If you're innocent, pay the thousands in court costs and missing time off, and fight it in court. Otherwise just pay the money and nobody is going to get hurt.
Me crossing the street and putting an X on a box is much easier than me spending a few weeks without internet, or with an inferior service in order to 'vote with my wallet'.
Voting is meant to be easy - it requires very little effort. It doesn't require you to drive a few extra miles not to support the large supermarket.
And governments should in theory be listening to their population. I realise that representational democracy is an absolute failure, but its the best we have.
Yeah, and that's why after removing wikileaks - amazon, visa and mastercard have now collapsed and have fallen into debt. Who are we kidding?
Voting with your wallet doesn't work unless you can get a LARGE mass of people to do so. And if we're talking about ISPs here, including some which are parts of even larger corporations...
You think that you're goign to get an entire neighbourhood to turn off Provider X and stay without internet and whatever because of this net neutrality thing? People don't care. They don't care about other video sides except X are being slowed down. In fact, it'll probably direct the market instead.
Corporations are well structured and controlled masses of power. The people are uncontrolled and have no direction. There's no chance.
Wikileaks is a famous website. It has received much media coverage.
If it was a smaller website - or a new idea which a company sees as a threat - then they can remove it without anyone knowing anything about it.
They just picked a large target this time. When Amazon decides it doesn't like other sites selling books, and tugs a few strings to get them removed, nobody will blink an eyelid. (Not saying that amazon is going to do that - just saying that if it does happen, there is nothing illegal at all).
I apologise for not explaining "Vital" services well.
What I meant is that if a company wants to put its presence on the internet, it requires many services which are vital to it to remain effective. Such as the Host, DNS provider, 'donation services provider' et cetera. All of which have the ability to destroy the website.
I didn't mean that services are vital in real life and only are on the internet. - That said, the direction is turning to the internet becoming vital. In the EU is being considered a basic human right.
I'm not saying what Amazon did was illegal. I'm saying that someone has the ability to pull the plug out already. So saying "lets stay out and leave the internet free for everyone" is ineffective and counter-intuitive.
If we don't want governments messing in our internet because they can:
Did Amazon give Wikileaks a trial before it pulled the plug? What about the DNS provider? What about Paypal, Visa and Mastercard?
Someone is always going to grab power. It doesn't have to be the government. It could be a large company. Right now its been done with a 'grey area' site. What if the major credit-card companies decide that they don't want to support a particular website? That'll kill it.
Someone is always going to have power. There is no anarchy on the internet, lots of companies give VITAL services.
People don't seem to understand but there's no such thing as freedom. Anarchy is unsustainable.
This is for all cases, if there is nobody who controls (or has the right to) an object, then someone WILL control it.
This goes for everything - from society, to law, to the internet.
If the government doesn't call dibs on controlling the internet, someone else will. Do Visa and Mastercard control the internet? They can suffocate donations to any website they want. Do web providers control the internet? They can take down their own sites at will. Do ISPs control the internet? They can filter out sites if they want to.
In the end, someone is always going to carve out a portion and control that. Always. Now I'd rather have the government, or a large body of governments doing that. Because governments at least have to pretend their doing it for the good of the people. Companies can just do so because it suits them.
Don't other people own cell phones? Even if you perhaps you discount the natives in certain cases, but what about press, red cross, and similar? You wouldn't get very clever results using it.
The fact that they're considering their use means there is an actual network connection to use. Maybe in the 80s it would have been the case, but nowadays you even have farmers who can hardly afford to buy clothes, using mobile devices to check market prices for their goods online.
Wouldn't/Shouldn't they rather use military-grade equipment for that? Like a radio? Are they not equipped with this sort of thing already? Stuff that can survive being dropped in mud, stepped on and get singed by an IED?
"including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield" and "isn't always a viable option in the middle of combat". So I'm actually wondering what they're going to be doing with them. It'd be rather sensless to take smartphones with you to get mud, sand, shrapnel and whatever on them. And when are you supposed to use them? "Yeah I'm pinned down. Let me take a picture of the guy shooting at us, maybe we'll see him again later"
If its just for stuff like wanting to find out whether your friend's in the mess hall or taking a nap or whatever would be fine. But then why do the batteries matter?
As a university student I find that university is less about "these are skills" and more about giving you a good background, and putting your mind into "I need to learn" mindset. Last summer I worked as an intern in a company. The amount of stuff I had to learn very quickly - or 'as I worked' was quite a bit. If I wasn't 'trained' to study and to research at university - I'm pretty sure I would have given up.
The time when I learnt most skills at Uni was when I entered a competition over 3 months with 3 friends of mine. We taught and learnt very quickly. Its not university's task to teach you skills, you pick those up on your own. Craft schools on the other hand do. I'm not in the US, but in my country - anyone who hires grads from this craft school into ICT, tosses them out after 2 or 3 years. Its the mindset which matters most.
"Some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation"
Some of the world's best unemployed people, low-end job workers and burgerflippers are people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation.
Just because 2 people were lucky enough to pull it off, means NOTHING.
Slashdot Mirror
My idea for an automatic "PANIC SOMEONE ELSE IS IN THE ROOM" feature for adult entertainment failsafes...
You're going to be happy about it.
"All code used on this site is released under the GPLv3, and is available here. "
http://spareclockcycles.org/downloads/code/dosme.tar.gz
Simple. They don't care.
If you're innocent, pay the thousands in court costs and missing time off, and fight it in court. Otherwise just pay the money and nobody is going to get hurt.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SLAPP - related.
Wouldn't it be possible for an admin to simply block all traffic which came from that website?
Filesharing leads to communism
Communism leads to extremism
Extremism leads to terrorism
Support your local Homeland Security today!
Me crossing the street and putting an X on a box is much easier than me spending a few weeks without internet, or with an inferior service in order to 'vote with my wallet'.
Voting is meant to be easy - it requires very little effort. It doesn't require you to drive a few extra miles not to support the large supermarket.
And governments should in theory be listening to their population. I realise that representational democracy is an absolute failure, but its the best we have.
Yeah, and that's why after removing wikileaks - amazon, visa and mastercard have now collapsed and have fallen into debt. Who are we kidding?
Voting with your wallet doesn't work unless you can get a LARGE mass of people to do so. And if we're talking about ISPs here, including some which are parts of even larger corporations...
You think that you're goign to get an entire neighbourhood to turn off Provider X and stay without internet and whatever because of this net neutrality thing? People don't care. They don't care about other video sides except X are being slowed down. In fact, it'll probably direct the market instead.
Corporations are well structured and controlled masses of power. The people are uncontrolled and have no direction. There's no chance.
Wikileaks is a famous website. It has received much media coverage.
If it was a smaller website - or a new idea which a company sees as a threat - then they can remove it without anyone knowing anything about it.
They just picked a large target this time. When Amazon decides it doesn't like other sites selling books, and tugs a few strings to get them removed, nobody will blink an eyelid. (Not saying that amazon is going to do that - just saying that if it does happen, there is nothing illegal at all).
I apologise for not explaining "Vital" services well.
What I meant is that if a company wants to put its presence on the internet, it requires many services which are vital to it to remain effective. Such as the Host, DNS provider, 'donation services provider' et cetera. All of which have the ability to destroy the website.
I didn't mean that services are vital in real life and only are on the internet.
-
That said, the direction is turning to the internet becoming vital. In the EU is being considered a basic human right.
I'm not saying what Amazon did was illegal. I'm saying that someone has the ability to pull the plug out already. So saying "lets stay out and leave the internet free for everyone" is ineffective and counter-intuitive.
If we don't want governments messing in our internet because they can:
1. Remove sites
2. Throttle certain speeds
3. Add silly 'balancing' methods
Then tough luck because its already perfectally legal for a company to do that. And I THINK I trust a government more than a company.
Are we talking about a different UN?
Gaddafi really laid the smack down on how effective they were about that.
Did Amazon give Wikileaks a trial before it pulled the plug? What about the DNS provider? What about Paypal, Visa and Mastercard?
Someone is always going to grab power. It doesn't have to be the government. It could be a large company. Right now its been done with a 'grey area' site. What if the major credit-card companies decide that they don't want to support a particular website? That'll kill it.
Someone is always going to have power. There is no anarchy on the internet, lots of companies give VITAL services.
People don't seem to understand but there's no such thing as freedom. Anarchy is unsustainable.
This is for all cases, if there is nobody who controls (or has the right to) an object, then someone WILL control it.
This goes for everything - from society, to law, to the internet.
If the government doesn't call dibs on controlling the internet, someone else will. Do Visa and Mastercard control the internet? They can suffocate donations to any website they want. Do web providers control the internet? They can take down their own sites at will. Do ISPs control the internet? They can filter out sites if they want to.
In the end, someone is always going to carve out a portion and control that. Always. Now I'd rather have the government, or a large body of governments doing that. Because governments at least have to pretend their doing it for the good of the people. Companies can just do so because it suits them.
Don't other people own cell phones? Even if you perhaps you discount the natives in certain cases, but what about press, red cross, and similar? You wouldn't get very clever results using it.
The fact that they're considering their use means there is an actual network connection to use. Maybe in the 80s it would have been the case, but nowadays you even have farmers who can hardly afford to buy clothes, using mobile devices to check market prices for their goods online.
Wouldn't/Shouldn't they rather use military-grade equipment for that? Like a radio? Are they not equipped with this sort of thing already? Stuff that can survive being dropped in mud, stepped on and get singed by an IED?
Pvt Smith just checked in to "That Big Crater in the middle of the town"
Don't you just hate it when you're driving down the street, guy is driving a heavy tank while talking to his girlfriend?
I was thinking that as well, then I read -
"including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield" and "isn't always a viable option in the middle of combat". So I'm actually wondering what they're going to be doing with them. It'd be rather sensless to take smartphones with you to get mud, sand, shrapnel and whatever on them. And when are you supposed to use them? "Yeah I'm pinned down. Let me take a picture of the guy shooting at us, maybe we'll see him again later"
If its just for stuff like wanting to find out whether your friend's in the mess hall or taking a nap or whatever would be fine. But then why do the batteries matter?
Not always. Because in certain countries (US included?) you have bonuses given at certain periods of time, including christmas ones for example.
So if you take weeks or days you miss out on the bonuses - which could be larger depending on how well the company is doing or whatever.
So taking years, or a multiple of years is the best idea. Don't think of it as:
money * time/ time = money
Think of it as "Average(money)"
Total Sum of Payment / year = X
"40 percent more a year" = X + (40*X/100)
People tend to measure payment in years. Which kinda makes sense since it encompasses bonuses and whatever.
This is obvious.
As a university student I find that university is less about "these are skills" and more about giving you a good background, and putting your mind into "I need to learn" mindset. Last summer I worked as an intern in a company. The amount of stuff I had to learn very quickly - or 'as I worked' was quite a bit. If I wasn't 'trained' to study and to research at university - I'm pretty sure I would have given up.
The time when I learnt most skills at Uni was when I entered a competition over 3 months with 3 friends of mine. We taught and learnt very quickly. Its not university's task to teach you skills, you pick those up on your own. Craft schools on the other hand do. I'm not in the US, but in my country - anyone who hires grads from this craft school into ICT, tosses them out after 2 or 3 years. Its the mindset which matters most.
This link should interest you.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/wiki/joke
This has got nothing to do with socialism.
If this ever occured in the USA, you'd see the amount of people applying for a job with the TSA shoot up...
"Some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation"
Some of the world's best unemployed people, low-end job workers and burgerflippers are people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation.
Just because 2 people were lucky enough to pull it off, means NOTHING.