Does anyone really expect that copyrights are being honored when they sign up for a facebook account? I would bet most people who use facebook aren't even aware of most copyright issues with digital media. This will be a non-issue for most of the facebook using world.
Even before this, I automatically assumed that anything I posted on facebook could be used by anyone and/or appear elsewhere on the net. That's the risk you take when posting online. To ever have a reasonable expectation of complete privacy on facebook is very naive.
Also, why would you want to kill facebook? Its just a service, if you don't agree with it or want to use it don't type facebook.com in your web browser. Personally, for no out of pocket cost, I'm able to at least stay in touch with other people I haven't seen in years. Just because its "what all the kiddies are doing" doesn't make it a bad thing.
I don't understand why firefox just doesn't offer these features as optional "official" plug-ins. When firefox was first released, I figured that was the direction it was taking. You get a bare-bones vanilla browser, and you can bloat it with whatever plug ins you want to suit your tastes and needs. I'm not understanding why certain features such as these need to be part of the official application and not just an optional plug in.
I would much rather see the firefox team work on implementing a faster javascript engine (like chrome's), and plugging known security holes than add features such as these. I don't need pretty themes for my browser, I have compiz fusion/emerald for that.
I agree. Distance is definitely one issue that is more prevalent in the US than other countries. However, I don't believe that the "free market" should be the sole factor for determining price and service level. For example, cell carriers charge 10 cents per text message sent or received (on average). That means that every text sent is 20 cents in the pocket of the cell company. Since text messages use a trace amount of bandwidth (they piggyback onto voice calls), this is essentially pure profit. A telco company could try to take a certain amount of market share by giving away free text messaging, but its just too lucrative to give up. People enjoy using the texting service, and many people consider it an essential part of their cell phone usage. They're not just going to give it up so they can "vote with their dollars."
The same thing is happening with internet access. There is an oligarchy on broadband resources allowing companies to charge arbitrary amounts for their service. Also, since competition is limited, most carriers offer subpar service. You can either have comcasts crappy service, AT&T's crappy service, crappy satellite service, etc. No one who currently subscribes to broadband is going to end their service because they want to protest poor service and high costs - people need their internet.
Gov't could regulate price structure and minimum service level so that all broadband companies are playing on the same level, and people can get an expected level of service and cost. This is why gas and electric utilities are regulated. These companies have a natural monopoly on limited resources and need to be regulated to prevent gauging of customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Best line in Bender's Game: Is that a hobbit over there? No, that's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a hobbit.
Does anyone really expect that copyrights are being honored when they sign up for a facebook account? I would bet most people who use facebook aren't even aware of most copyright issues with digital media. This will be a non-issue for most of the facebook using world.
Even before this, I automatically assumed that anything I posted on facebook could be used by anyone and/or appear elsewhere on the net. That's the risk you take when posting online. To ever have a reasonable expectation of complete privacy on facebook is very naive.
Also, why would you want to kill facebook? Its just a service, if you don't agree with it or want to use it don't type facebook.com in your web browser. Personally, for no out of pocket cost, I'm able to at least stay in touch with other people I haven't seen in years. Just because its "what all the kiddies are doing" doesn't make it a bad thing.
I don't understand why firefox just doesn't offer these features as optional "official" plug-ins. When firefox was first released, I figured that was the direction it was taking. You get a bare-bones vanilla browser, and you can bloat it with whatever plug ins you want to suit your tastes and needs. I'm not understanding why certain features such as these need to be part of the official application and not just an optional plug in.
I would much rather see the firefox team work on implementing a faster javascript engine (like chrome's), and plugging known security holes than add features such as these. I don't need pretty themes for my browser, I have compiz fusion/emerald for that.
I agree. Distance is definitely one issue that is more prevalent in the US than other countries. However, I don't believe that the "free market" should be the sole factor for determining price and service level. For example, cell carriers charge 10 cents per text message sent or received (on average). That means that every text sent is 20 cents in the pocket of the cell company. Since text messages use a trace amount of bandwidth (they piggyback onto voice calls), this is essentially pure profit. A telco company could try to take a certain amount of market share by giving away free text messaging, but its just too lucrative to give up. People enjoy using the texting service, and many people consider it an essential part of their cell phone usage. They're not just going to give it up so they can "vote with their dollars."
The same thing is happening with internet access. There is an oligarchy on broadband resources allowing companies to charge arbitrary amounts for their service. Also, since competition is limited, most carriers offer subpar service. You can either have comcasts crappy service, AT&T's crappy service, crappy satellite service, etc. No one who currently subscribes to broadband is going to end their service because they want to protest poor service and high costs - people need their internet.
Gov't could regulate price structure and minimum service level so that all broadband companies are playing on the same level, and people can get an expected level of service and cost. This is why gas and electric utilities are regulated. These companies have a natural monopoly on limited resources and need to be regulated to prevent gauging of customers.