If the original author is still around, they can hash it out on the discussion page. Maybe one side or the other will provide some evidence to support the accusation or the defense. That's all there's to it. But, as he told us, he isn't interested in correcting the information, he is interested in dragging the original author in front of a court, and I'm sorry, that kind of powerplay just doesn't work anymore in the 21st century.
No, if the original author was truly being libelous, then they should get sued.
Mr. Seigenthaler just seems to be bitching about how hard it is to sue someone, especially an anonymous source, for libel. He was rightly advised that: "My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer."
So what is his problem? He files suit, gets the name of the person who's account was used to post the libelous claim, questions the person and then a judge or jury decides if there was a libel. It is not meant to be easy to sue someone for libel, but it is not impossible.
He is just mad because someone insulted him, he is probably right to be mad, buyt he just wants someone to blame. And because he is influential enough he got to bitch about it through USA today. Through that fact alone it should be clear what kind of world Mr. Seigenthaler wants to live in.
The fact that WikiPedia can be used in such a manner, terribly diminishes the worth of WikiPedia's articles.
Ah yes, apply your priceless logic to any system of communication and you will find that the more valuable they are, the more ways they can be abused. Email has spam, phones have obscene calls from the pay phone on the corner, the message board at the corner store can be so disorganized that you'll never see that lost cat notice and be a hero for a day.
These forms of communication are so popular because of their value which far exceeds their inadequacies. You can tinker around the edges, but to put forward greater restrictions on their use and to try to impose too many controls would be to destroy their value not improve it.
How do you know an article that is based on fact vs. an article that is based on vindictiveness?
The same way you do in any other context, cross referencing the stated facts. The same way you know when the New York Time says that US Warplanes bombed a wedding party shooting into the sky in celebration, and the US Department of Defense Spokesman says that US warplanes attacked a terrorist camp in Western Iraq. Or when the Iran government says that it is developing Peaceful nuclear technology and the US government says that Iran is going to build bombs. Or when one guy says that Global Warming is manmade and another says it is not. Referencing one source of information for all your facts may have been okay in 3rd grade, but it doesn't fly in real life.
Wikipedia is great simply because it puts those discrepancies in your face and allows anyone to weigh in. And by keeping a full history of revisions that can be viewed, reverted to or merged, we can dig a little deeper right there on the article to see how it got put together. Wikipedia has bones.
WikiPedia is a great concept, but it needs to grow up before it can earn the place in society that so many ascribe to it now. Part of that growing up process will be accountability of its authors and responsibility to its readers.
No, you need to grow up. Seriously. What exactly constitutes accountability to you? You want to make sure that all the writers are in the Guild? Want everyone who has something to say to buy writers insurance, and relax libel laws so that we can't write anything bad about anyone without getting sued?
You can't say it is a great idea and then attack its premise. If you don't like wikipedia's lack of a meaningful hierarchy of privilege to edit content, then go out and make your own with your own system of trust. You can even take their content to start and let the market decide which content becomes more valuable to them over time.
Despite what you say, Wikipedia has earned a certain level of respect in society in a remarkably short amount of time and you would be hard pressed to make any truly constructive suggestions which would substantially change the model of openness that they follow.
for $90 you can buy a PCI HD tuner card, ATI Technologies 100-714127 HD-TV All-in-Wonder, through Amazon which comes with software for recording and live tv pausing. They even throw in an antenna and remote control with USB IR dongle.
It runs on Windows only, but there is another company that is providing a linux only card.
Let's be clear. Without a government-issued ID there is no actual prohibition on TRAVEL. There is, however, the ability for COMMERCIAL, PRIVATE transport companies (be they bus, train, plane, ferry, whatever) to REFUSE SERVICE to people failing to present such an ID.
Did you just miss the last decade?
The reality you describe was the way it was before Homeland Security took over and before the TSA took over arline security. Now we have government agents manning security checkpoints requiring government issued ID in order to travel on airplanes within the borders of the United States. I had no problem with private companies or individuals making arbitrary requirements to use their services or be on their property, such as requirements to provide them with photo ID. If you want to ride in my car I should be able to ask for any ID I want and make you wear a yellow banana suit for all the government should care. What is new, is that the government is now setting the requirements for ID in order to travel. As if I was forced to ask for ID in order to give someone a ride in my car.
I hate sloppy language, especially when it's used by chicken-littles to suggest we're moving toward a police state...like the hypocrites at Cryptome. They're utter libertarians for THEMSELVES, but they apparently find it reprehensible that private businesses also may make choices.
Providing ID at the checkin counter is the commercial company making a choice, unless it is being compelled by government order. But TSA agents at airport checkpoints are not working for the airlines.
FWIW I'd personally like to see the marketplace decide. All the tinfoil-hatters need to band together, invest, and start a budget airline where there is NO I.D. required, no searches, no security. See how many people fly such an airline. I think airline security is mostly a joke, and more an exercise in mass psychology than actual safety, but I'm happy to go through even a pastiche of a security check that will weed out the stupidest criminals.
And that would be illegal! You say let the market decide and I agree, but that is not the reality of the laws that have been imposed. Our Civil Rights HAVE ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED, this is not chicken little saying the sky is falling, the sky has already fallen and some people were just too dumb to notice. Now we have to pick up the pieces.
Not to mix metaphors, but despite what you might have been told, you have no clothes.
When the article quotes the filing as saying: "thereby precludes competitors from ever entering the.com and.net domain name registration market" That seems a bit misleading, since the icann/verisign agreement is about maintaining the central "whois" database not excluding others from offering registration services.
You will still be able to register domain names through GoDaddy, Dotster or someone else.
The biggest concern here for the rest of us, who want to keep it inexpensive to register domain names, is what will be the cost that is passed along to people and companies registering domain names if the cost of versign's database management service will be rising at a rate "greater than inflation"
Was this contract put out to bid? It seems that just managing a database, running backups and maintaining the software that allows registrars to remotely access it and register new domain names shouldn't be an expense that rises much beyond the rate of inflation.
Theoretically, though, verisign could undercut the registrar competition with a deal like this. Though given its history of milking its customer base for all its worth with fees that are more than double the competition, that seems unlikely.
You hook up a couple USB or bluetooth game controllers and you have yourself the best looking game console around. Maybe not as its main feature, but there are plenty of games out for OSX to make a Mac Mini a versatile PVR, game console, DVD player/recorder and living room PC.
The key would be not to limit functionality to make it feel too much like a special purpose device, but to have a simple button to switch the software from one mode to the other. Maybe just have a remote like a multipurpose remote, with buttons on the top for switching between different modes, and a cool ipod like menu wheel. That would be pretty slick.
No. Snork (et al) is hoping for a Mac DVR in a stereo component form factor
Go ahead and put it in a large ugly stereo component shell then, it is small enough. Isn't the real problem that all the other stereo components are big and ugly?
But imagine, if you will, a civilization that is only 2000+ years more advanced that us.
Using years as a measure of technological advancement is a silly habit of the 20th century. Advanced should only be measured by gauging the technological abilities of a civilization's inhabitants; how many ways can they generate power, how fast can they travel, how much information can be transmitted in a communication and how quickly, how much food can they grow/generate given a certain area/volume, material resources and energy source, how much can they control their own bodies to stave of disease, fix injuries and otherwise improve their physical well being, and by what system do they maintain this knowledge.
But to use time elapsed as a gauge of progress ignores those long periods in human history which have seen great losses of technology. The dark ages saw such a loss where for a thousand years in European civilization there was a loss of Roman technology, much of which was reinvented during or after the renaissance. No one would suggest that the civilization of 1250 was a thousand years more advanced technologically than the Europe of 250. Really it was perhaps only the last 200 years which sees Western civlization surpassing the technological abilities of the Roman Empire.
When they say DO NO EVIL it may mean do legal things. They have never said we follow some ethics as dicatated by some religion or some community. As long as they do legal things there is no need for them to be afraid of anything.
You bring up a good point, that they never stated exactly what they view as "evil", but I very much doubt they meant they would merely follow the law. Unless you have the moral fiber of a jellyfish, then you should realize that civil laws are never a good substitute for a more complete system of ethics.
The newest HDTV sets have DVI or HDMI connectors but even then its not always easy to play your content and have it look good.
That is a problem for over the air broadcasts as well. With the mix of formats and broadcasters only airing HD content at certain times and the commercials largely being SD, you are presented with an overall impression of HD as a very mixed bag. Even the difference between 720p and 1080 is very noticable on a 50" plasma.
Life-extension advocates, of course, point out that real breakthroughs will extend healthy, vigorous life rather than simply stretching senility - and might eventually eliminate the latter entirely. Thus an effective attack on aging would reduce, rather than increase, the load on the systems (once they were adjusted for the increased lifespan).
Yes, but the politicians worry that they can only use the same old tricks on people for so long before they wise up, so they don't want people living too much longer. And the elderly vote in some of the highest numbers... of course maybe if they were healthy and fit they could be distracted more easily.
Why would I want to download a movie (which would undoubtedly be lower quality than a DVD) for more than $1 (which is what I assume they'd charge) ? I mean, what is the advantage here?
Well, they could actually release movies in HD format which would be twice the resolution as DVD, which is 480p. It would be several years before most people have the equipment to play HD content, even if we can decide on Bluray versus HD-DVD. My guess is that neither format will be anything like as successful as DVD and that we will see downloads be the way people get HD content.
Downloads provide a faster route to High Def content, than waiting for equipment manufacturers to all agree on next generation technology. The fight will now be on whether we can view most content non DRM'd or not.
Because we need to convince all the people that should know better, that we really should be asking our providers and all the major ISPs and carriers when they are going to be switching to an IPv6 infrastructure. And telling them that we are ready to press the right buttons on our end to make it happend.
Sure it will be expensive for some companies to switch to all IPv6 equipment, but in that case NATs really could be part of the solution as they could translate between IPv6 and IPv4 of the local network until local networks are ready to upgrade. And even then large companies could upgrade from the edge inward as budgets and time permit.
This has to start at the core (I thought there had been a lot of conversion already) and move outwards. It doesn't have to happen in a day. It can be phased, so that at some point a few years down the road the only people running IPv4 are small networks on the edge, and they can still route to the rest of the internet with just a layer of IPv4 to IPv6 NAT.
Online gaming would never work without a central system like xbox live. I mean, look at the PC. Nobody ever plays PC games online. Why? Because PCs don't have xbox live. They just let each game do their online thing however they want. Obviously nobody wants that, but sony is doing it just like the PC anyways.
Yes, obviously nobody would ever play a PC game online.
In this case the aggregate count is the key. 24,900 engineers can design and manufacture more cool crap than 4,400 engineers can.
I'd put the emphasis on the "crap" part. Most of what is out there are just variations on the real inventions of the past. Hardly surprising that most engineers and scientists pursue well trodden and well understood disciplines, but what we need is more trailblazers.
Right, since a $50 math text book is much better than a $100 device that gives you access to most of humanity's combined knowledge at no additional cost besides the Internet connections.
Like the first time people saw a book, saying that it would be much more economical for kids to learn the old fashioned way by memorizing everything read from a scroll. Or that scrolls are a waste of money, much better to have kids trudge down to the temple and read the word chiseled in stone on the temple wall.
If the DRM makes the product a pain in the ass to use, I won't buy it.
There is no "if", DRM means less choice, less functionality, less value. Every copy prevention technology restricts fair use. DRM means that the technology isn't ours it is theirs, so that the technology is only worth as much as the existing content.
Computers and the Internet have meant that for the first time in many years many more individuals can have a parity with big institutions in our ability to create and distribute ideas and expression, DRM seeks to take that away.
I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!
Ah but the World has turned Big Brother, what you may fail to realize is that it is not a bad thing for those in the know. And knowledge is a powerful tool for punishing bad behavior.
As long as your moral values never percievably transgress those mandated by the Community, then you have no worries.
Have fun with a "package management system" and a fragmented filesystem hierarchy that dumps files all over the place instead of in well-designed bundles!
Yeah, most of us have stopped doing that when we configure machines manually. But it was/is done to take advantage of partitioning.
So in fact you're saying taxes on fuel should be raised to levels common in Europe, so car efficieny will rise to efficiency levels commonly found in European cars?
Taxes on fuel are high in Europe because governments need the money to pay for all their spending, not because of environmental sensitivity.
So the insurance company wouldn't reimburse me, I spent $800 repairing a laptop that was not really worth that much (guess the insurance company should have totaled it), and it's all Dell's fault. They honestly didn't care.
Well, if you had used a credit card, then you should have stopped payment for the services.
Slashdot Mirror
If the original author is still around, they can hash it out on the discussion page. Maybe one side or the other will provide some evidence to support the accusation or the defense. That's all there's to it. But, as he told us, he isn't interested in correcting the information, he is interested in dragging the original author in front of a court, and I'm sorry, that kind of powerplay just doesn't work anymore in the 21st century.
No, if the original author was truly being libelous, then they should get sued.
Mr. Seigenthaler just seems to be bitching about how hard it is to sue someone, especially an anonymous source, for libel. He was rightly advised that: "My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer."
So what is his problem? He files suit, gets the name of the person who's account was used to post the libelous claim, questions the person and then a judge or jury decides if there was a libel. It is not meant to be easy to sue someone for libel, but it is not impossible.
He is just mad because someone insulted him, he is probably right to be mad, buyt he just wants someone to blame. And because he is influential enough he got to bitch about it through USA today. Through that fact alone it should be clear what kind of world Mr. Seigenthaler wants to live in.
The fact that WikiPedia can be used in such a manner, terribly diminishes the worth of WikiPedia's articles.
Ah yes, apply your priceless logic to any system of communication and you will find that the more valuable they are, the more ways they can be abused. Email has spam, phones have obscene calls from the pay phone on the corner, the message board at the corner store can be so disorganized that you'll never see that lost cat notice and be a hero for a day.
These forms of communication are so popular because of their value which far exceeds their inadequacies. You can tinker around the edges, but to put forward greater restrictions on their use and to try to impose too many controls would be to destroy their value not improve it.
How do you know an article that is based on fact vs. an article that is based on vindictiveness?
The same way you do in any other context, cross referencing the stated facts. The same way you know when the New York Time says that US Warplanes bombed a wedding party shooting into the sky in celebration, and the US Department of Defense Spokesman says that US warplanes attacked a terrorist camp in Western Iraq. Or when the Iran government says that it is developing Peaceful nuclear technology and the US government says that Iran is going to build bombs. Or when one guy says that Global Warming is manmade and another says it is not. Referencing one source of information for all your facts may have been okay in 3rd grade, but it doesn't fly in real life.
Wikipedia is great simply because it puts those discrepancies in your face and allows anyone to weigh in. And by keeping a full history of revisions that can be viewed, reverted to or merged, we can dig a little deeper right there on the article to see how it got put together. Wikipedia has bones.
WikiPedia is a great concept, but it needs to grow up before it can earn the place in society that so many ascribe to it now. Part of that growing up process will be accountability of its authors and responsibility to its readers.
No, you need to grow up. Seriously. What exactly constitutes accountability to you? You want to make sure that all the writers are in the Guild? Want everyone who has something to say to buy writers insurance, and relax libel laws so that we can't write anything bad about anyone without getting sued?
You can't say it is a great idea and then attack its premise.
If you don't like wikipedia's lack of a meaningful hierarchy of privilege to edit content, then go out and make your own with your own system of trust. You can even take their content to start and let the market decide which content becomes more valuable to them over time.
Despite what you say, Wikipedia has earned a certain level of respect in society in a remarkably short amount of time and you would be hard pressed to make any truly constructive suggestions which would substantially change the model of openness that they follow.
for $90 you can buy a PCI HD tuner card, ATI Technologies 100-714127 HD-TV All-in-Wonder, through Amazon which comes with software for recording and live tv pausing. They even throw in an antenna and remote control with USB IR dongle.
It runs on Windows only, but there is another company that is providing a linux only card.
Let's be clear. Without a government-issued ID there is no actual prohibition on TRAVEL. There is, however, the ability for COMMERCIAL, PRIVATE transport companies (be they bus, train, plane, ferry, whatever) to REFUSE SERVICE to people failing to present such an ID.
Did you just miss the last decade?
The reality you describe was the way it was before Homeland Security took over and before the TSA took over arline security. Now we have government agents manning security checkpoints requiring government issued ID in order to travel on airplanes within the borders of the United States. I had no problem with private companies or individuals making arbitrary requirements to use their services or be on their property, such as requirements to provide them with photo ID. If you want to ride in my car I should be able to ask for any ID I want and make you wear a yellow banana suit for all the government should care. What is new, is that the government is now setting the requirements for ID in order to travel. As if I was forced to ask for ID in order to give someone a ride in my car.
I hate sloppy language, especially when it's used by chicken-littles to suggest we're moving toward a police state...like the hypocrites at Cryptome. They're utter libertarians for THEMSELVES, but they apparently find it reprehensible that private businesses also may make choices.
Providing ID at the checkin counter is the commercial company making a choice, unless it is being compelled by government order. But TSA agents at airport checkpoints are not working for the airlines.
FWIW I'd personally like to see the marketplace decide. All the tinfoil-hatters need to band together, invest, and start a budget airline where there is NO I.D. required, no searches, no security. See how many people fly such an airline. I think airline security is mostly a joke, and more an exercise in mass psychology than actual safety, but I'm happy to go through even a pastiche of a security check that will weed out the stupidest criminals.
And that would be illegal! You say let the market decide and I agree, but that is not the reality of the laws that have been imposed. Our Civil Rights HAVE ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED, this is not chicken little saying the sky is falling, the sky has already fallen and some people were just too dumb to notice. Now we have to pick up the pieces.
Not to mix metaphors, but despite what you might have been told, you have no clothes.
When the article quotes the filing as saying: "thereby precludes competitors from ever entering the .com and .net domain name registration market" That seems a bit misleading, since the icann/verisign agreement is about maintaining the central "whois" database not excluding others from offering registration services.
You will still be able to register domain names through GoDaddy, Dotster or someone else.
The biggest concern here for the rest of us, who want to keep it inexpensive to register domain names, is what will be the cost that is passed along to people and companies registering domain names if the cost of versign's database management service will be rising at a rate "greater than inflation"
Was this contract put out to bid? It seems that just managing a database, running backups and maintaining the software that allows registrars to remotely access it and register new domain names shouldn't be an expense that rises much beyond the rate of inflation.
Theoretically, though, verisign could undercut the registrar competition with a deal like this. Though given its history of milking its customer base for all its worth with fees that are more than double the competition, that seems unlikely.
You hook up a couple USB or bluetooth game controllers and you have yourself the best looking game console around. Maybe not as its main feature, but there are plenty of games out for OSX to make a Mac Mini a versatile PVR, game console, DVD player/recorder and living room PC.
The key would be not to limit functionality to make it feel too much like a special purpose device, but to have a simple button to switch the software from one mode to the other. Maybe just have a remote like a multipurpose remote, with buttons on the top for switching between different modes, and a cool ipod like menu wheel. That would be pretty slick.
No. Snork (et al) is hoping for a Mac DVR in a stereo component form factor
Go ahead and put it in a large ugly stereo component shell then, it is small enough. Isn't the real problem that all the other stereo components are big and ugly?
But imagine, if you will, a civilization that is only 2000+ years more advanced that us.
Using years as a measure of technological advancement is a silly habit of the 20th century. Advanced should only be measured by gauging the technological abilities of a civilization's inhabitants; how many ways can they generate power, how fast can they travel, how much information can be transmitted in a communication and how quickly, how much food can they grow/generate given a certain area/volume, material resources and energy source, how much can they control their own bodies to stave of disease, fix injuries and otherwise improve their physical well being, and by what system do they maintain this knowledge.
But to use time elapsed as a gauge of progress ignores those long periods in human history which have seen great losses of technology. The dark ages saw such a loss where for a thousand years in European civilization there was a loss of Roman technology, much of which was reinvented during or after the renaissance. No one would suggest that the civilization of 1250 was a thousand years more advanced technologically than the Europe of 250. Really it was perhaps only the last 200 years which sees Western civlization surpassing the technological abilities of the Roman Empire.
When they say DO NO EVIL it may mean do legal things. They have never said we follow some ethics as dicatated by some religion or some community. As long as they do legal things there is no need for them to be afraid of anything.
You bring up a good point, that they never stated exactly what they view as "evil", but I very much doubt they meant they would merely follow the law. Unless you have the moral fiber of a jellyfish, then you should realize that civil laws are never a good substitute for a more complete system of ethics.
The newest HDTV sets have DVI or HDMI connectors but even then its not always easy to play your content and have it look good.
That is a problem for over the air broadcasts as well. With the mix of formats and broadcasters only airing HD content at certain times and the commercials largely being SD, you are presented with an overall impression of HD as a very mixed bag. Even the difference between 720p and 1080 is very noticable on a 50" plasma.
Life-extension advocates, of course, point out that real breakthroughs will extend healthy, vigorous life rather than simply stretching senility - and might eventually eliminate the latter entirely. Thus an effective attack on aging would reduce, rather than increase, the load on the systems (once they were adjusted for the increased lifespan).
Yes, but the politicians worry that they can only use the same old tricks on people for so long before they wise up, so they don't want people living too much longer. And the elderly vote in some of the highest numbers... of course maybe if they were healthy and fit they could be distracted more easily.
Why would I want to download a movie (which would undoubtedly be lower quality than a DVD) for more than $1 (which is what I assume they'd charge) ? I mean, what is the advantage here?
Well, they could actually release movies in HD format which would be twice the resolution as DVD, which is 480p. It would be several years before most people have the equipment to play HD content, even if we can decide on Bluray versus HD-DVD. My guess is that neither format will be anything like as successful as DVD and that we will see downloads be the way people get HD content.
Downloads provide a faster route to High Def content, than waiting for equipment manufacturers to all agree on next generation technology. The fight will now be on whether we can view most content non DRM'd or not.
"Congress shall make no law" means "Congress shall make no law" -- and that includes campaign finance reform laws.
Agreed.
Why is this issue being rehashed?
Because we need to convince all the people that should know better, that we really should be asking our providers and all the major ISPs and carriers when they are going to be switching to an IPv6 infrastructure. And telling them that we are ready to press the right buttons on our end to make it happend.
Sure it will be expensive for some companies to switch to all IPv6 equipment, but in that case NATs really could be part of the solution as they could translate between IPv6 and IPv4 of the local network until local networks are ready to upgrade. And even then large companies could upgrade from the edge inward as budgets and time permit.
This has to start at the core (I thought there had been a lot of conversion already) and move outwards. It doesn't have to happen in a day. It can be phased, so that at some point a few years down the road the only people running IPv4 are small networks on the edge, and they can still route to the rest of the internet with just a layer of IPv4 to IPv6 NAT.
Online gaming would never work without a central system like xbox live. I mean, look at the PC. Nobody ever plays PC games online. Why? Because PCs don't have xbox live. They just let each game do their online thing however they want. Obviously nobody wants that, but sony is doing it just like the PC anyways.
Yes, obviously nobody would ever play a PC game online.
In this case the aggregate count is the key. 24,900 engineers can design and manufacture more cool crap than 4,400 engineers can.
I'd put the emphasis on the "crap" part. Most of what is out there are just variations on the real inventions of the past. Hardly surprising that most engineers and scientists pursue well trodden and well understood disciplines, but what we need is more trailblazers.
Lets start with books
Right, since a $50 math text book is much better than a $100 device that gives you access to most of humanity's combined knowledge at no additional cost besides the Internet connections.
Like the first time people saw a book, saying that it would be much more economical for kids to learn the old fashioned way by memorizing everything read from a scroll. Or that scrolls are a waste of money, much better to have kids trudge down to the temple and read the word chiseled in stone on the temple wall.
If the DRM makes the product a pain in the ass to use, I won't buy it.
There is no "if", DRM means less choice, less functionality, less value. Every copy prevention technology restricts fair use. DRM means that the technology isn't ours it is theirs, so that the technology is only worth as much as the existing content.
Computers and the Internet have meant that for the first time in many years many more individuals can have a parity with big institutions in our ability to create and distribute ideas and expression, DRM seeks to take that away.
I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!
Ah but the World has turned Big Brother, what you may fail to realize is that it is not a bad thing for those in the know. And knowledge is a powerful tool for punishing bad behavior.
As long as your moral values never percievably transgress those mandated by the Community, then you have no worries.
We finally have a decent stereoscopic 3d Head mounted display under a thousand dollars and nobody takes note?
The emagin z800 is 20 years of geek dreams finally made a reality and not even a nod from Popular Science?
Have fun with a "package management system" and a fragmented filesystem hierarchy that dumps files all over the place instead of in well-designed bundles!
Yeah, most of us have stopped doing that when we configure machines manually. But it was/is done to take advantage of partitioning.
So in fact you're saying taxes on fuel should be raised to levels common in Europe, so car efficieny will rise to efficiency levels commonly found in European cars?
Taxes on fuel are high in Europe because governments need the money to pay for all their spending, not because of environmental sensitivity.
That boils down the Music industry's position pretty well. They don't want you to "steal" the music after you buy it.
The market will tell us.
Are we really running out of IPv4 numbers?
The market: Yes we are.
Is there a killer app for IPv6?
The market: Yup, got a few right here ready to go but they require end to end addressibility. You'll see.
Can we ram IPv6 down everyone's throat?
The market: You mean like we "rammed" IPv4 down everyone's throat? Remember I am both buyer and seller, provider and provided. I am the market.
So the insurance company wouldn't reimburse me, I spent $800 repairing a laptop that was not really worth that much (guess the insurance company should have totaled it), and it's all Dell's fault. They honestly didn't care.
Well, if you had used a credit card, then you should have stopped payment for the services.