Generally the price you pay for a newspaper
is for the delivery, whether by hand-delivery or locked in a paper-box. Advertising pays for the
paper, press, ink, and employees' salaries.
This is just how online sites whould work, too.
The difference is that online advertising is no
longer something you can skim past while reading
the story. Online advertising is now a very annoying, can't-be-ignored, get-in-your-face
irritation. On top of that, much of the onlie advertising also tracks you to see where you saw the ad, how often you saw the ad, who you are, what other sites/ads you may be seeing, etc.
Back when online advertising was just a simple banner ad, I never even thought about trying to block it. When online advertising starting tracking where you went and what you did, I started looking at blocking options and started
a half-assed attempt at blocking. When online
advertising started getting really annoying and
very difficult to just ignore, I got serious
about blocking the ads.
The advertisers did it to themselves. They
tried to force more upon us than they did with
newspapers. They tried to gather much more information about us than they could with
newspapers. (They probably are also paying less
for the ads than they did with newspapers.)
If they had left well enough alone and not
gotten greedy, most people probably would never
even have thought about blocking their ads.
Why bother reading them? The last time I read
a contract/license agreement was when some
company screwed me over. After reading it
over and over again, I finally took it to my
lawyer, and he eventually found the sentence
that practically negated any rights I had.
It was buried in an all-caps paragraph somewhere
in the middle of the back page.
(Anyone with
any kind of publishing experience knows that
writing anything longer that a few words in
all caps renders it very difficult to read.
Why do these people intentionally make contracts difficult to read?)
Even after having it explained to me, I still
couldn't make any sense of the paragraph without
severely distorting what at first glance appeared
to be the English language.
Why should I bother to read all these agreements when:
1) They are printed to be intentionally difficult to read.
2) They are not intelligible to anyone not schooled in the twisted, mangled version of the English language they are written in.
3) I can't afford to pay a lawyer to interpret
them for me every time.
4) I would probably still miss the sentence that
negates all my rights.
we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label.
So, they're designing it to annoy the 99% of people who want to legitimately purchase the
music and make a legal fair-use backup copy
or who want to copy it to their computer for
use while storing the CD as the backup archive?
Our technology is not thief proof....
Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the
technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them.... not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
So, they admit that the people who will make
an active effort to steal the music will hardly
be hampered by this at all.
What a sales pitch! We'll stop the people who
don't steal, and we won't stop the people who
do. Now, could someone explain just why anyone
is paying them for this technology?
EMI Recorded Music, which warned earlier Tuesday that its profits would slide 20 percent this year from the sharp industrywide downturn in record sales, was not immediately available for comment.
So, Napster was hurting sales?
Why is it that even though Napster has been
shut down for months, sales are now down?
I am marginally aware of bin laden's goals.
I am also aware that someone in the US government
now seems to be mostly certain that bin laden is
behind the attack. However, I doubt that the attack had the goal of getting the US to stop
meddling in bin laden's affairs is "well known",
except to diplomats and other people dealing with
foreign affairs on a regular basis.
Nowhere else have I seen anyone state that the
attack, probably by bin laden, was intended to
get the US out of the middle east.
The attack is generally seen as an attack on
the US. It is not seen as an attempt to get the
US out of the middle east. In fact, it probably
very nearly trigged a huge increase in US meddling
(with bombs) in bin laden's affairs.
Without anyone claiming responsibility for the
attack (and they would be stupid to do so) and
stating their resons for it, most people and news
stories assume that the attack was because some
other country hates the US a lot.
Scaring the US out of the middle east is not
an obvious connection, especially to anyone
who knows bin laden as some middle eastern
leader in hiding who doesn't like the US.
The only way the terrorists will win is if we get
all our influence out of the middle east for the
sole reason that we don't want them to terrorize
us again.
The terrorists are going to have a very hard time winning if they won't even tell us what their
goal is. Your post is the first
I have seen stating this goal, and I have seen
no discussions about the US even thinking
about pulling out of the middle east. If that
really is the terrorists' goal, they'd better
step up and announce it. Otherwise, nobody is
even thinking about it.
We have to censor ourselves now?
Let the FBI read the statement; there's
nothing even slightly suggestive in it.
In fact, that phrase is fairly common.
If they read that and still go after you,
sue them for harassment.
If the police new in time, they could have started evacuation immediately and saved many lives.
Evacuate where? They were hijacked and flying over the New York and Washington D.C areas. No one knew their final destinations until at most a
minute prior to impact.
Being as the vast majority of hijacked planes in the past were landed at an airfield (generally of the hijackers' choosing), why would the anyone think to evacuate the WTC or pentagon because a hijacked plane was flying towards NYC or Washington DC?
"Free content" is an odd way to describe $29.95 (or is it up to $39.95 now, it's been a while since I dropped it) a month for the most basic, minimal cable package offered.
spam and junk email lists have probably been
around a lot longer that robots.txt. That
doesn't make the "we'll do it unless you opt-out"
method right. The main difference is that most
people want their site accessed and indexed by
search engines, so almost nobody complains about
the need to add robots.txt to sites they don't
want indexed.
The signal dissipates to the point where it is
unusable, and eventually undetectable. It does
not just disappear entirely. Just like the car
exhaust. And, just like the car exhaust, if you
get enough of the together in one relateively
small area, even the dissipated signals add up
so they remain detectable.
Extraneous RF noise is bad. Air, light, and noise pollution are bad. RF noise is just as bad to the
RF spectrum as those are to the "human spectrum".
If it causes interference with other legitimate
uses, such as GPS and cell phones, then it is
polluting the RF spectrum. Either use an area
that is not in use, or fix it so it does not cause
interference.
Of coure, if it were to interfere enough with
cell phones, and still be approved, I might just
have to get one in my house. Want to drive pst,
my house? Get off the damned phone!
One public records that should be posted online
are the laws we live under.
As a story here on/. mentioned a while back
(the search tool is down at the moment, or I'd
put a link to it), many laws a copyright by the
people / organizations who submitted them.
Once it becomes a law, copyright over that text
should be void, and it should be publishable by
anyone, and it should be put on the web for easy
access.
In your examples, the solution was always to
raise prices of the products being sold/stolen.
The RIAA's solution is not to raise the prices
on their already overpriced products, but to
get the government to raise the prices on an
only partially related product that has many
legitimate uses other than stealing their
product. How does that make sense?
To be born in September, work must have begun the
previous December, whether it was announced then or not.
For the humor-impaired, that's 9 months from
conception (December) to birth (September). So
I get stranges thoughts when I'm tired and should be in bed.
...Spy sats change their orbits from time to time....It would be foolish to routinely publish this information,...
This will only last for a few more years.
Once non-government people and businesses start
their own space travel services, spy satellite
orbital information can not continue to be kept
secret. Either people will see them (and announce
the hazard to the world) or people will run into
them (and the world will be made aware of the
hazard).
Suppose I'm up there and I discover one of these
satellites. Do I capture it to remove the hazard
(since it is not a published vehicle, it must be
a rogue vehicle), or do I announce it to get it
added to the record? And if it deviates from the
newly published orbit, what then, destroy it?
Yes, this is probably 10-20 years in the future,
but it is going to happen. And who is going to
complain? "No, that is NOT our super-secret spy
sattelite. Leave it alone or we'll come after
you!"
I can see the next release of their anti-virus software:
We have detected that you have virus X on your system. This is a violation of our patent on viruses. Please send us a check for $100 immediately for a license to have this virus.
Do you want this virus removed? If no, please be aware there is a $10 / month fee for the use of this virus on each system.
They can control that with DHCP. That was a problem for a while, but around May last year, they figured out how to put a stop to that abuse. There was a huge outcry in the swbell newsgroups when it happened.
With PPPoE, how would the DSL modem assign
internal IPs to my machines? The DSL modem
knows nothing about PPPoE. The software
you run on the PC is what handles PPPoE.
With DHCP, my DSL modem gets an address and
uses NAT to allow me to assign internal IP
addresses to the machines on my home network.
In other words, the switch would accomplish 2 things:
I have to buy a PPPoE-capable router with NAT function
I have additional overhead due to the PPPoE encapsulation eating away some of my bandwidth
So, by making such a switch, they would gain nothing from me and piss me off at the same time.
The Code Red worm, named for the new flavor of Mountain Dew soda preferred by the eEye
Digital Security team, sends probes across the Internet, looking for computers to break into.
I got my DSL just before swbell switched to using PPPoE for new customers. I am still on DHCP, but if I want to make any changes to my service, swbell has told me I will be switched to PPPoE. So, for now, I am not making any changes. If they force the PPPoE on me anyway, I will move to someone who still does DHCP, or even static. Even if that means moving to cable.
Anyway, I don't see how PPPoE provides more addresses for them, unless those "always-on" connections aren't. Are they now admitting to false advertising?
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that online advertising is no longer something you can skim past while reading the story. Online advertising is now a very annoying, can't-be-ignored, get-in-your-face irritation. On top of that, much of the onlie advertising also tracks you to see where you saw the ad, how often you saw the ad, who you are, what other sites/ads you may be seeing, etc.
Back when online advertising was just a simple banner ad, I never even thought about trying to block it. When online advertising starting tracking where you went and what you did, I started looking at blocking options and started a half-assed attempt at blocking. When online advertising started getting really annoying and very difficult to just ignore, I got serious about blocking the ads.
The advertisers did it to themselves. They tried to force more upon us than they did with newspapers. They tried to gather much more information about us than they could with newspapers. (They probably are also paying less for the ads than they did with newspapers.) If they had left well enough alone and not gotten greedy, most people probably would never even have thought about blocking their ads.
Why should I bother to read all these agreements when:
1) They are printed to be intentionally difficult to read.
2) They are not intelligible to anyone not schooled in the twisted, mangled version of the English language they are written in.
3) I can't afford to pay a lawyer to interpret them for me every time.
4) I would probably still miss the sentence that negates all my rights.
So, they're designing it to annoy the 99% of people who want to legitimately purchase the music and make a legal fair-use backup copy or who want to copy it to their computer for use while storing the CD as the backup archive?
So, they admit that the people who will make an active effort to steal the music will hardly be hampered by this at all.
What a sales pitch! We'll stop the people who don't steal, and we won't stop the people who do. Now, could someone explain just why anyone is paying them for this technology?
What I am doing is not illegal. That doesn't mean I want everyone to be able to see it.
The attack is generally seen as an attack on the US. It is not seen as an attempt to get the US out of the middle east. In fact, it probably very nearly trigged a huge increase in US meddling (with bombs) in bin laden's affairs.
Without anyone claiming responsibility for the attack (and they would be stupid to do so) and stating their resons for it, most people and news stories assume that the attack was because some other country hates the US a lot. Scaring the US out of the middle east is not an obvious connection, especially to anyone who knows bin laden as some middle eastern leader in hiding who doesn't like the US.
The terrorists are going to have a very hard time winning if they won't even tell us what their goal is. Your post is the first I have seen stating this goal, and I have seen no discussions about the US even thinking about pulling out of the middle east. If that really is the terrorists' goal, they'd better step up and announce it. Otherwise, nobody is even thinking about it.
We have to censor ourselves now? Let the FBI read the statement; there's nothing even slightly suggestive in it. In fact, that phrase is fairly common. If they read that and still go after you, sue them for harassment.
Evacuate where? They were hijacked and flying over the New York and Washington D.C areas. No one knew their final destinations until at most a minute prior to impact. Being as the vast majority of hijacked planes in the past were landed at an airfield (generally of the hijackers' choosing), why would the anyone think to evacuate the WTC or pentagon because a hijacked plane was flying towards NYC or Washington DC?
"Free content" is an odd way to describe $29.95 (or is it up to $39.95 now, it's been a while since I dropped it) a month for the most basic, minimal cable package offered.
spam and junk email lists have probably been around a lot longer that robots.txt. That doesn't make the "we'll do it unless you opt-out" method right. The main difference is that most people want their site accessed and indexed by search engines, so almost nobody complains about the need to add robots.txt to sites they don't want indexed.
Extraneous RF noise is bad. Air, light, and noise pollution are bad. RF noise is just as bad to the RF spectrum as those are to the "human spectrum". If it causes interference with other legitimate uses, such as GPS and cell phones, then it is polluting the RF spectrum. Either use an area that is not in use, or fix it so it does not cause interference.
Of coure, if it were to interfere enough with cell phones, and still be approved, I might just have to get one in my house. Want to drive pst, my house? Get off the damned phone!
Imagine the royalties. You owe us one cent for every bill you print.
As a story here on /. mentioned a while back
(the search tool is down at the moment, or I'd
put a link to it), many laws a copyright by the
people / organizations who submitted them.
Once it becomes a law, copyright over that text
should be void, and it should be publishable by
anyone, and it should be put on the web for easy
access.
In your examples, the solution was always to
raise prices of the products being sold/stolen.
The RIAA's solution is not to raise the prices
on their already overpriced products, but to
get the government to raise the prices on an
only partially related product that has many
legitimate uses other than stealing their
product. How does that make sense?
If I remember right, the JFS that was put out
came from OS/2, not from AIX.
To be born in September, work must have begun the previous December, whether it was announced then or not. For the humor-impaired, that's 9 months from conception (December) to birth (September). So I get stranges thoughts when I'm tired and should be in bed.
This will only last for a few more years. Once non-government people and businesses start their own space travel services, spy satellite orbital information can not continue to be kept secret. Either people will see them (and announce the hazard to the world) or people will run into them (and the world will be made aware of the hazard).
Suppose I'm up there and I discover one of these satellites. Do I capture it to remove the hazard (since it is not a published vehicle, it must be a rogue vehicle), or do I announce it to get it added to the record? And if it deviates from the newly published orbit, what then, destroy it?
Yes, this is probably 10-20 years in the future, but it is going to happen. And who is going to complain? "No, that is NOT our super-secret spy sattelite. Leave it alone or we'll come after you!"
Yes. I do know what was intended. But, it's fun to take things too literally occasionally.
With PPPoE, how would the DSL modem assign internal IPs to my machines? The DSL modem knows nothing about PPPoE. The software you run on the PC is what handles PPPoE. With DHCP, my DSL modem gets an address and uses NAT to allow me to assign internal IP addresses to the machines on my home network.
In other words, the switch would accomplish 2 things:
- I have to buy a PPPoE-capable router with NAT function
- I have additional overhead due to the PPPoE encapsulation eating away some of my bandwidth
So, by making such a switch, they would gain nothing from me and piss me off at the same time.The Code Red worm, named for the new flavor of Mountain Dew soda preferred by the eEye Digital Security team, sends probes across the Internet, looking for computers to break into.
Anyway, I don't see how PPPoE provides more addresses for them, unless those "always-on" connections aren't. Are they now admitting to false advertising?
They're not doing a very good job of it, because about 30% of the code red hits on my server today are from @home addresses.
But they aren't dueling with guns. They're dueling with boots!
Edward Burr