I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with ISP's deciding to discriminate based on content. Ideally, it's their business and if it's a hit with the customers it'll be successful and if not (which I don't think it would) it would fail. The problem with this is that as it stands most people have to deal with local monopolies to get internet access. This means that there's a good chance these ISP's will see the green and adapt it because customers have no real alternative other than to go without internet entirely. I think most consumers would prefer the "we give you a pipe" business model to the content discrimination model but this might not be reflected in the services provided by the ISP's due to their monopoly power.
Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views.
Right... Because Republicans are just mindless automatons while the Democrats are the epitome of critical thought and non-partisanship. EastCoastSurfer's got it right. They're all crooks. You might want to do some reading into the history of the Democratic party.
If making a small simple mistake with your camera killed people and you were using it in densely populated areas, then yes, you would be pathological for liking your fully manual SLR film camera.
Driving an automatic is no safer than driving a manual. I'd say it's the opposite. When you drive a manual you get the sense that you're really *operating* the car. You tend to focus more. That's how I am anyway.
I already mentioned that mass transit makes sense in areas that are already too congested (ie big cities).
Would flying cars ever really work on a large scale? I don't know.
But how does "liking" something compare to killing tens of thousands of people each year [dot.gov], causing massive destruction of ecosystems, causing other vast climactic changes, draining natural resources, and destroying watersheds (with pavement)?
Death is part of life. The way I see it you can live a sheltered little life and possibly squeeze out a little bit more time on earth but you're not really living life to its fullest. I enjoy driving. I feel as though I'm an exceptional driver and I feel safer when I'm in control. I don't like being coddled by automagic systems. I'm not alone either. Pilots, for instance, use auto-pilot for the more monotonous parts of flying but when it comes to the real trick part - landing - they go manual. When you go out on the road you accept the risks involved. Hell, build the system for people who don't want to drive and for places where its too congested. But me, I'll be driving.
Some people are more promiscuous than others. That's their right. It's really none of my business.
As for the other other concerns, they can be addressed through alternative energy systems. There's nothing inherently more eco-friendly in riding a rail than driving on a road.
No, I don't think every decision a person makes should be measured by what's in the "public interest."
It's not enough to just say "oh well OEMs can just install Firefox now". That is true but it doesn't factor in the fact IE is setup to try to take over as your default browser and it's not even a case that you can to never open IE because even if you don't want to open IE but use something like MSN messenger then it ignores your browser choice and uses IE anyway which will, by default, ask you to change your default browser settings.
Microsoft is going to have to code their app's to be browser agnostic and patch the ones still in use that aren't. Aren't you sick of being tied down by legacy MS bullshit?
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather drive. I'm the type of guy that prefers a manual to an automatic. I certainly would prefer driving to being shuttled around by some computer. I guess it might be a good alternative to subways in cities where the roads are already too congested but for the most part I'd rather drive- even if it means paying more and being more dangerous. Also how are they going to deal with broken down units? I think flying cars are the future. People like having control.
Firefox is about as lightweight as an An-225 filled packed with uranium. I switched to Chrome a while back. Still waiting for a plugin interface but for now I manage.
Newsflash: IE isn't free. It's built into the price of Windows. In a way, Firefox isn't free either because it's supported by companies like Google and it comes out of their budget. It's subsidized by AdSense customers and the like. I guess you could argue that firefox is "more free" because of all the volunteer effort, however.
How do you know OS X is a loss leader? Most of it's ripped from open source projects. It can't cost much to develop. Can anyone tell me what OS X adds to the price of a Mac and compare that to the its development cost?
I'd just go buy a bunch of Apples. I am sick to death of all the performance-draining crapware I have to install in order to prevent performance-draining crapware from getting installed.
When you buy a PS3 game you can only legally play it on a PS3. When you buy an XBox 360 game I can only play it on an XBox 360.
That's false. You can play PS3 games on any hardware you want. Your analogy is good but if anything it proves the point that it IS legal to install OS X on non-Mac hardware.
http://everything2.com/e2node/Emulation%2520legality
Dumping a computer program from a Game Pak and emulating it on a different type of computer is not an infringement of the copyright in the program under 17 USC 117, as long as the cartridge owner does not distribute the dump to any third party. (This means you, TheBooBooKitty. Owners of coin-op boards must dump their own ROMs to play them in MAME.) Therefore, emulators and game copiers have a substantial non-infringing use, and any attempt by Nintendo to remove them from the market through legal action is frivolous barratry.
That being said, their ISP-subscription model, while better than a customer-based subscription model (nickel-and-diming the customer for content?), still sucks.
How is "nickel-and-diming" consumers any better than "nickel-and-diming" non-consumers? Sure, it might be better for *you*, but I don't give a flying fuck about ESPN and I sure as Hell don't want to have to pay an ESPN tax just to get on the internet.
How would you all feel if the EU started making these mandates about your computers. What if they banned, say, dual graphics card setups and high end processors and mandated that no computer could use more than 200 watts? How would YOU like being forced to buy a crippled computer with an Atom processor and integrated everything? This type of legislation has that feel-good "save the planet" appeal but things are a little different when it's YOUR ox getting gored.
You guys are mistaking communists for capital-C Communists. There's a big difference. Outing Communist plants in the US government is a noble goal. McCarthy was right about a lot of things, he just went off the deep end.
Please explain though how outing closet communists would be illegal or traitorous? Immoral, maybe.
Yeah, good points. If your explanation of B is true then it's no surprise this guy got fired. I'd fire his ass too. Hell, just watching this unfold, if I were the guy who fired him I'd be patting myself on the back.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with ISP's deciding to discriminate based on content. Ideally, it's their business and if it's a hit with the customers it'll be successful and if not (which I don't think it would) it would fail. The problem with this is that as it stands most people have to deal with local monopolies to get internet access. This means that there's a good chance these ISP's will see the green and adapt it because customers have no real alternative other than to go without internet entirely. I think most consumers would prefer the "we give you a pipe" business model to the content discrimination model but this might not be reflected in the services provided by the ISP's due to their monopoly power.
Unlike the republicans, the democratic party has a lot of people with their own views.
Right... Because Republicans are just mindless automatons while the Democrats are the epitome of critical thought and non-partisanship. EastCoastSurfer's got it right. They're all crooks. You might want to do some reading into the history of the Democratic party.
If making a small simple mistake with your camera killed people and you were using it in densely populated areas, then yes, you would be pathological for liking your fully manual SLR film camera.
Driving an automatic is no safer than driving a manual. I'd say it's the opposite. When you drive a manual you get the sense that you're really *operating* the car. You tend to focus more. That's how I am anyway. I already mentioned that mass transit makes sense in areas that are already too congested (ie big cities). Would flying cars ever really work on a large scale? I don't know.
But how does "liking" something compare to killing tens of thousands of people each year [dot.gov], causing massive destruction of ecosystems, causing other vast climactic changes, draining natural resources, and destroying watersheds (with pavement)?
Death is part of life. The way I see it you can live a sheltered little life and possibly squeeze out a little bit more time on earth but you're not really living life to its fullest. I enjoy driving. I feel as though I'm an exceptional driver and I feel safer when I'm in control. I don't like being coddled by automagic systems. I'm not alone either. Pilots, for instance, use auto-pilot for the more monotonous parts of flying but when it comes to the real trick part - landing - they go manual. When you go out on the road you accept the risks involved. Hell, build the system for people who don't want to drive and for places where its too congested. But me, I'll be driving.
Some people are more promiscuous than others. That's their right. It's really none of my business.
As for the other other concerns, they can be addressed through alternative energy systems. There's nothing inherently more eco-friendly in riding a rail than driving on a road.
No, I don't think every decision a person makes should be measured by what's in the "public interest."
It's not enough to just say "oh well OEMs can just install Firefox now". That is true but it doesn't factor in the fact IE is setup to try to take over as your default browser and it's not even a case that you can to never open IE because even if you don't want to open IE but use something like MSN messenger then it ignores your browser choice and uses IE anyway which will, by default, ask you to change your default browser settings.
Microsoft is going to have to code their app's to be browser agnostic and patch the ones still in use that aren't. Aren't you sick of being tied down by legacy MS bullshit?
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather drive. I'm the type of guy that prefers a manual to an automatic. I certainly would prefer driving to being shuttled around by some computer. I guess it might be a good alternative to subways in cities where the roads are already too congested but for the most part I'd rather drive- even if it means paying more and being more dangerous. Also how are they going to deal with broken down units? I think flying cars are the future. People like having control.
Firefox is about as lightweight as an An-225 filled packed with uranium. I switched to Chrome a while back. Still waiting for a plugin interface but for now I manage.
Right click link-> "Save As..."
Newsflash: IE isn't free. It's built into the price of Windows. In a way, Firefox isn't free either because it's supported by companies like Google and it comes out of their budget. It's subsidized by AdSense customers and the like. I guess you could argue that firefox is "more free" because of all the volunteer effort, however.
How do you know OS X is a loss leader? Most of it's ripped from open source projects. It can't cost much to develop. Can anyone tell me what OS X adds to the price of a Mac and compare that to the its development cost?
It's really kinda cool, you know, how everything just works.
Troll if I've ever seen one...
I'd just go buy a bunch of Apples. I am sick to death of all the performance-draining crapware I have to install in order to prevent performance-draining crapware from getting installed.
Learn to use a computer.
Psystar and other OEMs could easily provide the support that Apple wont give.
When you buy a PS3 game you can only legally play it on a PS3. When you buy an XBox 360 game I can only play it on an XBox 360.
That's false. You can play PS3 games on any hardware you want. Your analogy is good but if anything it proves the point that it IS legal to install OS X on non-Mac hardware. http://everything2.com/e2node/Emulation%2520legality
Dumping a computer program from a Game Pak and emulating it on a different type of computer is not an infringement of the copyright in the program under 17 USC 117, as long as the cartridge owner does not distribute the dump to any third party. (This means you, TheBooBooKitty. Owners of coin-op boards must dump their own ROMs to play them in MAME.) Therefore, emulators and game copiers have a substantial non-infringing use, and any attempt by Nintendo to remove them from the market through legal action is frivolous barratry.
Obviously my post was bass ackwards. I meant "How is nickel-and-diming non-consumers better than nickel-and-diming consumers?"
That being said, their ISP-subscription model, while better than a customer-based subscription model (nickel-and-diming the customer for content?), still sucks.
How is "nickel-and-diming" consumers any better than "nickel-and-diming" non-consumers? Sure, it might be better for *you*, but I don't give a flying fuck about ESPN and I sure as Hell don't want to have to pay an ESPN tax just to get on the internet.
Jesus Christ. If they make CAPTCHA's any more difficult I'm going to be effectively banned from the internet. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
That doesn't make sense.
How would you all feel if the EU started making these mandates about your computers. What if they banned, say, dual graphics card setups and high end processors and mandated that no computer could use more than 200 watts? How would YOU like being forced to buy a crippled computer with an Atom processor and integrated everything? This type of legislation has that feel-good "save the planet" appeal but things are a little different when it's YOUR ox getting gored.
You guys are mistaking communists for capital-C Communists. There's a big difference. Outing Communist plants in the US government is a noble goal. McCarthy was right about a lot of things, he just went off the deep end. Please explain though how outing closet communists would be illegal or traitorous? Immoral, maybe.
" "Well, I think you know the answer to that."" What I condescending prick...
Yeah, good points. If your explanation of B is true then it's no surprise this guy got fired. I'd fire his ass too. Hell, just watching this unfold, if I were the guy who fired him I'd be patting myself on the back.
Actually, it does imply that. A) You say he's a former colleague. B) You claim to have knowledge regarding the level of access he had at the NSA.