I was explaining this to my ten year old just the other day, that when I was his age our TV could receive seven channels: the three major networks, two PBS stations, and two independent stations.
Now is definitely better. And I can't wait to see what my (eventual) grandkids will take for granted.
-=Steve=-
You didn't have the vast ocean of www data to bide your time back then either. Kids these days have Youtube, Twitter, Facebook apps, Wikipedia, online video, and video games to keep them busy.
Broadcast and cable television could completely die off, and this generation would hardly feel a bump as they cruised past. The only ones who cling to it are the "when I was a kid..." crowd.
If someone decided that Mass Effect 2 was worth $30 to them, but the publisher of Mass Effect wouldn't sell it for less than $50, then the publisher will get $0 because the customer will wait for it to come up cheap & used, not buy it at all, or pirate it.
Publishers who suffer massively from piracy should re-think their product pricing. A customer will only pay what they want anyway.
I am weary of people saying "well, just don't do business with them and the problem will go away like magic". These companies form alliances with their fiercest competitors to make sure that people outside their career field have as little say in what they do as possible.
It won't work on ISPs--switching from Comcast to AT&T won't help much.
It won't work on film makers (I'll just refuse to watch Universal Pictures because they are part of the MPAA! I'll just watch Warner Brothers films instead instead! Oh wait...)
It won't work on governments and chemical companies (as you've pointed out).
It's all in the hands and heart of the user. When the user is a government who controls a botnet the likes of which any casual bot herder could only dream of, then yes, it can be a threat to human rights (and a lot of other things, too).
Actually, they already deny transactions that are illegal in countries of the card's origin (certain types offshore gambling is one example I've seen).
But this is screwed up in that it's not illegal to give money to, say, Bit Gamer or The Pirate Bay, but they're denying it anyway.
Also, defining the right not to pay for entertainment as a core "human right" just makes a mockery of the entire concept.
I'm not saying that downloading for free is a human right. I'm just saying that people shouldn't have their human rights deprived if they didn't obtain a proper license for a movie.
The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.
If hearing a song without the proper license to do so gives a corporation the right to take someone's liberty and pursuit of happiness, this is a crappy set of laws to live under.
MPAA was instrumental in 'guiding' ICE's rookie agent in going after these sites, as that appeared to be the only outside expertise relied on in determining if these sites should be seized
A private police force with public funding...quite a racket they've got going there.
This word has been thoroughly hijacked as euphemisms by the propaganda machine. "Communist sympathizers". "Al Qaeda sympathizers". "Terrorist sympathizers". It seems that anyone that doesn't pledge to fight whatever the government wags a finger at is a "sympathizer".
As soon as they provide me at least a 30 mbit connections with a maximum fee of $50 per month.
Companies seem to be able to do that just fine outside of the US and Australia.
Next time a company gets asked by the US (or any other government) to do something "evil", they will know it will not be free. Next time a company considers such a request, they will know what to expect. Will they be willing to put their money where their mouth is and foot the bill for Uncle Sam's arbitrary and warrantless requests?
This is so right on. The general public should have more sway than any government organization. The defenders of mastercard (and/or haters of wikileaks) keep saying "Mastercard is a private business and can do whatever they want".
Maybe the general public can help Mastercard figure out whose opinion counts the most.
This is just incredible. I didn't even know Visa and Mastercard had an agenda of any kind outside of making money, but they're making it clear that they do.
Racism is a-OK with the two major cards, but not Wikileaks.
They've got good coverage in my area and the plan I use is comparable to Verizon's in price and availability. Other customers haven't been so lucky, I suppose, but I haven't had any problems with them.
I did, however, have a horrible time with Sprint in this area.
Haven't had Verizon yet, but AT&T just hasn't given me a reason to leave yet.
The case they brought was merely to scare modders into thinking they were doing something hyper-illegal.
Since they had no problem charging him with a crime that held a maximum of five years in prison, their penalty should be that the Xbox arm of Microsoft will not be allowed to conduct business operations for five years.
Corporations want the same rights as a human? Give them the same responsibility.
Spending on anti-terrorism morbidly outstrips spending on terrorism. They fly a couple of planes into a buildings and the third largest country in the world spend over a trillion dollars on war and counter terrorism. As an added bonus, they get to laugh at our ridiculous countermeasures like fondling (or viewing nude) every man, woman, and child who commits suspicious activities like "boarding a plane".
People hired him to do a job that they didn't know how to do himself. If anyone is committing a criminal act, it's the companies who make jailbreaking necessary and are infringing on our fair use rights.
Jailbreaking is perfectly legal, but if you pay someone to do it for you, it makes them a felon? Something doesn't seem right here.
Slashdot Mirror
I was explaining this to my ten year old just the other day, that when I was his age our TV could receive seven channels: the three major networks, two PBS stations, and two independent stations.
Now is definitely better. And I can't wait to see what my (eventual) grandkids will take for granted.
-=Steve=-
You didn't have the vast ocean of www data to bide your time back then either. Kids these days have Youtube, Twitter, Facebook apps, Wikipedia, online video, and video games to keep them busy.
Broadcast and cable television could completely die off, and this generation would hardly feel a bump as they cruised past. The only ones who cling to it are the "when I was a kid..." crowd.
If someone decided that Mass Effect 2 was worth $30 to them, but the publisher of Mass Effect wouldn't sell it for less than $50, then the publisher will get $0 because the customer will wait for it to come up cheap & used, not buy it at all, or pirate it.
Publishers who suffer massively from piracy should re-think their product pricing. A customer will only pay what they want anyway.
I am weary of people saying "well, just don't do business with them and the problem will go away like magic". These companies form alliances with their fiercest competitors to make sure that people outside their career field have as little say in what they do as possible.
It won't work on ISPs--switching from Comcast to AT&T won't help much.
It won't work on film makers (I'll just refuse to watch Universal Pictures because they are part of the MPAA! I'll just watch Warner Brothers films instead instead! Oh wait...) It won't work on governments and chemical companies (as you've pointed out).
It's all in the hands and heart of the user. When the user is a government who controls a botnet the likes of which any casual bot herder could only dream of, then yes, it can be a threat to human rights (and a lot of other things, too).
Actually, they already deny transactions that are illegal in countries of the card's origin (certain types offshore gambling is one example I've seen).
But this is screwed up in that it's not illegal to give money to, say, Bit Gamer or The Pirate Bay, but they're denying it anyway.
Also, defining the right not to pay for entertainment as a core "human right" just makes a mockery of the entire concept.
I'm not saying that downloading for free is a human right. I'm just saying that people shouldn't have their human rights deprived if they didn't obtain a proper license for a movie.
The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.
If hearing a song without the proper license to do so gives a corporation the right to take someone's liberty and pursuit of happiness, this is a crappy set of laws to live under.
MPAA was instrumental in 'guiding' ICE's rookie agent in going after these sites, as that appeared to be the only outside expertise relied on in determining if these sites should be seized
A private police force with public funding...quite a racket they've got going there.
This word has been thoroughly hijacked as euphemisms by the propaganda machine. "Communist sympathizers". "Al Qaeda sympathizers". "Terrorist sympathizers". It seems that anyone that doesn't pledge to fight whatever the government wags a finger at is a "sympathizer".
You make me sad, sir, because you are correct.
As soon as they provide me at least a 30 mbit connections with a maximum fee of $50 per month. Companies seem to be able to do that just fine outside of the US and Australia.
Next time a company gets asked by the US (or any other government) to do something "evil", they will know it will not be free. Next time a company considers such a request, they will know what to expect. Will they be willing to put their money where their mouth is and foot the bill for Uncle Sam's arbitrary and warrantless requests?
This is so right on. The general public should have more sway than any government organization. The defenders of mastercard (and/or haters of wikileaks) keep saying "Mastercard is a private business and can do whatever they want".
Maybe the general public can help Mastercard figure out whose opinion counts the most.
This is just incredible. I didn't even know Visa and Mastercard had an agenda of any kind outside of making money, but they're making it clear that they do.
Racism is a-OK with the two major cards, but not Wikileaks.
It's a race to the bottom between democrats and republicans. Who can strip rights faster?
According to this Chinese article he's a big jerk who loves foreign money and attention and hates China. He is greedy and only risks his life and spends time in jail because he is an arrogant rockstar-type.
Looks like the U.S. is taking a page out of this playbook for assange.
These passengers beat the crap out of the potential bomber.
They've got good coverage in my area and the plan I use is comparable to Verizon's in price and availability. Other customers haven't been so lucky, I suppose, but I haven't had any problems with them.
I did, however, have a horrible time with Sprint in this area.
Haven't had Verizon yet, but AT&T just hasn't given me a reason to leave yet.
Nice try, United States Government.
Obi-Wan's last words apply here.
This seems more like they're boarding ships than infringing on copyright.
Well, I might already be that, but someday this could make my transformation complete.
I'm going to be the laziest bastard alive
The case they brought was merely to scare modders into thinking they were doing something hyper-illegal.
Since they had no problem charging him with a crime that held a maximum of five years in prison, their penalty should be that the Xbox arm of Microsoft will not be allowed to conduct business operations for five years.
Corporations want the same rights as a human? Give them the same responsibility.
It's amazing how many double standards money can buy.
Spending on anti-terrorism morbidly outstrips spending on terrorism. They fly a couple of planes into a buildings and the third largest country in the world spend over a trillion dollars on war and counter terrorism. As an added bonus, they get to laugh at our ridiculous countermeasures like fondling (or viewing nude) every man, woman, and child who commits suspicious activities like "boarding a plane".
People hired him to do a job that they didn't know how to do himself. If anyone is committing a criminal act, it's the companies who make jailbreaking necessary and are infringing on our fair use rights.
Jailbreaking is perfectly legal, but if you pay someone to do it for you, it makes them a felon? Something doesn't seem right here.