Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more specific: I'll just keep building REAL computers, you know, the desktop type? I don't count tablets, e-readers, and smartphones in the same category, and for what it's worth, I haven't found anything even close to a justification for my owning a tablet, I don't like e-books thus no need for an e-reader, and dataplans from wireless companies are a huge rip-off so far as I'm concerned, so I'd rather just have a plain-old phone, not a smartphone anyway. When tablet computers are down below $100 (or I can just instruct the matter replicator to spit one out for me) then maybe I'll get one, but still I tend to not buy things I don't have a use for, and I still don't see where it'd be anything more than a shiny toy to me.
I'll just keep building my own computers out of parts, like I've been doing for the last 30 years or so, and I can build several computers for what Apple would have me pay for a single one of theirs.
And how precisely am I doing that? By not advocating "free everything for everyone"? Even without any sort of reform or ill-conceived FCC recommendations, there is free internet access at public libraries, schools, and some businesses (assuming you have a portable computer).
There is coffee out there that has as much naturally-occurring caffeine in it as many energy drinks. If you're going to start regulating caffeine content in any sort of drinks, then you have to do it for coffee as well. That is why it won't be done, and that's why it hasn't already been done: nobody is going to screw with coffee.
Leave energy drinks alone. The number of people having serious problems because of them aren't that many, and the ones who do are being excessively stupid about their consumption of them to start with.
I think what really needs to happen is reform of how ISPs do business and what they charge, bringing a basic level of internet service to something resembling the way basic wired telephone service used to be, so that all but the most poverty-striken can get access to it for a very low price. Let's face it: if all you need is a "subsistence" level of internet access (enough for email, slow but usable web access, no streaming of movies, large downloads, or online gaming) then you only need 1Mb/sec (or less) on the downstream side, right? With the way web pages are bloated with Flash and Javascript these days they would load as slow as pages loaded when dialup was the norm, but it'd be better than nothing, right? That's what I think needs to happen.
Internet access, while really cool and fun, is still in the category of luxury item
Don't know what industry YOU work in, but without internet access I wouldn't be able to get a job, and I don't think I'm unique in that respect! Most employers use job search sites or their own web page to post employment opportunities, and if you have no internet then you can't get to them can you? The days of looking through the Want Ads in printed newspapers are more or less gone.
There's only one problem I see with your blue-sky thinking: People will gladly accept music for free (have for decades and decades, it's call RADIO) especially if there's no risk to getting it, but under your model concerts would probably be even more expensive than they already are, and they're expensive right now. Most people will say "Ugh, that's too much money, I'll just listen to the free recording, it's almost as good" and leave it at that.
It's almost like people have forgotten what broadcast radio was, still is, and that online streaming is more or less the 2013 equivalent of broadcast radio. Remember how we had to pay a subscription fee to listen to the radio? You don't, because we never did and never will. Places like Britain where you pay a license fee for owning/operating receivers doesn't count, and I'm not talking about satellite services like XM, either. The way it used to work is radio stations would give public exposure to artists' work, and in turn if people liked it they'd go to a record store and buy a copy. Of course that entire business model is now hopelessly broken and everyone wants everything to be digital and stored on their PMP, and so-called 'internet radio' is not in any way equivalent to the broadcast radio of old, in part because you need an internet connection to receive them, so you're already paying for that -- and why should you have to pay twice? I don't think that internet radio is going to ever be a viable sole income source for artists, and frankly I don't know what's going to end up replacing the old business model, but I am of the opinion that expecting to make a living off your music being played streaming online is not realistic. We are in a transitional era for the music business, as the old industry is still in it's death throes, and it's replacement hasn't risen out of the chaos yet.
If I wanted to rent software, I'd rent software. Micro$oft already has plenty of money, yet they want to suck more of it out of our pockets. No thanks, I'll just keep using old versions of Office I already have, and if it comes down to it I'll use FOSS instead. I'm a human being, damnit, not a revenue stream!
we should be figuring out how to manage a reasonable level of privacy in an age that will include Google, and Facebook, and all of those other fun and useful sites that we love.
There IS no "reasonable level of privacy" because there is MONEY involved in all this, BIG money. MEMO: Facebook and other for-profit corporations do not care about you and your rights, they only care about their profits. They'd sell your body parts if they thought they could get away with it, they're sure as shit not going to scruple selling your personal information regardless of how you feel about it -- or more to the point, how they're working overtime to convince/indoctrinate you that it's OK to give away your personal information. You want to do that, that's your business, but I'll have no part of it anymore.
You're implying that this doesn't already happen. It does happen. Personally I don't care, if people want to look at me funny because I don't have a goddamn Facebook account anymore, then they can go get fucked. I don't want to share; deal with it. That being said: If someone I've met is so interested in my life, they can damned well spend time with me in person doing so. If they don't want to do that, then maybe they're not worth knowing.
What this is, is one of the saddest signs of the times yet. Behold: A device that identifies the user as having absolutely ZERO personal discipline whatsoever, needing to pump their own stomachs rather than refrain from eating fattening foods and becoming/remaining obese. Word of this development actually made me want to vomit up my breakfast. Seriously, isn't it time to stop coddling these people? I personally (and quite literally) worked my ASS off learning how to control my weight, having topped out at 320lbs and now, being in complete control, being down to a muscular 190lbs. Stories like this infuriate me as much as the entire "fat acceptance" movement. I can hope that the FDA does not approve this device and that obese people will just knuckle down and learn to control themselves.
Being modded down to -1 as "troll" or "flamebait" is expected; fire away, I really don't care. Someone has to keep calling these people out, as opposed to accepting the absurdity of obesity rates.
Since we've obviously solved all other important problems here in the U.S. (there's full employment, the economy is booming, the rest of the world loves us like a long-lost brother, there is no crime to speak of here, everyone enjoys a high level of education, everyone is healthy and lives a long life due to easy access to inexpensive health care and medication, there is no corruption in our government, global warming is under control and environmental damage is being reversed and repaired, there is no hate, there is no greed, etc) then certainly we should take steps to unify the way the U.S. measures things. It's not like it'll upset everything and create confusion, certainly not! I'm sure everyone will willingly embrace it without reservation and overnight it'll all be done.
They don't "deserve" it, they're a for-profit corporation with stockholders, they'll do anything and everything they can get away with to make as much profit as possible, and they don't give a damn if it's right or wrong, or if the userbase likes it or not.
I just did the math. If Voyager I, at it's current speed of 62100km/h could be pointed at it, it would still take about 208000 years for it to get there. Even if you could increase it's speed by a factor of 10, that's still over 20000 years. Comments, anyone? I'm no astrophysicist, and that was 2 minutes with Google and a calculator.
Except: Since nobody wanted them doing this in the first place, what makes you think that they co-ordinated their intended orbit with everyone else's currently orbiting satellites?
Which approach do you think would work best? Roll out a censorship system all at once, much to the protests of everyone, or a little at a time? This amounts to the second example. If unchallenged, they'll make it more restrictive as time goes on. The line must be drawn HERE, NO FARTHER!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more specific: I'll just keep building REAL computers, you know, the desktop type? I don't count tablets, e-readers, and smartphones in the same category, and for what it's worth, I haven't found anything even close to a justification for my owning a tablet, I don't like e-books thus no need for an e-reader, and dataplans from wireless companies are a huge rip-off so far as I'm concerned, so I'd rather just have a plain-old phone, not a smartphone anyway. When tablet computers are down below $100 (or I can just instruct the matter replicator to spit one out for me) then maybe I'll get one, but still I tend to not buy things I don't have a use for, and I still don't see where it'd be anything more than a shiny toy to me.
I'll just keep building my own computers out of parts, like I've been doing for the last 30 years or so, and I can build several computers for what Apple would have me pay for a single one of theirs.
..second-class citizens
And how precisely am I doing that? By not advocating "free everything for everyone"? Even without any sort of reform or ill-conceived FCC recommendations, there is free internet access at public libraries, schools, and some businesses (assuming you have a portable computer).
There is coffee out there that has as much naturally-occurring caffeine in it as many energy drinks. If you're going to start regulating caffeine content in any sort of drinks, then you have to do it for coffee as well. That is why it won't be done, and that's why it hasn't already been done: nobody is going to screw with coffee.
Leave energy drinks alone. The number of people having serious problems because of them aren't that many, and the ones who do are being excessively stupid about their consumption of them to start with.
I think what really needs to happen is reform of how ISPs do business and what they charge, bringing a basic level of internet service to something resembling the way basic wired telephone service used to be, so that all but the most poverty-striken can get access to it for a very low price. Let's face it: if all you need is a "subsistence" level of internet access (enough for email, slow but usable web access, no streaming of movies, large downloads, or online gaming) then you only need 1Mb/sec (or less) on the downstream side, right? With the way web pages are bloated with Flash and Javascript these days they would load as slow as pages loaded when dialup was the norm, but it'd be better than nothing, right? That's what I think needs to happen.
Internet access, while really cool and fun, is still in the category of luxury item
Don't know what industry YOU work in, but without internet access I wouldn't be able to get a job, and I don't think I'm unique in that respect! Most employers use job search sites or their own web page to post employment opportunities, and if you have no internet then you can't get to them can you? The days of looking through the Want Ads in printed newspapers are more or less gone.
There's only one problem I see with your blue-sky thinking: People will gladly accept music for free (have for decades and decades, it's call RADIO) especially if there's no risk to getting it, but under your model concerts would probably be even more expensive than they already are, and they're expensive right now. Most people will say "Ugh, that's too much money, I'll just listen to the free recording, it's almost as good" and leave it at that.
It's almost like people have forgotten what broadcast radio was, still is, and that online streaming is more or less the 2013 equivalent of broadcast radio. Remember how we had to pay a subscription fee to listen to the radio? You don't, because we never did and never will. Places like Britain where you pay a license fee for owning/operating receivers doesn't count, and I'm not talking about satellite services like XM, either. The way it used to work is radio stations would give public exposure to artists' work, and in turn if people liked it they'd go to a record store and buy a copy. Of course that entire business model is now hopelessly broken and everyone wants everything to be digital and stored on their PMP, and so-called 'internet radio' is not in any way equivalent to the broadcast radio of old, in part because you need an internet connection to receive them, so you're already paying for that -- and why should you have to pay twice? I don't think that internet radio is going to ever be a viable sole income source for artists, and frankly I don't know what's going to end up replacing the old business model, but I am of the opinion that expecting to make a living off your music being played streaming online is not realistic. We are in a transitional era for the music business, as the old industry is still in it's death throes, and it's replacement hasn't risen out of the chaos yet.
If I wanted to rent software, I'd rent software. Micro$oft already has plenty of money, yet they want to suck more of it out of our pockets. No thanks, I'll just keep using old versions of Office I already have, and if it comes down to it I'll use FOSS instead. I'm a human being, damnit, not a revenue stream!
All I could think reading this news was "Do they want to get smashed flat?". If I were China, I'd already be backing away from them.
DNA is the machine language of biological life. What happens if it starts perpetuating itself?
Fuck you, asshole. As long as nobody is bugging my house with cameras and microphones, I STILL HAVE PRIVACY, AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME.
we should be figuring out how to manage a reasonable level of privacy in an age that will include Google, and Facebook, and all of those other fun and useful sites that we love.
There IS no "reasonable level of privacy" because there is MONEY involved in all this, BIG money. MEMO: Facebook and other for-profit corporations do not care about you and your rights, they only care about their profits. They'd sell your body parts if they thought they could get away with it, they're sure as shit not going to scruple selling your personal information regardless of how you feel about it -- or more to the point, how they're working overtime to convince/indoctrinate you that it's OK to give away your personal information. You want to do that, that's your business, but I'll have no part of it anymore.
FIX THE PROBLEMS AT HOME
I'll "fix the problems at home" by NOT using stupid privacy-invading bullshit like Failbook.
I don't have time to waste on bullshit like that.
You're implying that this doesn't already happen. It does happen. Personally I don't care, if people want to look at me funny because I don't have a goddamn Facebook account anymore, then they can go get fucked. I don't want to share; deal with it. That being said: If someone I've met is so interested in my life, they can damned well spend time with me in person doing so. If they don't want to do that, then maybe they're not worth knowing.
What this is, is one of the saddest signs of the times yet. Behold: A device that identifies the user as having absolutely ZERO personal discipline whatsoever, needing to pump their own stomachs rather than refrain from eating fattening foods and becoming/remaining obese. Word of this development actually made me want to vomit up my breakfast. Seriously, isn't it time to stop coddling these people? I personally (and quite literally) worked my ASS off learning how to control my weight, having topped out at 320lbs and now, being in complete control, being down to a muscular 190lbs. Stories like this infuriate me as much as the entire "fat acceptance" movement. I can hope that the FDA does not approve this device and that obese people will just knuckle down and learn to control themselves.
Being modded down to -1 as "troll" or "flamebait" is expected; fire away, I really don't care. Someone has to keep calling these people out, as opposed to accepting the absurdity of obesity rates.
I know that eventually it's going to have to happen, but right now is probably the worst possible time for it to go down.
Since we've obviously solved all other important problems here in the U.S. (there's full employment, the economy is booming, the rest of the world loves us like a long-lost brother, there is no crime to speak of here, everyone enjoys a high level of education, everyone is healthy and lives a long life due to easy access to inexpensive health care and medication, there is no corruption in our government, global warming is under control and environmental damage is being reversed and repaired, there is no hate, there is no greed, etc) then certainly we should take steps to unify the way the U.S. measures things. It's not like it'll upset everything and create confusion, certainly not! I'm sure everyone will willingly embrace it without reservation and overnight it'll all be done.
This. This, times 1,000,000.
The world doesn't need children who connect better with machines than they do other human beings.
How does Facebook deserve this money?
They don't "deserve" it, they're a for-profit corporation with stockholders, they'll do anything and everything they can get away with to make as much profit as possible, and they don't give a damn if it's right or wrong, or if the userbase likes it or not.
I just did the math. If Voyager I, at it's current speed of 62100km/h could be pointed at it, it would still take about 208000 years for it to get there. Even if you could increase it's speed by a factor of 10, that's still over 20000 years. Comments, anyone? I'm no astrophysicist, and that was 2 minutes with Google and a calculator.
Except: Since nobody wanted them doing this in the first place, what makes you think that they co-ordinated their intended orbit with everyone else's currently orbiting satellites?
But who gets to decide what is and is not 'explicit'?
Which approach do you think would work best? Roll out a censorship system all at once, much to the protests of everyone, or a little at a time? This amounts to the second example. If unchallenged, they'll make it more restrictive as time goes on. The line must be drawn HERE, NO FARTHER!