I can see that. That wouldn't be a problem for me to accept. It's just that I also happen to see trucks as being much better built and ultimately safer to drive. You can have what you want. But, I doubt I will ever own another front wheel drive again (only having bought one in my life but driven and worked on hundreds).
The thing that makes that so funny is that he bought something for $500 when he can't even afford $10. But, as gas prices go up (and they likely will), how high does the prices have to be before a prius would go through that same $10 for a one way trip to work? Do you think that will never happen?
You don't get it (that much is obvious). Now, I know you specified "SUV". But, the term "SUV" is nothing more than a buzzword. There is a much bigger picture here. Your only seeing a single slice. You refer to "...gass-guzzling inefficient monstrosity...". That is what many people think of when they talk about trucks. Have you stopped to consider what would happen if we lost our trucks? NOTHING would get built. I remember seeing a picture floating around on the net some years ago of someone trying to carry a full load of lumber using a small front wheel drive car. It looked pathetic and it pretty much destroyed the car. I guess if it were upto you, construction companies would only be allowed to use a the Prius to build buildings and roads or to move building materials around. Where as I know that not all trucks are bought for "work"...many people buy them for no other reason than it's what they want. Well, I'm not putting you down for wanting you prius. I am saying that trucks are not only required but are also wanted. There is nothing wrong with that.
Well, in spite of the idiocy found in the very concept of what is called "blog". I find it utterly ridiculous to place limitations on people like this (especially by government) when it comes to what is typed into a website. People get so swept up in the thing called "blogs". For what?....NOTHING. All I can surely say is that maybe if these sites would remove the name of "blog" from their site that they might be spared the agony of governmental enforcement. But, if the general populous would learn to get a clue as to just what it is that actually constitutes a "blog", then maybe people wouldn't get so worked up over the wrong thing. A blog is a blog for no other reason than the fact that it is labeled "blog". This entire thing is just so obscenely ridiculous.
lol...
As if they are not already. Between all the ISP's, MS, Apple, Walmart, Sony, Google, Myspace, The New York Times (and all major media), the AA's, and many many others....the only chance the individual user has is in their desire to learn for themselves.
That is EXACTLY what I've been talking about for quite some time now. We live in a world where the definitions of words are becoming so twisted and out of sync with reality that we can no longer have a discussion based on the way things really are. "file sharing" is not and never has been illegal. But, the AA's have made people thing it is. If it were illegal, then the entire web would have to be made illegal. File sharing is what all this requires. Without the sharing of files, the ability to pull up a webpage of any kind would not even be possible. That's not to mention the ability to move files around a smaller network (home or business network). The internet is based on the concept of file sharing. If we are to ignore the specifics of who owns what and just concentrate on the idea of "sharing files", we end up with a complete breakdown (worldwide) of ALL of this technology. The powers-that-be residing in the political heads of government have no real understanding of how these things work. That much is obvious. They care about how much more power they can get and how much more money they can take with little to no regard for what they actually do. Too many people (John Q. Public) are all too willing to hand over all this to them because they think they don't need to know. People are more comfortable with "getting someone else to handle it". We are seeing sooo many problems come up because of this one thing.
If the internet is to remain viable as a future technology, the AA's must go away and the general user base (the public) must be willing to learn for themselves the how's and why's of the way all this works. This does not mean losing IT professionals. This means taking on personal responsibility. Those who will not learn, will parish on the trash heap of lies all because of apathy and ignorance.
After 6 years...any laptop given to a 6th grader (or 3 years after giving it to a 9th grader) is going to get replaced anyway with better newer technology or because it's broke. Why bother selling it to the student upon graduation? This should only be considered for "high school" students and should come with an automatic expectation of being repaired or replaced 5 times before graduation. A lot can happen in 6 years.
As if anyone in government is ever going to be able to stop spam. Did anyone notice the irony of the link in the article (it took me to a symantec advertisement)? Spam will never be stopped until idiots are gone (which will be never). If you think the government is capable of stopping spam, then you don't understand government. They are more likely to make the problem worse.
It's a contradiction to buy your way into the fast lane with ISP's and then say you want equality for all. I say...the best way to maintain neutrality is for everyone to do nothing except for all ISP's to give all users faster speeds. Any measure of fairness is had at the user level and NOT with content providers or website owners. The best things that site owners could ever do is to maintain the health of their sites, make them easier to use, and make them more desirable to use. ANY manipulation if favor of ANY site at the ISP level defies the very purpose of NN.
that the existence of black holes has been proven beyond theory or any possible conjecture? I mean...let's step back from Stargate and wormhole physics here.
I have been making a slow but steady move away from Windows to Linux for a host of reasons. I have also made a decision to NOT buy anything of Sony. It's all in the things we all buy and use everyday. I find it interesting that people will complain about things like this and then turn around and support it by purchasing and using all those things that help to create and expand it all. I know there is no way to stop it or to prevent it. But, there is no reason to willing hand over more power to it. This is part (not all, but part) of the reason I do not use myspace or facebook. I will not buy an Ipod or Iphone. I do not use hotmail and I think I'm starting to end my use of yahoo. I'd like to get away from Google, but it's too useful to me. What it all comes down to is in the way it's all done. The internet is a powerfull tool with many facets. Being a popular thing to do online is just not enough to justify doing when the reality of what it actually is sets in.
This is an interesting sorta question in a way. Where as I see absolutely nothing about what's called "web2.0" to be ANYTHING special or unique, I find it rather puzzling and somewhat funny that so many seemingly smart people fall for this lie so easily. Many people refer to web2.0 as a new higher level of interactivity that users can achieve with a website. Personally, I see nothing that indicates any higher level of interactivity than that which existed before the web2.0 term came into existence. It is in the same league as "blogging". The plain truth is...a blog is a blog because it's labeled a blog and for no other reason. Web2.0 carries the same degree of non-sense. Now, I know many slashdot readers enjoy their blogs and fantasies found in the so-called web2.0 world so I do try not to affend (I am sorry if I do). It's just that I find all these things to be nothing more than rhetorical rubbish created to make people look as if they live on the cutting edge when the truth is likely that they live on the resulting creations of other people that actually do. That being said...I have no use for things like myspace or facebook.
I am certainly no fan of the AA's. I see what they force people through. I would rather they not even exist at this point.
My point (I guess) is that the only real connection that these two (RIAA and web2.0) pieces of our world have between them seem more coincidental than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see that. That wouldn't be a problem for me to accept. It's just that I also happen to see trucks as being much better built and ultimately safer to drive. You can have what you want. But, I doubt I will ever own another front wheel drive again (only having bought one in my life but driven and worked on hundreds).
The thing that makes that so funny is that he bought something for $500 when he can't even afford $10. But, as gas prices go up (and they likely will), how high does the prices have to be before a prius would go through that same $10 for a one way trip to work? Do you think that will never happen?
You don't get it (that much is obvious). Now, I know you specified "SUV". But, the term "SUV" is nothing more than a buzzword. There is a much bigger picture here. Your only seeing a single slice. You refer to "...gass-guzzling inefficient monstrosity...". That is what many people think of when they talk about trucks. Have you stopped to consider what would happen if we lost our trucks? NOTHING would get built. I remember seeing a picture floating around on the net some years ago of someone trying to carry a full load of lumber using a small front wheel drive car. It looked pathetic and it pretty much destroyed the car. I guess if it were upto you, construction companies would only be allowed to use a the Prius to build buildings and roads or to move building materials around. Where as I know that not all trucks are bought for "work"...many people buy them for no other reason than it's what they want. Well, I'm not putting you down for wanting you prius. I am saying that trucks are not only required but are also wanted. There is nothing wrong with that.
Well, in spite of the idiocy found in the very concept of what is called "blog". I find it utterly ridiculous to place limitations on people like this (especially by government) when it comes to what is typed into a website. People get so swept up in the thing called "blogs". For what?....NOTHING. All I can surely say is that maybe if these sites would remove the name of "blog" from their site that they might be spared the agony of governmental enforcement. But, if the general populous would learn to get a clue as to just what it is that actually constitutes a "blog", then maybe people wouldn't get so worked up over the wrong thing. A blog is a blog for no other reason than the fact that it is labeled "blog". This entire thing is just so obscenely ridiculous.
I'm sorry...I got a little confused as to who you were responding to. I will watch where I put things more closely.
What does that have to do with the RIAA?
Well, being a jerk is a right of all humans. But, that does not apply here. swschrad is right.
lol... As if they are not already. Between all the ISP's, MS, Apple, Walmart, Sony, Google, Myspace, The New York Times (and all major media), the AA's, and many many others....the only chance the individual user has is in their desire to learn for themselves.
That is EXACTLY what I've been talking about for quite some time now. We live in a world where the definitions of words are becoming so twisted and out of sync with reality that we can no longer have a discussion based on the way things really are. "file sharing" is not and never has been illegal. But, the AA's have made people thing it is. If it were illegal, then the entire web would have to be made illegal. File sharing is what all this requires. Without the sharing of files, the ability to pull up a webpage of any kind would not even be possible. That's not to mention the ability to move files around a smaller network (home or business network). The internet is based on the concept of file sharing. If we are to ignore the specifics of who owns what and just concentrate on the idea of "sharing files", we end up with a complete breakdown (worldwide) of ALL of this technology. The powers-that-be residing in the political heads of government have no real understanding of how these things work. That much is obvious. They care about how much more power they can get and how much more money they can take with little to no regard for what they actually do. Too many people (John Q. Public) are all too willing to hand over all this to them because they think they don't need to know. People are more comfortable with "getting someone else to handle it". We are seeing sooo many problems come up because of this one thing. If the internet is to remain viable as a future technology, the AA's must go away and the general user base (the public) must be willing to learn for themselves the how's and why's of the way all this works. This does not mean losing IT professionals. This means taking on personal responsibility. Those who will not learn, will parish on the trash heap of lies all because of apathy and ignorance.
why macbooks?
After 6 years...any laptop given to a 6th grader (or 3 years after giving it to a 9th grader) is going to get replaced anyway with better newer technology or because it's broke. Why bother selling it to the student upon graduation? This should only be considered for "high school" students and should come with an automatic expectation of being repaired or replaced 5 times before graduation. A lot can happen in 6 years.
As if anyone in government is ever going to be able to stop spam. Did anyone notice the irony of the link in the article (it took me to a symantec advertisement)? Spam will never be stopped until idiots are gone (which will be never). If you think the government is capable of stopping spam, then you don't understand government. They are more likely to make the problem worse.
Kinda like a cable co. that owns HBO?
It's a contradiction to buy your way into the fast lane with ISP's and then say you want equality for all. I say...the best way to maintain neutrality is for everyone to do nothing except for all ISP's to give all users faster speeds. Any measure of fairness is had at the user level and NOT with content providers or website owners. The best things that site owners could ever do is to maintain the health of their sites, make them easier to use, and make them more desirable to use. ANY manipulation if favor of ANY site at the ISP level defies the very purpose of NN.
All this tells me is that people prefer xp over vista. But then, I already knew that.
that the existence of black holes has been proven beyond theory or any possible conjecture? I mean...let's step back from Stargate and wormhole physics here.
"Internet Anonymity" does not exist. It's a fantasy and really doesn't have anything to do with this.
People don't need computers or broadband from the government. They need to make the decision to learn how things are done and what NOT to do.
I have been making a slow but steady move away from Windows to Linux for a host of reasons. I have also made a decision to NOT buy anything of Sony. It's all in the things we all buy and use everyday. I find it interesting that people will complain about things like this and then turn around and support it by purchasing and using all those things that help to create and expand it all. I know there is no way to stop it or to prevent it. But, there is no reason to willing hand over more power to it. This is part (not all, but part) of the reason I do not use myspace or facebook. I will not buy an Ipod or Iphone. I do not use hotmail and I think I'm starting to end my use of yahoo. I'd like to get away from Google, but it's too useful to me. What it all comes down to is in the way it's all done. The internet is a powerfull tool with many facets. Being a popular thing to do online is just not enough to justify doing when the reality of what it actually is sets in.
This is an interesting sorta question in a way. Where as I see absolutely nothing about what's called "web2.0" to be ANYTHING special or unique, I find it rather puzzling and somewhat funny that so many seemingly smart people fall for this lie so easily. Many people refer to web2.0 as a new higher level of interactivity that users can achieve with a website. Personally, I see nothing that indicates any higher level of interactivity than that which existed before the web2.0 term came into existence. It is in the same league as "blogging". The plain truth is...a blog is a blog because it's labeled a blog and for no other reason. Web2.0 carries the same degree of non-sense. Now, I know many slashdot readers enjoy their blogs and fantasies found in the so-called web2.0 world so I do try not to affend (I am sorry if I do). It's just that I find all these things to be nothing more than rhetorical rubbish created to make people look as if they live on the cutting edge when the truth is likely that they live on the resulting creations of other people that actually do. That being said...I have no use for things like myspace or facebook. I am certainly no fan of the AA's. I see what they force people through. I would rather they not even exist at this point. My point (I guess) is that the only real connection that these two (RIAA and web2.0) pieces of our world have between them seem more coincidental than anything else.