I thought Apple's ads say you don't need a special mobile web page, cut-down site version, etc. that it just worked with the normal internet. Thus, why bother? OK, nothing is ever as perfect as advertized, but considering the ads I'd let Apple fix things that don't work. Really, how long will it take for iphone users to be knocking on my door in large enough numbers to be worth their own version of a web site?
Suppose you sent an extremely urgent e-mail to your doctor or your lawyer, who for the sake of argument you're not able to reach by phone.
Sorry, but I find this article hard to identify with. I don't know my doctor's email. I don't know if he has one. I don't know anyone that knows their doctor's email. If you have a medical emergency, you should be dialing 911 or heading to the hospital instead of waiting for the doctor to check his email. Maybe it's just how America works in putting you through computer menues and other people to set up appointments and other countries are different, but I'll need different examples before I can "feel" anything for this story.
Besides, how can my ISP move emails from my inbox to my junk folder or back again? They don't have access to my computer. If anything they might delete it from the server before I download it, but if they don't get to it before I do then they can't do a darn thing.
or build a Myth system that works for less than half the cost of an equivalent media center pc, without getting so locked into a single vendor for any service.
Having a cable card inside your system is nice, but is it really worth all that extra money? I don't think so.
I'm thinkin gof switching to FIOS TV/internet and ditching my cable co. But you can only get a few analog channels that way, anything else requires a cablecard or Verizon box. My Tivo would thus be pretty useless, as would my MythTV box.
I don't know if I'd want an iPhone. I went for the LG9800 aka "The V" phone from Verizon as it was supposed to be their high-end gadget. It's a freakin POS. Terrible camera, short battery life, can't use standard headphnes to listen to music, mediocre phone, can't bluetooth pix I've taken to other phones like my roommate's phone can, and it drops calls very frequently at home. Roommates claim their phones work fine at home. I dont' use it for an mp3 player as my iPod Nano is much better for that with much larger capacity, but the 9800 seemed acceptable the couple songs I tried out for kicks. But it leaves me uninterested in expensive combo phones that don't do anything particularly well. I'll wait for some user reviews before I try to care. My next phone will be bought based on signal reception and battery life. But as Verizon reps can't/won't talk to me about what phones have better antennas and signal pickup than other phones, I'm not sure how to make that decision, and I still have this POS that I've hated since I got it. I find the idea of bailing out on cell phones completely quite tempting because I never really use it anyway, and it's an expensive monthly payment for something that works so poorly.
Is there an example of deregulation working out well for the consumer?
Last year the electric company in my state was deregulated. Electric rates were said to have gone up 72% because of that. My billing statement went from 4.9cents/KWh to 11.4cents/KWh. I don't know how that adds up to 72% increase, but that's what was in the news. A year later, we're told our bills will increase another 50%. Hurray for deregulation! It's great for consumers! Curious that the electric company was crying how badly it was suffering because of regulation, but the quarter before the deregulation took effect they had record profits. Wiggy...
Imagine if Ballmer could encourage the president to declare war on a country that doesn't do enough to fight software piracy. Or influence other policies such as sacntions, economic warfare, etc. Straighten up or Microsoft's airforce will bomb you...
I'm registered republican, and after seeing this I don't know if I have anyone I can vote for in the primaries. I don't suppose they'll give me a "none of the above" option?
I live in what has been at times a sketchy neighborhood, and I've talked to the police about putting up a private security camera. Cars have been vandalized, graffiti on sidewalks and buildings, but supposedly the drug house up the road is cleaned up. Not sure if it's state or county law, but I can't point a camera at someone else's private property. I can point it at my property, and I can point it at public property. I cannot record sound, only video.
Check the laws about this sort of thing where you live. If you find a picture going inside your home, you may be able to go after them.
Why do they even have people working on Episode 3 when Episode 2 has been pushed back nearly a year already?
Perhaps they have some people whos contribution to Ep2 is already complete, and they can begin their equivalent contribution to Ep3. Maybe there's nothing left for these particular people with their particular skill set to work on in Ep2, and Valve doesn't want them sitting around twiddling their thumbs and toes until everyone else finishes their bits of Ep2.
I guess I'm not idealistic enough to avoid enjoying something fun just ebcause I don't like their protection mechanism.
I was able to play HL2 on my laptop once without logging in, that's been a couple years ago. I was out of town and didn't have a net connection but was bored and had the game installed. A few months later, and I probably had something update in the meantime, I was no longer able to play the same game on the same laptop without a net connection, so I was unhappy. But when I'm at home and have my net connection, I've never had a problem, it works fine, and I enjoy the game.
If I could, I'd cut the landline and save some bucks. but my cell phone works so poorly at home that I think that would be a bad idea. it drops calls, a lot. It sounds like people are gargling when when I do have a connection. And this is with the provider with the biggest network.
It's like Christianity fitting the definition of a cult, but nobody calls it that. It's "normal". Perhaps in some countries it's a minority thing to take note of, but in a lot of western cultures it's nothing to care about if a person is or not. MS has so many customers that it's gone way beyond a cult thing. Nothing to worry about it going away, having trouble finding compatible parts if things break, etc. It's everywhere. It's mainstream. Everybody uses it. You don't have a huge ignorant population not using it, so there's no need top obsessively evangelize it or whatever. There's no one to "save" from being an infidel because everyone already belongs. OK, a few people don't use Windows at all, but that's a very small minority in the grand scheme of things, small enough that the larger group can not worry about being overthrown or anything by some large rival group intent to convert everyone not them to their ways. They either use a MS based PC or they have to figure things out for themselves because no one else knows anythign else to help them, and they don't want to be bothered themselves. Take it to the computer store and have them deal with things.
I think only minority groups and up with cult-like mentalities. I'm in the remaining tiny nanoscopic Amiga community. We're crazy, obsessive, evangelical, and all about "Amiga does X and you don't" stuff about features nobody else cares about. My parents and friends know I have an Amiga, but they don't know why or what it is. My family knows there's something called a Mac out there, but have never seen one or know what it is.
And my comment is redicuous. It's a rediculous question which I suppose only deserves rediculous answers. But coming from the Amiga realm, I'm quite accustomed to rediculous. Thanks for making me so comfortable here.:)
If the total lack of support for this DRM is enough to circumvent it and gain access to content protected in this format, then maybe it's really just not very good. So bad so that it's not appealing to content owners (RIAA/MPAA) to use, and thus not worth paying license fees by the OS/player guys since the poor quality will have it never actually used for anything.
Seriously, doesn't circumvention mean you actively do something to go around or break through a protection in order to reach the prize inside? How does doing nothing at all and remaining unable to see the prize inside equate to circumvention? Brain not understand... Maybe the lines of text above and below what I was focusing on confused me?
But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.
Ownership of something is easy to achieve. I'd be more impressed if you can get the guy to actually USE the thing. Surely he can afford to buy a Zune and give it to his uncle, who then owns it. That doesn't mean a darn thing if uncle puts it on a shelf somewhere and forgets about it.
What does that mean really? Protecting spectators and participants from what? Do I need to enter my social security number into a database in order to enter the stadium? What should I be afraid of which I need the Olympics people to protect me from? I don't get it. I imagine I'd be more afraid of terrorist bombers going after the Olympics than a computer virus. I can comprehend security in that context, but I have no clue what this is supposed to be for. No, I didn't RTFA to find out.
I quit looking for a laptop for a while because I didn't want Vista. Then told me to look under the smal business laptops instead of home-use laptops. Small Business stuff is more likely to offer XP still than Home/consumer packages are.
Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.
If true, would that be criminal activity?
Doubtful. At least they're fessing up to it instead of trying to cover up who did it like we've seen happen elsewhere.
I think it's sad to see that we expect politicians voting on things have such a low likelyhood of reading those things, that it is used so often as a tactic to get "unpopular" things passed into law. Especially when those unpopular things are bad things, but I still see it as a problem method of doing things even if the intent is honorable and good for the people.
If these politicians are not expected to read anything, WTF are they doing between vote sessions they happen to attend? Why do we pay them for that?
Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.
If we're going to allow campaign contributions, is there a possible way to seperate the money from any sense of obligation to the donor? Some organization should be set up to collect campaign contributions and distribute them to the campaigners with the money having since been cleansed of any information as to who gave it or why. Donors would get a receipt that they gave money to a political campaign for tax return purposes, but should not have proof of which campaign so they couldn't take their receipt to the campaigner and ask for something in return.
Doing things in return for possible future contributions should be a red flag anyway. If you need all that money to win an election, and can't win without it, maybe you're just the wrong guy for the job, especially if you already have it. Anyone who voted against this text for the reason of future campaign contributions should be fired immediately.
OK, if no one outside this organization can know how much money goes where there's chance that people inside could divert things to the wrong campaigns and no one outside would know or have proof. But I would like to remove the idea of obligation in return for "contributions" in politics.
Maybe a system where each campaigner gets an equal amount of money from a generic contribution pool would be more fair. Maybe not. What about other ideas?
I've read the wikipedia article and such, but I still don't see how lobbying is any different than bribery and extortion.
Lobbying is a legalized form of bribery and extortion, with some sorts of constraints involved. I say we all get together to pool some noticable money for campaign contributions, and lobby for the de-legalization of lobbying politicians. It's a goofy way to say it, but I'd seriously like the goal to be achieved someday.
Rep. Homan and his son Doug tried to add their little open standards boost to SB 1974 as quietly as possible. They wanted the modified bill to at least get through its first committee approval before anyone spotted what they had done.
Any politician voting on ANYTHING they haven't read, is grossly irresponsible and should be fired immediately. If you haven't read that legislation, abstain.
While we may like what in particular these two guys were trying to do, we should not like the method they chose, as it's usually used for malicious means.
Some other thoughts on passing laws:
They should have some tracking in place, not just to find out who added what unknown text to a leglation, but also so they know they are all voting on the same version. Perhaps politician A read version 1.0 of the legislation, but some malicious scum snuck something into that and unbeknownst to him and others everyone is voting on version 1.1. When vote day comes up, they should know not only what legislation is up for vote, but exactly what revision is up for vote so each politician can make sure he's up to date with any changes from a few days before. And to make sure they have time to do that, everything should be locked down some reasonable time before voting for them to read and understand the version that will be up for vote.
And Politicians should be responsible enough to vote against a mostly good legislation that has a small but bad piece. Some try to sneak things into "must pass" legislation to get bad law made. There should be a law AGAINST the "must pass" concept in legislation. The idea of "fixing it later" is a terrible one, rarely happens, and even if it does happen bad things can legally be done before the fix is made. Anyone proposing to pass a bad law and fix it later should be fired immediately.
This particular text may fit the theme/topic of the legislation at hand, but we've heard about other small additions to legislation that are totally off-topic. off-topic things should not be allowed into a piece of legislation. Tracking should show who is responsible for such things, and these guys at least aren't trying to hide. We should never see politicians going on and on about no one knows who added or changed something. And anyone adding or changins something off-topic to he legialation should be fired immediately. If it's worthy, it can survive as it's own law. If it can't survive on its own, it shouldn't be, period.
Politicans don't work for the lobbyists or their campaign. Their loyalties should be to the people, and to no one else. And not to their continued employment either. If you want to keep your job, then you should not suck at it. And if someone better comes along, the people would be right to vote for them, even if you've done a pretty good job.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Apple's ads say you don't need a special mobile web page, cut-down site version, etc. that it just worked with the normal internet. Thus, why bother? OK, nothing is ever as perfect as advertized, but considering the ads I'd let Apple fix things that don't work. Really, how long will it take for iphone users to be knocking on my door in large enough numbers to be worth their own version of a web site?
What do the Canadian citizens demand?
Suppose you sent an extremely urgent e-mail to your doctor or your lawyer, who for the sake of argument you're not able to reach by phone.
Sorry, but I find this article hard to identify with. I don't know my doctor's email. I don't know if he has one. I don't know anyone that knows their doctor's email. If you have a medical emergency, you should be dialing 911 or heading to the hospital instead of waiting for the doctor to check his email. Maybe it's just how America works in putting you through computer menues and other people to set up appointments and other countries are different, but I'll need different examples before I can "feel" anything for this story.
Besides, how can my ISP move emails from my inbox to my junk folder or back again? They don't have access to my computer. If anything they might delete it from the server before I download it, but if they don't get to it before I do then they can't do a darn thing.
or build a Myth system that works for less than half the cost of an equivalent media center pc, without getting so locked into a single vendor for any service.
Having a cable card inside your system is nice, but is it really worth all that extra money? I don't think so.
I'm thinkin gof switching to FIOS TV/internet and ditching my cable co. But you can only get a few analog channels that way, anything else requires a cablecard or Verizon box. My Tivo would thus be pretty useless, as would my MythTV box.
Verizon didn't go for the deal Apple was looking for.z on-iphone_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-veri
I don't know if I'd want an iPhone. I went for the LG9800 aka "The V" phone from Verizon as it was supposed to be their high-end gadget. It's a freakin POS. Terrible camera, short battery life, can't use standard headphnes to listen to music, mediocre phone, can't bluetooth pix I've taken to other phones like my roommate's phone can, and it drops calls very frequently at home. Roommates claim their phones work fine at home. I dont' use it for an mp3 player as my iPod Nano is much better for that with much larger capacity, but the 9800 seemed acceptable the couple songs I tried out for kicks. But it leaves me uninterested in expensive combo phones that don't do anything particularly well. I'll wait for some user reviews before I try to care. My next phone will be bought based on signal reception and battery life. But as Verizon reps can't/won't talk to me about what phones have better antennas and signal pickup than other phones, I'm not sure how to make that decision, and I still have this POS that I've hated since I got it. I find the idea of bailing out on cell phones completely quite tempting because I never really use it anyway, and it's an expensive monthly payment for something that works so poorly.
Deregulation isn't always a bad thing
Is there an example of deregulation working out well for the consumer?
Last year the electric company in my state was deregulated. Electric rates were said to have gone up 72% because of that. My billing statement went from 4.9cents/KWh to 11.4cents/KWh. I don't know how that adds up to 72% increase, but that's what was in the news. A year later, we're told our bills will increase another 50%. Hurray for deregulation! It's great for consumers! Curious that the electric company was crying how badly it was suffering because of regulation, but the quarter before the deregulation took effect they had record profits. Wiggy...
All work -- emails, spreadsheets, and Google searches -- will be performed by mind control.
Let's just hope it stays a one-way connetion. I don't want someone hacking into my brain and making me do stuff...
Imagine if Ballmer could encourage the president to declare war on a country that doesn't do enough to fight software piracy. Or influence other policies such as sacntions, economic warfare, etc. Straighten up or Microsoft's airforce will bomb you...
I'm registered republican, and after seeing this I don't know if I have anyone I can vote for in the primaries. I don't suppose they'll give me a "none of the above" option?
I live in what has been at times a sketchy neighborhood, and I've talked to the police about putting up a private security camera. Cars have been vandalized, graffiti on sidewalks and buildings, but supposedly the drug house up the road is cleaned up. Not sure if it's state or county law, but I can't point a camera at someone else's private property. I can point it at my property, and I can point it at public property. I cannot record sound, only video.
Check the laws about this sort of thing where you live. If you find a picture going inside your home, you may be able to go after them.
What does this amnesty benefit to them? What happens if they fail to trash their expensive gadgets?
Why do they even have people working on Episode 3 when Episode 2 has been pushed back nearly a year already?
Perhaps they have some people whos contribution to Ep2 is already complete, and they can begin their equivalent contribution to Ep3. Maybe there's nothing left for these particular people with their particular skill set to work on in Ep2, and Valve doesn't want them sitting around twiddling their thumbs and toes until everyone else finishes their bits of Ep2.
I guess I'm not idealistic enough to avoid enjoying something fun just ebcause I don't like their protection mechanism.
I was able to play HL2 on my laptop once without logging in, that's been a couple years ago. I was out of town and didn't have a net connection but was bored and had the game installed. A few months later, and I probably had something update in the meantime, I was no longer able to play the same game on the same laptop without a net connection, so I was unhappy. But when I'm at home and have my net connection, I've never had a problem, it works fine, and I enjoy the game.
If I could, I'd cut the landline and save some bucks. but my cell phone works so poorly at home that I think that would be a bad idea. it drops calls, a lot. It sounds like people are gargling when when I do have a connection. And this is with the provider with the biggest network.
It's like Christianity fitting the definition of a cult, but nobody calls it that. It's "normal". Perhaps in some countries it's a minority thing to take note of, but in a lot of western cultures it's nothing to care about if a person is or not. MS has so many customers that it's gone way beyond a cult thing. Nothing to worry about it going away, having trouble finding compatible parts if things break, etc. It's everywhere. It's mainstream. Everybody uses it. You don't have a huge ignorant population not using it, so there's no need top obsessively evangelize it or whatever. There's no one to "save" from being an infidel because everyone already belongs. OK, a few people don't use Windows at all, but that's a very small minority in the grand scheme of things, small enough that the larger group can not worry about being overthrown or anything by some large rival group intent to convert everyone not them to their ways. They either use a MS based PC or they have to figure things out for themselves because no one else knows anythign else to help them, and they don't want to be bothered themselves. Take it to the computer store and have them deal with things.
:)
I think only minority groups and up with cult-like mentalities. I'm in the remaining tiny nanoscopic Amiga community. We're crazy, obsessive, evangelical, and all about "Amiga does X and you don't" stuff about features nobody else cares about. My parents and friends know I have an Amiga, but they don't know why or what it is. My family knows there's something called a Mac out there, but have never seen one or know what it is.
And my comment is redicuous. It's a rediculous question which I suppose only deserves rediculous answers. But coming from the Amiga realm, I'm quite accustomed to rediculous. Thanks for making me so comfortable here.
If the total lack of support for this DRM is enough to circumvent it and gain access to content protected in this format, then maybe it's really just not very good. So bad so that it's not appealing to content owners (RIAA/MPAA) to use, and thus not worth paying license fees by the OS/player guys since the poor quality will have it never actually used for anything.
Seriously, doesn't circumvention mean you actively do something to go around or break through a protection in order to reach the prize inside? How does doing nothing at all and remaining unable to see the prize inside equate to circumvention? Brain not understand... Maybe the lines of text above and below what I was focusing on confused me?
Great. Now someone will come up with a retrovirus or something that makes us all as dumb as Bush.
How can good technology make up for bad policies?
But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.
Ownership of something is easy to achieve. I'd be more impressed if you can get the guy to actually USE the thing. Surely he can afford to buy a Zune and give it to his uncle, who then owns it. That doesn't mean a darn thing if uncle puts it on a shelf somewhere and forgets about it.
What does that mean really? Protecting spectators and participants from what? Do I need to enter my social security number into a database in order to enter the stadium? What should I be afraid of which I need the Olympics people to protect me from? I don't get it. I imagine I'd be more afraid of terrorist bombers going after the Olympics than a computer virus. I can comprehend security in that context, but I have no clue what this is supposed to be for. No, I didn't RTFA to find out.
Such as Lenovo Any others?
I quit looking for a laptop for a while because I didn't want Vista. Then told me to look under the smal business laptops instead of home-use laptops. Small Business stuff is more likely to offer XP still than Home/consumer packages are.
Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.
If true, would that be criminal activity?
Doubtful. At least they're fessing up to it instead of trying to cover up who did it like we've seen happen elsewhere.
I think it's sad to see that we expect politicians voting on things have such a low likelyhood of reading those things, that it is used so often as a tactic to get "unpopular" things passed into law. Especially when those unpopular things are bad things, but I still see it as a problem method of doing things even if the intent is honorable and good for the people.
If these politicians are not expected to read anything, WTF are they doing between vote sessions they happen to attend? Why do we pay them for that?
Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.
If we're going to allow campaign contributions, is there a possible way to seperate the money from any sense of obligation to the donor? Some organization should be set up to collect campaign contributions and distribute them to the campaigners with the money having since been cleansed of any information as to who gave it or why. Donors would get a receipt that they gave money to a political campaign for tax return purposes, but should not have proof of which campaign so they couldn't take their receipt to the campaigner and ask for something in return.
Doing things in return for possible future contributions should be a red flag anyway. If you need all that money to win an election, and can't win without it, maybe you're just the wrong guy for the job, especially if you already have it. Anyone who voted against this text for the reason of future campaign contributions should be fired immediately.
OK, if no one outside this organization can know how much money goes where there's chance that people inside could divert things to the wrong campaigns and no one outside would know or have proof. But I would like to remove the idea of obligation in return for "contributions" in politics.
Maybe a system where each campaigner gets an equal amount of money from a generic contribution pool would be more fair. Maybe not. What about other ideas?
I've read the wikipedia article and such, but I still don't see how lobbying is any different than bribery and extortion.
Lobbying is a legalized form of bribery and extortion, with some sorts of constraints involved. I say we all get together to pool some noticable money for campaign contributions, and lobby for the de-legalization of lobbying politicians. It's a goofy way to say it, but I'd seriously like the goal to be achieved someday.
Rep. Homan and his son Doug tried to add their little open standards boost to SB 1974 as quietly as possible. They wanted the modified bill to at least get through its first committee approval before anyone spotted what they had done.
Any politician voting on ANYTHING they haven't read, is grossly irresponsible and should be fired immediately. If you haven't read that legislation, abstain.
While we may like what in particular these two guys were trying to do, we should not like the method they chose, as it's usually used for malicious means.
Some other thoughts on passing laws:
They should have some tracking in place, not just to find out who added what unknown text to a leglation, but also so they know they are all voting on the same version. Perhaps politician A read version 1.0 of the legislation, but some malicious scum snuck something into that and unbeknownst to him and others everyone is voting on version 1.1. When vote day comes up, they should know not only what legislation is up for vote, but exactly what revision is up for vote so each politician can make sure he's up to date with any changes from a few days before. And to make sure they have time to do that, everything should be locked down some reasonable time before voting for them to read and understand the version that will be up for vote.
And Politicians should be responsible enough to vote against a mostly good legislation that has a small but bad piece. Some try to sneak things into "must pass" legislation to get bad law made. There should be a law AGAINST the "must pass" concept in legislation. The idea of "fixing it later" is a terrible one, rarely happens, and even if it does happen bad things can legally be done before the fix is made. Anyone proposing to pass a bad law and fix it later should be fired immediately.
This particular text may fit the theme/topic of the legislation at hand, but we've heard about other small additions to legislation that are totally off-topic. off-topic things should not be allowed into a piece of legislation. Tracking should show who is responsible for such things, and these guys at least aren't trying to hide. We should never see politicians going on and on about no one knows who added or changed something. And anyone adding or changins something off-topic to he legialation should be fired immediately. If it's worthy, it can survive as it's own law. If it can't survive on its own, it shouldn't be, period.
Politicans don't work for the lobbyists or their campaign. Their loyalties should be to the people, and to no one else. And not to their continued employment either. If you want to keep your job, then you should not suck at it. And if someone better comes along, the people would be right to vote for them, even if you've done a pretty good job.