Even if I accepeted your "whole new TV" argument (I don't) it would still mean control of the TV set industry, not television.
The people who make and distribute TV content dominate the industry. That's equally true for the Internet. No TV content, no TV industry., even if we all buy new TV sets. No internet content, no internet, no matter what MS does or does not do.
Remember, the internet exists to distribute content, on the web and elsewhere. A network, of any size, is pointless unless used to distribute information.
Exactly which of my rights is this ruling violating?
Even if you aren't Eurepean, anyone who reads the article will know that this is an extension of a common European practice to mandate an additional levy on the price of any appliance that can be used to copy copyrighted material.
Seems to me that an attempt to convince the court that this levy shouldn't be applied would have to include an attack on all the other levies. Popular among those who don't believe in copyright, but unlikely to prove successful. (Fervency of belief is know substitute for logic and reality.)
In your scenario, MS would have dominated the servers, but without content the Internet is empty. To my way of thinking, dominating the internet means dominating its content, not is authentication scheme.
This is roughly akin to someone doing a deal that forces every TV to be controlled with their remote, otherwise the TV won't work. Most of us would buy the right remote. In the end, though, the only thing being dominated would be the remote control market. We'd still watch whatever we wanted to.
Similarly, few of us would avoid visiting a web site we like just because it wasn't using the MS scheme, or refuse to visit it because it did use that scheme. We visit sites that deliver content we want; any needed authenication is just an annoyance on the way in.
Right, which is just another way of saying what I said. You're looking at it from a technical perspective, I'm looking at it from another perspective: The purpose of controlling centralized authentication is to make money, not to dominate the net.
>> Microsoft is abandoning one of its most controversial attempts to dominate the Internet...
While I don't that that Microsoft or any other business would dearly love to dominate the Internet, I never got the impression that Passport was anything more than a thinly veiled branding effort intende to drive traffic to sites that had done deals with MS. The whole thing was premised on the now-understood-to-be-wrong assumption that logging on to different sites was going to present an insurmountable hurdle for people. (It hasn't; everyone just uses the same damn ID and password for everything.)
Remember, the Internet is just a network. What counts is the content. If you wanna dominate the Internet. dominate its content.
>> The problem is that when businesses control every move it forces the people to cheat.
Can you envision an arrangement in which the participants don't have an incentive to cheat? Control by business has nothing to do with this.
>> truckers in Europe are "hinted" by their bosses to break the rules...
If the rules are actually legislated, then the managers should be charged and tried. If the rules are simply company policy, what's wrong with the company deciding to bend them?
>> Truckers will drive too long using equipment that often is a hazard to the road.
Don't pay drivers for excess hours. Do more truck inspections and disable trucks that don't meet safety standards.
>>.problem with GPS systems is that initially there will be a gain, and then a future collapse..
Any new technology will provide an initial gain, follwed by a plateauing of benefits, not a collapse. You're arguing for the abandonment of any technological advance because you claim it will result it the collapse of an industry. That's demonstrably silly.
>> the problem is that many industries are mature and as efficient as it will get. Yet the shareholders are telling the managers to become "productive".
No, they're telling the managers they want a bigger return on their investments. Productivity is simply a buzzword that means "make more money with the same resources". When you buy something for the express purpose of making money, it is rather natural that you would pressure it to make more money.
A slowdown would not work. The time it tool to complete a job wasn't determined by the drivers.
In reference to that trucking company, the company mandated that drivers adhere to the posted speed limit (their actual speed was tracked), follow predetermined routes, etc. Drivers couldn't drive more than a specified number of hours each day (8, I believe).
In other words, the company said "Take this truck from A to B, starting at such-and-such a time and arriving X hours later." They knew the route, the speed, and, hence, duration.
Drivers didn't mind adhering to speed limits, loved the fact they had regular non-arduous hours, and the company could use its equipment much more efficiently because it always knew the location of each driver and truck. E.g., a truck could be loaded with a new shipment at the same time and place it offloaded. Drivers weren't being paid to drive empty trucks around.
Can't recall the name, but remember reading several years ago about a U.S. trucking firm that did real-time tracking of all its trucks, monitored their fuel consumption, speed, how long it took of load and offload, if they deviated from the designated route or schedule, etc. Apparently resulted in serious efficiencies and serious revenue, with little grousing from drivers.
This doesn't seem to me to be a grievous problem. Employees don't have the right to use the boss's time and property as they choose.
How do we know the market for any of these products is "thriving"? Someone says the Microsoft product wlll have a bad year and, meanwhile, asserts they competition is "thriving". No numbers, no evidence, so why should I believe it?
Personally, I don't think a long-term market exists for any of these products. MS keeps trying, and failing, to shoehorn itself into show business. Other folks dutifully bring out there own competitive knock-offs, and then go broke and disappear.
If you want an example of a "media" product done right, look at Apple and the iPod. No grandiose attempt to replace a bunch of expensive appliances people already own, just a small gizmo that does one thing well.
>> There is no law that requires people to be courteous, and these days it's not part of our culture.
Sad but true. Can't imagine what airline travel will be like if people are allowed to use the cellphones in flight. Spending hours listening to dozens of people yak it up is sure to add even more misery to the purgatory that flying is today. Maybe some airline will make all the cellphone users sit in soundproof booths.
I'm neither projecting or evidencing a control issue. I know lots of people loathe working with computers because they feel chained to an endless stream of mail, chatter, routine and stress. The fact that others might relish that kind of environment is irrelevant. I have no requirement to assume I am wrong because I don't like what they do.
As for control, I'll repeat, I did not say I wanted to stop people fromn doing what they wish with their laptops. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to say I don't like some of the things they do.
I can accept people doing things I don't like, even if I choose to avoid them. That's called tolerance. Blaming myself for not liking their behavior is stupid.
Nuts. Did I say I want to stop people from using laptios in state parks? No, I said I don't understand why someone would want to drag the environment they hate along with them on vacation.
When I go on vacation, I'm trying to get away from people and computers. I don't care what other people do with their laptops, but I don't want to spend my vacation in an enviroment that reminds me of the office.
So, no control issue here, other than controlling where I take my vacation.
The point of a vacation is to relax and do something different. A lot of people really don't enjoy being chained to their PC all day long, so hauling their laptops along on holiday seems a bit perverse.
Anyway, if state parks start looking like Statbucks, I'll go somewhere else.
I'd argue that content is everything re: attracting an audience. If you don't attract an audience, why broadcast?
This GNU thing seems to be a receiver (although it could be an electric eggbeater since the GNU site pretends we don't need to know what it does). I don't see how a receiver is going to allow me and my neighbors to listen to anything that isn't already being broadcast.
I don't see anything wrong with microbroadcasting, but I don't see anything especially interesting about it, either. If tiny bands of people with something in common want to use radio to preach to their choirs, more power to them.
On interference: I'm sure current broadcasters are using that to ward off potential competition. However, improperly maintained eqipment can generate interference across the spectrum. Tiny shoestring operations maintained by technical neophytes are likely to have their share of maintenance problems.
Well, I actually spent part of my wasted youth playing with model rockets, and I know that it doesn't take many shotgun-shell sized model rocket engines to power something lethal, or that the paperbacks I bought that explained how to make 6-foot tall rockets didn't explain how they couldn't carry an explosive payload.
Since I think people ought to go through hell to legally carry a gun, I'm not upset that someone fingerprinted you and ran a background check.
I'm with you on the dangers inherent in scare-tactic politics, not with you on the equation of the senseless fear of gays and Jews with the rather sensible fear of terrorists, but rather lost aout how this thing is going to generate content and spawn broadcast stations.
Not that the GNU folks are bothering to explain anything (why break old habits?) but this appears to be little more than a $450 piece of digital hardware intended to substitute for much cheaper existing technology. And, a receiver, to boot. I don't see that reshaping the broadcast landscape.
No technology will reshape that landscape. The thing that counts is not the tool that broadcasts content, it's the content itself.
Of course, a techie didn't write the PR release. Who in their right mind would let a techie anywhere near a PR release?
BTW, Comair, a Delta feeder headquartered outside Cincinnati, says the system that crashed was used to monitor crew locations and track working hours to ensure no one went over the legal maximum. Comair says the system crashed as a result of massive crew rescheduling following a record snow in their service area on Wednesday. There is no backup.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if I accepeted your "whole new TV" argument (I don't) it would still mean control of the TV set industry, not television.
The people who make and distribute TV content dominate the industry. That's equally true for the Internet. No TV content, no TV industry., even if we all buy new TV sets. No internet content, no internet, no matter what MS does or does not do.
Remember, the internet exists to distribute content, on the web and elsewhere. A network, of any size, is pointless unless used to distribute information.
Exactly which of my rights is this ruling violating?
Even if you aren't Eurepean, anyone who reads the article will know that this is an extension of a common European practice to mandate an additional levy on the price of any appliance that can be used to copy copyrighted material.
Seems to me that an attempt to convince the court that this levy shouldn't be applied would have to include an attack on all the other levies. Popular among those who don't believe in copyright, but unlikely to prove successful. (Fervency of belief is know substitute for logic and reality.)
In your scenario, MS would have dominated the servers, but without content the Internet is empty. To my way of thinking, dominating the internet means dominating its content, not is authentication scheme.
This is roughly akin to someone doing a deal that forces every TV to be controlled with their remote, otherwise the TV won't work. Most of us would buy the right remote. In the end, though, the only thing being dominated would be the remote control market. We'd still watch whatever we wanted to.
Similarly, few of us would avoid visiting a web site we like just because it wasn't using the MS scheme, or refuse to visit it because it did use that scheme. We visit sites that deliver content we want; any needed authenication is just an annoyance on the way in.
Right, which is just another way of saying what I said. You're looking at it from a technical perspective, I'm looking at it from another perspective: The purpose of controlling centralized authentication is to make money, not to dominate the net.
I'd amend your statement to read:
Consumers don't believe the IT industry focuses on their security.
>> Microsoft is abandoning one of its most controversial attempts to dominate the Internet...
While I don't that that Microsoft or any other business would dearly love to dominate the Internet, I never got the impression that Passport was anything more than a thinly veiled branding effort intende to drive traffic to sites that had done deals with MS. The whole thing was premised on the now-understood-to-be-wrong assumption that logging on to different sites was going to present an insurmountable hurdle for people. (It hasn't; everyone just uses the same damn ID and password for everything.)
Remember, the Internet is just a network. What counts is the content. If you wanna dominate the Internet. dominate its content.
>> The problem is that when businesses control every move it forces the people to cheat.
.problem with GPS systems is that initially there will be a gain, and then a future collapse..
Can you envision an arrangement in which the participants don't have an incentive to cheat? Control by business has nothing to do with this.
>> truckers in Europe are "hinted" by their bosses to break the rules...
If the rules are actually legislated, then the managers should be charged and tried. If the rules are simply company policy, what's wrong with the company deciding to bend them?
>> Truckers will drive too long using equipment that often is a hazard to the road.
Don't pay drivers for excess hours. Do more truck inspections and disable trucks that don't meet safety standards.
>>
Any new technology will provide an initial gain, follwed by a plateauing of benefits, not a collapse. You're arguing for the abandonment of any technological advance because you claim it will result it the collapse of an industry. That's demonstrably silly.
>> the problem is that many industries are mature and as efficient as it will get. Yet the shareholders are telling the managers to become "productive".
No, they're telling the managers they want a bigger return on their investments. Productivity is simply a buzzword that means "make more money with the same resources". When you buy something for the express purpose of making money, it is rather natural that you would pressure it to make more money.
A slowdown would not work. The time it tool to complete a job wasn't determined by the drivers.
In reference to that trucking company, the company mandated that drivers adhere to the posted speed limit (their actual speed was tracked), follow predetermined routes, etc. Drivers couldn't drive more than a specified number of hours each day (8, I believe).
In other words, the company said "Take this truck from A to B, starting at such-and-such a time and arriving X hours later." They knew the route, the speed, and, hence, duration.
Drivers didn't mind adhering to speed limits, loved the fact they had regular non-arduous hours, and the company could use its equipment much more efficiently because it always knew the location of each driver and truck. E.g., a truck could be loaded with a new shipment at the same time and place it offloaded. Drivers weren't being paid to drive empty trucks around.
Can't recall the name, but remember reading several years ago about a U.S. trucking firm that did real-time tracking of all its trucks, monitored their fuel consumption, speed, how long it took of load and offload, if they deviated from the designated route or schedule, etc. Apparently resulted in serious efficiencies and serious revenue, with little grousing from drivers.
This doesn't seem to me to be a grievous problem. Employees don't have the right to use the boss's time and property as they choose.
How do we know the market for any of these products is "thriving"? Someone says the Microsoft product wlll have a bad year and, meanwhile, asserts they competition is "thriving". No numbers, no evidence, so why should I believe it?
Personally, I don't think a long-term market exists for any of these products. MS keeps trying, and failing, to shoehorn itself into show business. Other folks dutifully bring out there own competitive knock-offs, and then go broke and disappear.
If you want an example of a "media" product done right, look at Apple and the iPod. No grandiose attempt to replace a bunch of expensive appliances people already own, just a small gizmo that does one thing well.
>> There is no law that requires people to be courteous, and these days it's not part of our culture.
Sad but true. Can't imagine what airline travel will be like if people are allowed to use the cellphones in flight. Spending hours listening to dozens of people yak it up is sure to add even more misery to the purgatory that flying is today. Maybe some airline will make all the cellphone users sit in soundproof booths.
You're suffering Psych 101 syndrome.
I'm neither projecting or evidencing a control issue. I know lots of people loathe working with computers because they feel chained to an endless stream of mail, chatter, routine and stress. The fact that others might relish that kind of environment is irrelevant. I have no requirement to assume I am wrong because I don't like what they do.
As for control, I'll repeat, I did not say I wanted to stop people fromn doing what they wish with their laptops. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to say I don't like some of the things they do.
I can accept people doing things I don't like, even if I choose to avoid them. That's called tolerance. Blaming myself for not liking their behavior is stupid.
Typical Slashdot behavior: Ridicule of anyone who deviates from the cult's accepted behavior.
Try thinking next time.
Nuts. Did I say I want to stop people from using laptios in state parks? No, I said I don't understand why someone would want to drag the environment they hate along with them on vacation.
When I go on vacation, I'm trying to get away from people and computers. I don't care what other people do with their laptops, but I don't want to spend my vacation in an enviroment that reminds me of the office.
So, no control issue here, other than controlling where I take my vacation.
What "control issues"?
The point of a vacation is to relax and do something different. A lot of people really don't enjoy being chained to their PC all day long, so hauling their laptops along on holiday seems a bit perverse.
Anyway, if state parks start looking like Statbucks, I'll go somewhere else.
I'd argue that content is everything re: attracting an audience. If you don't attract an audience, why broadcast?
This GNU thing seems to be a receiver (although it could be an electric eggbeater since the GNU site pretends we don't need to know what it does). I don't see how a receiver is going to allow me and my neighbors to listen to anything that isn't already being broadcast.
I don't see anything wrong with microbroadcasting, but I don't see anything especially interesting about it, either. If tiny bands of people with something in common want to use radio to preach to their choirs, more power to them.
On interference: I'm sure current broadcasters are using that to ward off potential competition. However, improperly maintained eqipment can generate interference across the spectrum. Tiny shoestring operations maintained by technical neophytes are likely to have their share of maintenance problems.
Well, I actually spent part of my wasted youth playing with model rockets, and I know that it doesn't take many shotgun-shell sized model rocket engines to power something lethal, or that the paperbacks I bought that explained how to make 6-foot tall rockets didn't explain how they couldn't carry an explosive payload.
Since I think people ought to go through hell to legally carry a gun, I'm not upset that someone fingerprinted you and ran a background check.
I'm with you on the dangers inherent in scare-tactic politics, not with you on the equation of the senseless fear of gays and Jews with the rather sensible fear of terrorists, but rather lost aout how this thing is going to generate content and spawn broadcast stations.
Not that the GNU folks are bothering to explain anything (why break old habits?) but this appears to be little more than a $450 piece of digital hardware intended to substitute for much cheaper existing technology. And, a receiver, to boot. I don't see that reshaping the broadcast landscape.
No technology will reshape that landscape. The thing that counts is not the tool that broadcasts content, it's the content itself.
That many, eh?
But, I've never posted on vacation. And I never travel for pleasure with a laptop.
>> How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?
Just more evidence of the kneejerk juvenile pandering we've come to expect from SLashdot.
How and why is this thing any more of a terrorist boon that other radios, the web, or cell phones?
If I go to a park, state or otherwise, it's because I want to look at trees, water. etc., and not at other dweebs banging on their laptops.
Geez, people, unplug once in a while.
True, but...It's Christmas, everyone is booked up, and thousands of flights were already cancelled due to weather.
Of course, a techie didn't write the PR release. Who in their right mind would let a techie anywhere near a PR release?
BTW, Comair, a Delta feeder headquartered outside Cincinnati, says the system that crashed was used to monitor crew locations and track working hours to ensure no one went over the legal maximum. Comair says the system crashed as a result of massive crew rescheduling following a record snow in their service area on Wednesday. There is no backup.
Bush won with the smallest popular vote margin of any President going after a second term -- ever.
That total did not include my vote, but it is time to start dealing with reality and stop dealing with smug ill-informed conceits.
Get over it.
You didn't. I was responding to another post.