutions. As far as I'm concerned, the root cause for the vast majority of problems in the current Public School system is Religious in nature. If the religious zealots would keep their preaching confined to their church, instead of pushing politicians to weave it carefully throughout the educational system, we'd be far better off! Oh - but that's not what the Separation of Church and State relates to... huh?
When schools are able to actually teach fact-based, and current theory-based subject matter, then our school system will improve. As long as it's diluted with religious thumping regarding Creation over Evolution, Sexual Abstinence over Reproductive Biology, and so on... it will continue to suck - and keep sucking more and more each year!
I think you could say that it was a matter of becoming Productively Sidetracked(tm). They needed the platform to build the browser the way they intended to, so they the first built the platform. Then everyone realized how great the platform was, and it become an official part of the project.
Hopefully, those focused on the Browser component can continue to make rapid advancements and release a kick-ass product. I, personally, won't be too hyped about the platform until I see a high quality product based upon it. At the moment, the browser still suffers from some major bugs, which would be viewed from the user-perspective as being simple to fix (ex. Back/Forward/Reload buttons are still unreliable in M15 nightly builds (this is being written within M15-2000040815)).
Actually from a linguistic perspective, we are more likely to, over time, see a merging of languages as societies adapt to the global nature of communication. This will take far longer than our own lifetime, I'm sure. However we are definately at the birth of a sort of unified social structure, in which differences in communication methods will have to be eliminated in order to function.
Perhaps within a century or two, the borders and ethnic/racial/gender deliniations we have had for thousands of years will be gone - leaving our decendents to not be "American" or "Chinese" or "Irish", but simply "Human" or "Eathlings". This of course is assuming the primitive practice of wars and other conflicts can be effectively purged. However, with a common language, it would be much easier to avoid the basic disagreements and false impressions at the base of most conflicts. After all, how likely are you to support a politician thumping the "all XYZ'ers are evil and we must go to war!" when you talk and interact with these very people on a daily basis and know full when s/he is full of shit?
...Napster & MP3 in general with Radio broadcasting?
Here's my take on the situation:
Existing Model * Record Labels push songs out to radio stations to expose their artists to consumers. * Consumers hear these songs and buy the CD for those they like. ** Everyone is happy except consumers, who lament over the lack of diversity on radio and the high cost of the CD (especially when the rest of the recording sucks).
New Tech Model * Record Labels release songs in MP3 format on the Internet, as well as push songs out to radio stations. * Consumers (1) hear songs on the radio, or (2) download songs from the Internet and buy the CD of those they like. ** Everyone is happy including the consumer, who now has a greater veriety of music available to them to hear - since they can checkout alternative(~) genres that local radio stations do not play. Although the price of CDs is still expensive, but with a potential reduction in advertising costs, since the website would be a major marketing tool, the price could be lowered.
I typically purchase the CD of artists I like, for the mere fact that computer storage for me is rather dynamic. I prefer having the CD in case my hard drive dies and the backup turns out unrestorable. I realize some folks just burn the MP3s they download to CD, but I doubt the number of consumers doing this would have that great an impact on CD sales. Besides, blank CD media already contains a surcharge paid to the RIAA specifically for this type of scenario.
(~) = The term alternative used here is as it's definition implies - outside the mainstream, not the "alternative" genre labelled by ignorant marketers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, hopefully, you'll laugh at this...
I worked for 3 years at a company which hired a lot of contract-based PC Technicians to do 2nd level support. During the last year I was with them (about 3 years ago now) a flood of newly annointed MCSE's began rolling in as contractors. I worked on the 3rd level Engineering team, and had to rely heavily on the techs to take and run with something we implemented.
At one point, we had a system that used basic DOS machines for a special batch transaction process. there were half a dozen of these PCs installed in a rack in the data center. During the implementation, I asked the tech's supervisor if she could have one of them install a clean DOS base on these PCs in preperation for the developer to install his app.
I received a concerned phone call a short time afterward, stating that non of "her people" knew DOS. A group of 6 MCSE's, and not a single member "knew DOS"!
I walked over to their area and asked them if they ever used a "Command Prompt". When they all replied "yes" - I explained to them that that WAS DOS. I then walked away shaking my head mumbling something about career-change fly-by-night-tech school graduates.
A couple hours later, I had to take the whopping 3 DOS 6.22 diskettes and "teach" her techs how to install it!
Just thought you might appreciate this, maybe not.
OK, let's follow your stock analogy, since it fits better than land does. I'll ask a simple question:
Can I sell you common stock in corporation "My Analogy, Inc." if in fact "My Analogy, Inc." has issued no common stock? Or if there is no actual corporation call "My Analogy, Inc."?
Answer - NO! That would be considered fraud, and I'd be subject to criminal prosecution for attempting to do so.
So, if the domain "myanalogyinc.com" does not exist, how can it be considered property? The fact you register the name without a legitimate domain using it, is more like fraud than land speculation or a stock investment.
Does this make sense to you yet? Registering domain names under the guise of speculating/squatting/etc. is an abuse of the DNS system and it's purpose. Plain and simple.
No insults, just logic.
This abuse of the DNS system by people, whether called squatters, speculators, or fscking jerks, is still an abuse of the DNS system
You don't arbitrarily grab whatever IP addresses you want, do you? NO! You request a block from available addresses when needed. Your analogy is a complete fantasy made up by people who bought into the "get rich quick on the Internet" hype.
If you were unable to work, then how did you pay for the domain registrations? Seems that essential items like food, clothes, and shelter would be a more appropriate use of funds.
As for being your Intellectual Property, give me a break! If you use someone elses Trademarked name, you're using their Intellectual Property!
Domain names are not equivalent to land or other tangible products one would "invest" in. People who take advantage of a system such as DNS to make a quick buck are nothing but Losers in my book!
Procter & Gamble Co., the largest U.S. maker of household products, has bought thousands of domains. They have been sitting on many for five years. Are they squatters also?
If Procter & Gamble Co. owns thousands of domains for the purpose of reselling them, then yes, they are squatters. The point is that he used a squatter case as an example of a transfer from a non-squatter, which is an incorrect example.
You do not believe in free speech?
I most certainly do, I am just pointing out that the status quo in disputes seems to be that this would be a fair ruling.
I have read through some of their other arbitration rulings, and have found some I completely disagree with - and that would have made better examples for the points Livingston made.
(re)Read the article.
He states that the crew.com case involved a "small business" and not a squatter, yet the company that registered it had 50+ domain names of registered companies it was selling. Seems to be a squatter to me.
Likewise, the montyroberts.com dispute involves a person using it for negative commentary about the actual plaintiff. This would be considered misuse under most arbitrators review.
I agree with his concerns, just wish he used more appropriate examples of the abuses WIPO has performed.
I just upgraded a Sun E6500 box last weekend to 24 UltraSparc processors and 17GB of RAM. Name a single intel-based system that can get even close to that. Perhaps in a few years there'll be something, but it will be brand new and unproven in the real world. Meanwhile, Sun will have advanced even further.
I am a very reasonable person, and I agree that certain limits be placed on speech and assembly. I do not, however, believe that the impact on traffic is a significant factor in this respect.
So.. the right to assembly does not all apply to all venues at all times. In fact, the framers of the constitution probably invisioned indoor meetings when they wrote in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" than massive outdoor gatherings.
Perhaps growing up in MA gave me a more detailed review of events, but I'll refresh your memory (or perhaps enlighten you):
One of the most significant "assembly" of people around the time of the birth of this country, was the Boston Tea Party. Perhaps you learned a bit of this in History class? In an effort to demonstrate their intolerance of the taxes imposed by the King, those future Americans stormed aboard a ship and dumped the cargo of tea overboard into Boston Harbor.
Considering this was an important event leading to the Revolution, I'm certain the Founding Fathers considered such actions may be necessary again, if the government they were forming ever acted as the King had.
Permits are needed to ensure your right to assemble while also ensuring that you don't lock down the city for eveyone else.
Again, it is my interpretation of the Constitution that I have the right to assembly. The requirement of a permit may be misused in a veriety of ways, for example:
1) as a source of revenue
2) as a method to "deny" a person/group from assembling
3) as a method to collect information on participants for illicit purposes
For item 1, one should not have to pay a fee to perform a Constitutional right. For item 2, this would be a flagrant abuse of Constitutional rights. For item 3, one should not have to disclose to anyone, personal information for undisclosed purposes.
Seams to me that you're just upset you had to sit in traffic - talk about a "poor baby"
Where in the US Constitution does it state that a citizen needs to obtain a permit to protest? I have a right to protest in any manner as long as I don't impede the rights of others. Blocking an intersection may cause an inconvience for motorists, but it does NOT impede their constitutional rights. Last time I check, there was no ammendment regarding a "right to drive down Main street".
Also, as has been reported - individuals were arrested NOT for protesting, but for merely carrying a specific brand cell phone! THAT is not a crime (although using some manufacturer's {MS} products should be)!
I don't know about you, but I don't just randomly cast my furniture about and expect my house to slide a chair beneath my rear when I wish to sit. I organize it just like I do files on my computer. The Sofa goes in the Parlor and the Tub in the Bathroom just as Documents go in /doc and Executables in /bin. Stuctured organization of physical items is natural, and necessary for humans (and docs & execs are physical - an magnetic arrangement of electronically stored information).
A ping and traceroute would be the first step at automating a more detailed investigation. If you're trying to get accurate information, in a timely manner (like a business would want to do), you'd want to target any further probing at active IP addresses. I believe the article mentioned that they were looking for more "stealthly" methods to continue their probing. This implies that they are not done yet, and may initiate more intrusive probes in the future. I believe this is what is so concerning to people - it is to me!
OK, using your anology about mapping a non-gated community, this isn't about simply driving down the street snapping pictures of the houses. A ping is a test to see if a host is "alive" - so the anology would have to be extended to the mapper knocking on the door to see which houses are actually occupied. Just because an address block is registered, does not mean that every address is being utilized. If all they were doing was "taking photographs of the neighborhood", then they simply need to find out who has which address blocks registered. Knocking on every door to see who's home is far more invasive than you imply.
What he says is, paraphrased:
*You're a bunch of incompetent idiots who refused to properly secure your systems/networks - so disable the tools that reveal your stupidity*
That's a pretty bold and irresponsible statement to make. If he has examples of specific institutions doing specific things in a vulnerable manner, than he should be assisting those institutions/individuals correct the vulnerability - NOT advocating the banning of useful, and (FTP at least) an often critical component of the systems.
If I, being the student, am preparing a presentation to be played back from my laptop computer - I need a digital sample of the material. If I get an anolog version of the movie, I have no way to get it into digital format on my laptop (I don't own a video capture card). So that solution would be not only impractical, but impossible for me personally.
Fair use states basically, if I own the digital version of the movie, I am entitled to extract samples for use as stated above.
Mr. Valenti is full of sh!t.
I would check the contract you signed when brought aboard the agency. If YOU signed a clause stating that all IP would belong to them - then chances are the former firm did as well. However, whether they did or not - if YOU did, then they're suing the wrong party. It would be the agency you contract with who is allegedly infringing their code (which may be why they're representing you... can you say s-c-a-p-e-g-o-a-t?)
If your contract doesn't specify that the IP you create belongs to them, then chances are neither did the first firm's. In this case, yes - YOU ARE infringing on their copyrighted work. You would be best to redo the entire site from scratch, not using anything from what they left behind.
In either case - GET YOUR OWN LAWYER ASAP! Either you are up the creak, or you're being set as the scapegoat. Remember - The Ad Agencies attornies represent the Ad Agency FIRST! You're merely a secondary consideration.
The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user initiates the transfer via their local client program
The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.
The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.
Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary.
With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT contained on Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.
The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.
With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT modified by Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.
So basically, I don't see what you're argument is... Perhaps you should be familiar with the Napster service before spouting your horn.
The heart of the problem with this whole WAVE America program, is that incompotent legislators have turned over a social problem to a commercial enterprise. The results - surprise - a plan that puts profits ahead of any sense of moral, ethical, social, or democratic consideration!
Your suggestion that the entire educational system be turned into the very same type of corporatist's cornucopea is completely irresponsible. How many times have social concerns been turned over to commercial interests in the name of Privatization, with the result worse than before?
Let's consider Health Care - the big Privatization push which has resulted in the medical decisions for patients being made by HMO/Managed Care companies, based upon profit/loss projections - rather than Doctors, based upon medical necessity. I personally, have an enormous issue with this - everytime I change employers, or health insurance plans, I run into the same prescription problem over and over again. The medication I need to take daily, is not listed on the "Formulary" of these companies. Although I am refilling medication which was initially prescribed years ago. Each and every time, I have to jump through hoops to get my doctor's assistants to forward a correctly worded pre-authorization request to the new company. I then have to wait for someone with a calculator in their accounting department to decide whether or not to honor this request, and issue approval for the medication!
What, I ask, would be the true benefit of "Privatizing" the Education system? Do you truly believe that insane, politically motivated, unethical, immoral, irresponsible policies are going to simply vanish without a trace? Or, instead, will they be replaced by insane, corporatist motivated, unethical, immoral, irresponsible policies? I think the latter!
The solution to Social Problems should be solved via Social Solutions, not Commercial or Religious Solutions. As far as I'm concerned, the root cause for the vast majority of problems in the current Public School system is Religious in nature. If the religious zealots would keep their preaching confined to their church, instead of pushing politicians to weave it carefully throughout the educational system, we'd be far better off! Oh - but that's not what the Separation of Church and State relates to... huh?
When schools are able to actually teach fact-based, and current theory-based subject matter, then our school system will improve. As long as it's diluted with religious thumping regarding Creation over Evolution, Sexual Abstinence over Reproductive Biology, and so on... it will continue to suck - and keep sucking more and more each year!
Hopefully, those focused on the Browser component can continue to make rapid advancements and release a kick-ass product. I, personally, won't be too hyped about the platform until I see a high quality product based upon it. At the moment, the browser still suffers from some major bugs, which would be viewed from the user-perspective as being simple to fix (ex. Back/Forward/Reload buttons are still unreliable in M15 nightly builds (this is being written within M15-2000040815)).
Perhaps within a century or two, the borders and ethnic/racial/gender deliniations we have had for thousands of years will be gone - leaving our decendents to not be "American" or "Chinese" or "Irish", but simply "Human" or "Eathlings". This of course is assuming the primitive practice of wars and other conflicts can be effectively purged. However, with a common language, it would be much easier to avoid the basic disagreements and false impressions at the base of most conflicts. After all, how likely are you to support a politician thumping the "all XYZ'ers are evil and we must go to war!" when you talk and interact with these very people on a daily basis and know full when s/he is full of shit?
Here's my take on the situation:
Existing Model
* Record Labels push songs out to radio stations to expose their artists to consumers.
* Consumers hear these songs and buy the CD for those they like.
** Everyone is happy except consumers, who lament over the lack of diversity on radio and the high cost of the CD (especially when the rest of the recording sucks).
New Tech Model
* Record Labels release songs in MP3 format on the Internet, as well as push songs out to radio stations.
* Consumers (1) hear songs on the radio, or (2) download songs from the Internet and buy the CD of those they like.
** Everyone is happy including the consumer, who now has a greater veriety of music available to them to hear - since they can checkout alternative(~) genres that local radio stations do not play. Although the price of CDs is still expensive, but with a potential reduction in advertising costs, since the website would be a major marketing tool, the price could be lowered.
I typically purchase the CD of artists I like, for the mere fact that computer storage for me is rather dynamic. I prefer having the CD in case my hard drive dies and the backup turns out unrestorable. I realize some folks just burn the MP3s they download to CD, but I doubt the number of consumers doing this would have that great an impact on CD sales. Besides, blank CD media already contains a surcharge paid to the RIAA specifically for this type of scenario.
(~) = The term alternative used here is as it's definition implies - outside the mainstream, not the "alternative" genre labelled by ignorant marketers.