I have not been in college since 1994, but for all of my classes, even my CSE core classes, we never used the Internet; only the lab network - [it would have been neat, but if you have ever taken an EE course, you would know there is not much time for gophering and ftping the 'Net]. In other classes we attended lectures, read books, wrote on paper and studied in the library.
Have colleges changed that much that students do all of their work online, remotely, via a public network which precludes the need for large amounts of computing power and bandwidth for each student?
This is not sarcastic but completely serious, is there a REAl, daily need for fast Internet access in order to complete most, higher education majors? It seems that most of the responses to this thread deal with complaints about a lack of bandwidth at several major schools. What do you do with it?
I wish I still had some of the auto-responders from the InterNIC when I used to be the DNS Admin for an ISP. They went like this..
"Thank you for your submission. Currently, InterNIC processes over 600 domain submissions a week. Please be advised, that your registration will take up to three weeks to process. Also, there is a one domain per organization limit. Multiple registrations will be rejected"
Back then, all registrations were done by hand, (I remember Robert used to handle all of ours). Only ISP's or similar networking organizations could have a.net TLD (that was the hottest TLD to get, not.com!)..orgs were limited to provable non-profit organizations. Almost any educational institution could get an.edu now they are limited to four-year or graduate schools only. I remember getting.edu TLD's for a stenography school, a technical school, a grade school and a for profit scholarship company.
It was very different back then.
Oh well, I used to also walk 8 miles uphill both ways in the snow in July when I was a boy...:)
Why won't someone confront this administration and remind them:
1) The government is not some stand-alone entity; it belongs to the people.
2) Government services are funded by the people's money in the form of taxes; all government programs are subject to the people's approval.
3) The government is not in the business of marketing itself in order to propogate its programs. It works the other way around. We the people determine a need, whether it be defense, welfare of our citizens, space programs, etc. and vote for the persons who will fufill our needs. The government is not a private company which needs to market itself to its' citizens.
4) There is nothing free with the government. This website may be built by some "private" citizen, but the information compiled within comes from taxpayer funded departments. There will be neccessary work and information gathering needed on the part of taxpayer funded government employees in order to complete this "great undertaking".
IBM to start shipping Caldera, Dell to start shipping Red Hat. MS has been ordered to break up. Several companies are intergrating Linux based OS's into previously, unchartered territory - handhelds, navigation systems, etc.
Thar's money to be made with that there Linux stuff.
And because of that, companies, individuals and venture capitalists are all struggling to figure out how they can enter, lead and make the most money off this market. It reminds me of the PC wars of the early 80's. Everyone just about used the 8088 hardware/BASIC combination, now it was a matter of whistles, bells and marketing to push your TRS 80 over the Timex Sinclair over the Commodore.
Argue, steal, criticize and so on and so on.
Things will either get better or worse. But they will definitely get interesting.
Yep, I might be. I also don't back down from a challenge.
"E Commerce IS NOT DIFFERENT, while there IS technology it is not an advance! ("
Hardly. I can order products without leaving the house, having correct change or dealing with a person of dubious capacity. I can do it quickly and with reasonable security. That is an advance specifically due to technology. Especially in this day and age of 16 hour IT work days.
"Using your argument one could surmise that the pizza place will soon be extinct and only delivery places will be able to sell pizza. "
Nope. That is only an alternative that neither saves time or improves a product. The automobile was an improvement over the horse in that it was faster, did not require the feed and caring of a living creature and hopefully would have a longer shelf life.
"I don't think having a building that has and entrance makes you any slower or weaker than some entity that doesn't."
It does if it requires additional expenses in the geographic coverage area in order to compete with a company such as Amazon. Try putting bookstores in most cities, countries and municipalities of the world which are currently accessible by Amazon. The costs of ordering, shipping and delivery of Amazon products are cheaper than a physcial storefront, employees, etc.
"Slow and weak are words that are certain to bristle geeks... Some of them were not successful in HS/College should they have been run out of business..."
I don't speak for everyone here or elsewhere who claims to be a "geek". Each is an individual the last time I checked. And yes, some persons who do not achieve are run out of their business, school, etc. That is why things work. That is life and that is why you presumably have the job you do and not someone who is not qualified.
And line item veto things he is opposed to such as a rollback of the federal gas tax (43.5 cents per gallon - much needed relief in times of high gas prices and budget surplus if anything, temporarily).
And a correction, the president PROPOSES the budget. Congress is free to propose an alternate budget. Congress merely debates and approves each item, as well as tacking on their own pet projects. The budget returns to the President who signs it, vetos it or line item vetos specific items. As well as, Congress has the ability to hold votes to spend money not included in the budget. This is where we get things like making Lawrence Welk's home a national monument.
See, I did take a government class. And I passed it.
"Read my lips" refers to the Deficit Reduction tax signed into law by George Bush (Sr.) during his tenure as President.
That bill was introduced by Leon Panella (Democrat), supported by the Congressional Democrats and traded to Bush for something he wanted.
Bush lost the election in part, due to this action.
Bill C, regardless of whether or not you see him as a centrist and for whatever reason his tax hikes were for, has introduced and championed for dozens of tax hikes since 1992. More so than any other President in modern (post WWII) history.
Based upon your original statement, you are still incorrect - based upon historical fact, not gut reactions.
"It simply is not fair for Johnny Bookstore owner to go head to head with Amazon.com when with everything else Amazon has they also don't charge tax!"
It was not fair when the automobile ran the blacksmith out of business. When the lightbulb ran the lampligher, kerosene delivery guy and the candle maker out of business. It was not fair when the airlines ran the train business out of town after the war.
It is not about fairness, it is about market economics. Amazon and other online businesses can do it cheaper because they changed with the nature of business due to technology.
Stop thinking fondly about mom-and-pop stores not being able to compete. You are only encouraging a system which props up the slow and weak and penalizes the successful.
In the left corner! "Everyone has to pay their fair share. Taxing Internet sales is good sense. It is not fair to the rest of the world when some rich, corporate, pig can buy $1000 dollars of stuff of Amazon.com and not pay tax on it. The have-nots have to pay his fair share when making purchases at traditional, brick-and-mortar businesses".
And in the right corner! "Taxing Internet sales is another example of a government spinning out of control towards socialism. It is not right to penalize my success and support of online businesses by paying taxes to support a bunch of lazy, malcontents. You will get my money for taxes when you pry my wallet from my cold, dead fingers!"
And in the center corner! "I don't trust online buying, some hacker may get my credit card and spend it on porn!"
And in the rear aisles, behind that wicked post! "I'm John Katz, has anyone seen the Open Source popcorn guy?"
There is a line in the Balitmore, newspaper movie from the 80's "He Said, She Said" that goes "I've always wanted to write a newspaper column and change the way people think".
That is typical of the post-60's journalism grad we have today. They don't merely want to report facts (who, what, when, where, how and why), they want to present the facts in such a way they can "change the way their readers think".
Never has this been more evident than in the past 10 years as journalists sink to ever lower levels and biased reporting in order to "change the way we think".
It sickens me to watch stories on the economy, foreign affairs, pending bills and most important to me, the Internet, as presented by these so-called journalists who barely understand the issues at hand, who present only part of the facts and then make statements more akin to opinion rather than summerization of facts.
They smugly pat themselves on the collective backs as they coin words like "wonk", "pols", "Dems" and "pundits" and act as if they have discovered a cure for illiteracy in America. They disguise their obvious political leanings as "indepth reports" when actually they are extended propoganda presentations worth of Hitler or Stalin. They fawn over idiot Hollywood celebrities, career politicians (theives) and non-producing, worthless "intellectuals" and disconnect themselves from the working person in America.
In my world, we would drag people of this ilk from their ivory tower, elitist land of oz into the streets for random lessons and just come uppance. However, the best (and levelheaded) course is to turn them off: Don't buy the papers, use Time and Newsweek for puppy training and leave Peter, Tom and Dan to sulk over their sinking ratings.
Are mostly dealing with the mcdonalds.com domain blurb and not with the future of Apache.
MS hates Apache but there are more sites running it. I have built servers on Apache and IIS and thouroughly enjoyed configuring Apache. After messing with IIS for a week (to build a somewhat secure, working system - not what came in the box), I found myself on the 7th floor of our building pondering how much of a mess I would make in the parking lot.
Herd reply
As for domain registration, days after our company was purchsed, two persons registered variations of the new company name. The reason? To sell to us at considerably more than the $70 registration fee. Nothing more. They had no sites up or even an MX record, just the desire to turn a quick buck around with less than honorable intentions. This sure sounded like an issue of individual greed in this case, wouldn't you think?
The lesson: Get a real job, come up with a real startup idea and get to work. The courts have already put the whomp on this practice to the point complaints are almost automated (PETA yesterday, member?). It sucks when an individual and their work is ruined by a johhny-come-lately with a good lawyer, (that whole etoy vs. etoys.com thing last year), but the reality of the situation is there are innumberable individuals registering domain names of established companies and organizations in order to make a quick buck. What would you do?
I agree with nearly all of your sentiments with the exception of WHO is responsible. Having worked with a couple of dozen "Webmasters" and "Developers", generally these buffoons are responsible for convincing clueless PR people about how to build their website.
The only solace I can receive from this is believing there is a ring in hell for Webmasters where they would be forced to look at Java, ActiveXing, 100+forced cookie sites via a 386 and 1200baud modem.
Douglas Adams interview? What next? What are your favorite lines to quote from The Holy Grail? How many episodes of Doctor Who can you name? Name every girl who dumped you in junior high?
"Slashdot has got to be the biggest bastion of anti-libertarian thought on the net."
Nope. For some reason or another, Slashdot has attacted alot of persons who might fit that description.
Here goes:
Slashdot, for the most part, is an advocate of open-source software and operating systems.
Many of the readers, one could presume, are also advocates of open source.
Open source has the same concepts as free trade, freedom of the press, free speech, freedom of worship, and freedom of choice. Open source allows all to contribute freely and without repurcussion from the source code's originators. Many of the same principles upon which this country was founded.
Non-open source "countries" attempt to limit freedom of choice (what you read, eat, worship, etc). Contributions to the original product are seen as a threat to the overall well being of the product and its' creators rather than for the consumers. Consider governments who "Defend the Revolution" by shooting opponents to their plan. Good examples of this are Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, present day China, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and some Middle Eastern governments.
All of this is meaningless as one Slashdot reader after another posts some statement blaming private corporations for the world's problems whether it be the cost of software to the enviroment. What they fail to realize is that the governement controls the ability for businesses (read corporations - a misuse of the term because many businesses are not incorporated, but I digress) to operate within their boundries. Governements decide whether or not to allow free trade and competition or state-run/approved monopolies.
As for corporations "buying" politicians, there are an equal number if not more, private organizations "buying" politicians. The largest being political parties (Republicans/Democrats here in the States), special interests groups (NRA, Handgun Control, NOW, trade unions, Heritage Foundation, etc) who contribute billions of dollars directly and indirectly to further their agendas, and individuals (Michael Eisner, Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, etc). All of these non-corporate "buyers" have no interest in the individual any longer, only their own agenda. Nor do any of these other "buyers" believe truly in "open source" they only want their beliefs/products available to the consumer.
In a real open source enviroment, each of us has a direct voice into the government, nearly all products are available for us to purchase, rent or trade, and no one product or service is limited to a single controlling interest. When "corporations" are demonized and penalized, then they do not enjoy the same open sourced enviroment that the rest of society enjoys.
How moronic. I swear slashdot has degenerated into some sort of platform for non-fact based rhetoric.
The GOVERNMENT wants to limit encryption so you cannot have any secrets (how much money you have, for starters) from them.
Private companies sell software to encrypt your data and push for a easing of anti-encryption laws imposed by the GOVERNMENT.
Now, turn off your computer, stop spouting BS and start thinking for a change. Maybe there is something else you are better at than thought, like knitting..
Sounds like the explaination for our problem at home with our wireless cards. We randomly drop signal from one of our laptops in different parts of the house, that is after it has been working fine for 30 or 40 minutes.
I used to sell guitars in a large store when I used to live in Dallas. You could not use a wireless, electronic tuner to tune them because the overhead flourecent lights put out 440MHz which is an "A". Or so said the other guys who worked there. I just wanted to jam..:)
"Actually, I _do_ live there. And some of the state healthcare systems are _really_ good."
Please, elaborate on the systems of medical rationing that is practiced in some European countries. For instance, why does the NHS of England have some people waiting up to two years for gall bladder surgery. Or why do some Scandavian countries only allow a few treatments within their guidelines but ignores other, possibly life saving treatments because they are either too expensive or not on the plan?
"At least, when Europeans do finally get to hospital, then they are there until they're cured or dead, as opposed to when the insurance runs out."
My brother-in-law has a brain tumor. His insurance company will no longer pay for all of his treatment as it is considered terminal. He continues to be treated at MD Anderson, one of the world's finest cancer treatment and research facilities regardless of his ability to pay. I have yet to see any hospital turn away a patient in the US or not do the most they can to save the patient. Your friend was the victim of an illegal practice and my sympathies are with him and his family. My own father died in 1995 because of a "medical oversight". That was not the fault of the government or the insurance company, but that of shortsighted, uncaring doctor. No legislation can demand compassion or a conscience.
"The NHS is an excellent system, but it needs cash, badly. I'd gladly pay an extra 10% tax on my grossly inflated earnings"
In my opinion, you pay too much in taxes already, in some European countries as much as 60% of your income *before* paying your own bills - rent, food, utilities, etc. Why not hammer on your elected officials to spend the money more wisely? Or better yet, why not insist they get rid of the overhead (overpaid unions, local restrictions, etc) which lead to money being spent on adminstration and not on patients? If the government cannot provide the best possible service than they either need to get out of the business or allow open competition from the private sector. Throwing more money into a losing scheme is a waste and saves no_lives.
A little late with a comeback, but don't you think our tax returns should have a questionaire which polls tax payers on what they want their money to go to?
For instance, which of the following areas do you want your money spent on?
1) Housing 2) Food stamps and food assistance 3) Medical care for low income and elderly residents. 4) Unemployment assistance 5) Defense 6) Foreign aid 7) NASA and space exploration
etc..
Although it would most likely be skewed by either the current government or by the tabulation department, it would be nice if our elected officials asked us where we would like our money to go. It would be even better if we could vote on general spending arrangements ourselves, but then, what do we know?
I am so delighted with your description of NHS that I will encourage my elected representatives to enact it here in the States!
This is a sarcastic message for all of those who laud the "wonderful, equal, free government supported health care systems of Europe". Why dontcha ask someone who lives there?
Words marked. You make some good points, but something you did not address was one of my overall statements - that this does not affect most people.
The 16-year old may be interested in this, but the average person does things the easy way. Right now, it is easier to drive to Blockbuster, order the movie online for delivery or watch on pay-per-view. This may change of course with broadband access and related technology, but even in that case, the delivery medium will be such that the average viewer/listener will not bother with trying to circumnavigate restrictions.
Unless devices are made (and legalized) which makes downloading, decrypting and viewing "illegal" versions of various media, this will not be applicable to most persons. An example of a legality being successfully circumnavigated would be the radar detector and the speed limit changes in the mid-1970's.
What Mr. Valenti and his cohorts really need to do is crack down on the distribution of their products by foreign governments. Countries like China do nothing to discourage the copying and distribution of movies, software and music. In fact, they encourage it and benefit from the financial rewards of providing cheap entertainment to their people. I really don't care if you and I pass files back and forth; what sickens me is a despotic, intrinsically evil government like the Chinese benefitting from free countries' products. However, I am even more disgusted by the actions of our government at ignoring the Chinese absence of human rights in favor of getting a few cheap imports.
However, arresting and demonizing 16-year olds in Norway and suing startup companies is far easier to digest for Valenti and his lawyer goons. It is also easier to spin this to the public.
Whether or not Mr. Valenti or the others wish to admit it, the genie is out of the bottle. Suing 2600 or arresting 16-year old Norwegians is like trying to keep a dog from having puppies by taking them away after they are born.
The fix is for the movie execs to develop technology which will protect their copywritten material. And although it makes it interesting for some to find their way around it, the reality of the situation is with the exception of perhaps/. demographics, most people are not going to search and download an online version of a pirated movie. It is far easier and accessible for the regular person to stroll down to Blockbuster and pick it up. (The big problem with this whole issue is not what a handful of Westerners do with that pirated material off the Internet, but what China does with it - big fat lot of good trade agreements do with the Chinese).
What's annoying are some of the hypothetical questions being asked of Mr. Valenti. "What if a librarian is doing a report on the Holocaust and uses three minutes of Schindlers' List would that person go to jail?" At any moment, there are probably three people in the universe who fit that description. Get real. Put some real questions to Mr. Valenti such as
"Since DVD is relatively new compared to analog recordings, what percentage of movie sales do they really comprise? And with that in mind, do you have figures to back that 2Billion dollar loss you state? And what is the cost of producing that DVD vs. the overall profit of selling that DVD: when do you break even and start making money? After selling 500 copies or 5million?"
Slashdot Mirror
"I have not been in college since 1994 .... there is not much time for gophering and ftping the 'Net]"
Rewind.
I have not been in college since 1994, but for all of my classes, even my CSE core classes, we never used the Internet; only the lab network - [it would have been neat, but if you have ever taken an EE course, you would know there is not much time for gophering and ftping the 'Net]. In other classes we attended lectures, read books, wrote on paper and studied in the library.
Have colleges changed that much that students do all of their work online, remotely, via a public network which precludes the need for large amounts of computing power and bandwidth for each student?
This is not sarcastic but completely serious, is there a REAl, daily need for fast Internet access in order to complete most, higher education majors? It seems that most of the responses to this thread deal with complaints about a lack of bandwidth at several major schools. What do you do with it?
Thanks
I wish I still had some of the auto-responders from the InterNIC when I used to be the DNS Admin for an ISP. They went like this..
.net TLD (that was the hottest TLD to get, not .com!). .orgs were limited to provable non-profit organizations. Almost any educational institution could get an .edu now they are limited to four-year or graduate schools only. I remember getting .edu TLD's for a stenography school, a technical school, a grade school and a for profit scholarship company.
:)
"Thank you for your submission. Currently, InterNIC processes over 600 domain submissions a week. Please be advised, that your registration will take up to three weeks to process. Also, there is a one domain per organization limit. Multiple registrations will be rejected"
Back then, all registrations were done by hand, (I remember Robert used to handle all of ours). Only ISP's or similar networking organizations could have a
It was very different back then.
Oh well, I used to also walk 8 miles uphill both ways in the snow in July when I was a boy...
Why won't someone confront this administration and remind them:
1) The government is not some stand-alone entity; it belongs to the people.
2) Government services are funded by the people's money in the form of taxes; all government programs are subject to the people's approval.
3) The government is not in the business of marketing itself in order to propogate its programs. It works the other way around. We the people determine a need, whether it be defense, welfare of our citizens, space programs, etc. and vote for the persons who will fufill our needs. The government is not a private company which needs to market itself to its' citizens.
4) There is nothing free with the government. This website may be built by some "private" citizen, but the information compiled within comes from taxpayer funded departments. There will be neccessary work and information gathering needed on the part of taxpayer funded government employees in order to complete this "great undertaking".
IBM to start shipping Caldera, Dell to start shipping Red Hat. MS has been ordered to break up. Several companies are intergrating Linux based OS's into previously, unchartered territory - handhelds, navigation systems, etc.
Thar's money to be made with that there Linux stuff.
And because of that, companies, individuals and venture capitalists are all struggling to figure out how they can enter, lead and make the most money off this market. It reminds me of the PC wars of the early 80's. Everyone just about used the 8088 hardware/BASIC combination, now it was a matter of whistles, bells and marketing to push your TRS 80 over the Timex Sinclair over the Commodore.
Argue, steal, criticize and so on and so on.
Things will either get better or worse. But they will definitely get interesting.
"I think you might actually be a curmudgeon :P"
Yep, I might be. I also don't back down from a challenge.
"E Commerce IS NOT DIFFERENT, while there IS technology it is not an advance! ("
Hardly. I can order products without leaving the house, having correct change or dealing with a person of dubious capacity. I can do it quickly and with reasonable security. That is an advance specifically due to technology. Especially in this day and age of 16 hour IT work days.
"Using your argument one could surmise that the pizza place will soon be extinct and only delivery places will be able to sell pizza. "
Nope. That is only an alternative that neither saves time or improves a product. The automobile was an improvement over the horse in that it was faster, did not require the feed and caring of a living creature and hopefully would have a longer shelf life.
"I don't think having a building that has and entrance makes you any slower or weaker than some entity that doesn't."
It does if it requires additional expenses in the geographic coverage area in order to compete with a company such as Amazon. Try putting bookstores in most cities, countries and municipalities of the world which are currently accessible by Amazon. The costs of ordering, shipping and delivery of Amazon products are cheaper than a physcial storefront, employees, etc.
"Slow and weak are words that are certain to bristle geeks... Some of them were not successful in HS/College should they have been run out of
business..."
I don't speak for everyone here or elsewhere who claims to be a "geek". Each is an individual the last time I checked. And yes, some persons who do not achieve are run out of their business, school, etc. That is why things work. That is life and that is why you presumably have the job you do and not someone who is not qualified.
And line item veto things he is opposed to such as a rollback of the federal gas tax (43.5 cents per gallon - much needed relief in times of high gas prices and budget surplus if anything, temporarily).
And a correction, the president PROPOSES the budget. Congress is free to propose an alternate budget. Congress merely debates and approves each item, as well as tacking on their own pet projects. The budget returns to the President who signs it, vetos it or line item vetos specific items. As well as, Congress has the ability to hold votes to spend money not included in the budget. This is where we get things like making Lawrence Welk's home a national monument.
See, I did take a government class. And I passed it.
"Read my lips" refers to the Deficit Reduction tax signed into law by George Bush (Sr.) during his tenure as President.
That bill was introduced by Leon Panella (Democrat), supported by the Congressional Democrats and traded to Bush for something he wanted.
Bush lost the election in part, due to this action.
Bill C, regardless of whether or not you see him as a centrist and for whatever reason his tax hikes were for, has introduced and championed for dozens of tax hikes since 1992. More so than any other President in modern (post WWII) history.
Based upon your original statement, you are still incorrect - based upon historical fact, not gut reactions.
"It simply is not fair for Johnny Bookstore owner to go head to head with Amazon.com when with everything else Amazon has they also don't charge tax!"
It was not fair when the automobile ran the blacksmith out of business. When the lightbulb ran the lampligher, kerosene delivery guy and the candle maker out of business. It was not fair when the airlines ran the train business out of town after the war.
It is not about fairness, it is about market economics. Amazon and other online businesses can do it cheaper because they changed with the nature of business due to technology.
Stop thinking fondly about mom-and-pop stores not being able to compete. You are only encouraging a system which props up the slow and weak and penalizes the successful.
In the left corner!
"Everyone has to pay their fair share. Taxing Internet sales is good sense. It is not fair to the rest of the world when some rich, corporate, pig can buy $1000 dollars of stuff of Amazon.com and not pay tax on it. The have-nots have to pay his fair share when making purchases at traditional, brick-and-mortar businesses".
And in the right corner!
"Taxing Internet sales is another example of a government spinning out of control towards socialism. It is not right to penalize my success and support of online businesses by paying taxes to support a bunch of lazy, malcontents. You will get my money for taxes when you pry my wallet from my cold, dead fingers!"
And in the center corner!
"I don't trust online buying, some hacker may get my credit card and spend it on porn!"
And in the rear aisles, behind that wicked post!
"I'm John Katz, has anyone seen the Open Source popcorn guy?"
There is a line in the Balitmore, newspaper movie from the 80's "He Said, She Said" that goes "I've always wanted to write a newspaper column and change the way people think".
That is typical of the post-60's journalism grad we have today. They don't merely want to report facts (who, what, when, where, how and why), they want to present the facts in such a way they can "change the way their readers think".
Never has this been more evident than in the past 10 years as journalists sink to ever lower levels and biased reporting in order to "change the way we think".
It sickens me to watch stories on the economy, foreign affairs, pending bills and most important to me, the Internet, as presented by these so-called journalists who barely understand the issues at hand, who present only part of the facts and then make statements more akin to opinion rather than summerization of facts.
They smugly pat themselves on the collective backs as they coin words like "wonk", "pols", "Dems" and "pundits" and act as if they have discovered a cure for illiteracy in America. They disguise their obvious political leanings as "indepth reports" when actually they are extended propoganda presentations worth of Hitler or Stalin. They fawn over idiot Hollywood celebrities, career politicians (theives) and non-producing, worthless "intellectuals" and disconnect themselves from the working person in America.
In my world, we would drag people of this ilk from their ivory tower, elitist land of oz into the streets for random lessons and just come uppance. However, the best (and levelheaded) course is to turn them off: Don't buy the papers, use Time and Newsweek for puppy training and leave Peter, Tom and Dan to sulk over their sinking ratings.
Are mostly dealing with the mcdonalds.com domain blurb and not with the future of Apache.
MS hates Apache but there are more sites running it. I have built servers on Apache and IIS and thouroughly enjoyed configuring Apache. After messing with IIS for a week (to build a somewhat secure, working system - not what came in the box), I found myself on the 7th floor of our building pondering how much of a mess I would make in the parking lot.
Herd reply
As for domain registration, days after our company was purchsed, two persons registered variations of the new company name. The reason? To sell to us at considerably more than the $70 registration fee. Nothing more. They had no sites up or even an MX record, just the desire to turn a quick buck around with less than honorable intentions. This sure sounded like an issue of individual greed in this case, wouldn't you think?
The lesson: Get a real job, come up with a real startup idea and get to work. The courts have already put the whomp on this practice to the point complaints are almost automated (PETA yesterday, member?). It sucks when an individual and their work is ruined by a johhny-come-lately with a good lawyer, (that whole etoy vs. etoys.com thing last year), but the reality of the situation is there are innumberable individuals registering domain names of established companies and organizations in order to make a quick buck. What would you do?
I agree with nearly all of your sentiments with the exception of WHO is responsible. Having worked with a couple of dozen "Webmasters" and "Developers", generally these buffoons are responsible for convincing clueless PR people about how to build their website.
The only solace I can receive from this is believing there is a ring in hell for Webmasters where they would be forced to look at Java, ActiveXing, 100+forced cookie sites via a 386 and 1200baud modem.
Douglas Adams interview? What next? What are your favorite lines to quote from The Holy Grail? How many episodes of Doctor Who can you name? Name every girl who dumped you in junior high?
How completely worthless
PETA is a non-profit organization. They are not a big, multi-national corporation that is normally blamed around here for everything.
Unless someone can prove that PETA is controlled by a big evil, profiteering corporation, the whole existance of SlashDot will cease to exist!
and you are anonymous. What are you afraid of?
"Slashdot has got to be the biggest bastion of anti-libertarian thought on the net."
Nope. For some reason or another, Slashdot has attacted alot of persons who might fit that description.
Here goes:
Slashdot, for the most part, is an advocate of open-source software and operating systems.
Many of the readers, one could presume, are also advocates of open source.
Open source has the same concepts as free trade, freedom of the press, free speech, freedom of worship, and freedom of choice. Open source allows all to contribute freely and without repurcussion from the source code's originators. Many of the same principles upon which this country was founded.
Non-open source "countries" attempt to limit freedom of choice (what you read, eat, worship, etc). Contributions to the original product are seen as a threat to the overall well being of the product and its' creators rather than for the consumers. Consider governments who "Defend the Revolution" by shooting opponents to their plan. Good examples of this are Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, present day China, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and some Middle Eastern governments.
All of this is meaningless as one Slashdot reader after another posts some statement blaming private corporations for the world's problems whether it be the cost of software to the enviroment. What they fail to realize is that the governement controls the ability for businesses (read corporations - a misuse of the term because many businesses are not incorporated, but I digress) to operate within their boundries. Governements decide whether or not to allow free trade and competition or state-run/approved monopolies.
As for corporations "buying" politicians, there are an equal number if not more, private organizations "buying" politicians. The largest being political parties (Republicans/Democrats here in the States), special interests groups (NRA, Handgun Control, NOW, trade unions, Heritage Foundation, etc) who contribute billions of dollars directly and indirectly to further their agendas, and individuals (Michael Eisner, Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, etc). All of these non-corporate "buyers" have no interest in the individual any longer, only their own agenda. Nor do any of these other "buyers" believe truly in "open source" they only want their beliefs/products available to the consumer.
In a real open source enviroment, each of us has a direct voice into the government, nearly all products are available for us to purchase, rent or trade, and no one product or service is limited to a single controlling interest. When "corporations" are demonized and penalized, then they do not enjoy the same open sourced enviroment that the rest of society enjoys.
How moronic. I swear slashdot has degenerated into some sort of platform for non-fact based rhetoric.
The GOVERNMENT wants to limit encryption so you cannot have any secrets (how much money you have, for starters) from them.
Private companies sell software to encrypt your data and push for a easing of anti-encryption laws imposed by the GOVERNMENT.
Now, turn off your computer, stop spouting BS and start thinking for a change. Maybe there is something else you are better at than thought, like knitting..
Sounds like the explaination for our problem at home with our wireless cards. We randomly drop signal from one of our laptops in different parts of the house, that is after it has been working fine for 30 or 40 minutes.
:)
I used to sell guitars in a large store when I used to live in Dallas. You could not use a wireless, electronic tuner to tune them because the overhead flourecent lights put out 440MHz which is an "A". Or so said the other guys who worked there. I just wanted to jam..
"Actually, I _do_ live there. And some of the state healthcare systems are _really_ good."
Please, elaborate on the systems of medical rationing that is practiced in some European countries. For instance, why does the NHS of England have some people waiting up to two years for gall bladder surgery. Or why do some Scandavian countries only allow a few treatments within their guidelines but ignores other, possibly life saving treatments because they are either too expensive or not on the plan?
"At least, when Europeans do finally get to hospital, then they are there until they're cured or dead, as opposed to when the insurance runs
out."
My brother-in-law has a brain tumor. His insurance company will no longer pay for all of his treatment as it is considered terminal. He continues to be treated at MD Anderson, one of the world's finest cancer treatment and research facilities regardless of his ability to pay. I have yet to see any hospital turn away a patient in the US or not do the most they can to save the patient. Your friend was the victim of an illegal practice and my sympathies are with him and his family. My own father died in 1995 because of a "medical oversight". That was not the fault of the government or the insurance company, but that of shortsighted, uncaring doctor. No legislation can demand compassion or a conscience.
"The NHS is an excellent system, but it needs cash, badly. I'd gladly pay an extra 10% tax on my grossly inflated earnings"
In my opinion, you pay too much in taxes already, in some European countries as much as 60% of your income *before* paying your own bills - rent, food, utilities, etc. Why not hammer on your elected officials to spend the money more wisely? Or better yet, why not insist they get rid of the overhead (overpaid unions, local restrictions, etc) which lead to money being spent on adminstration and not on patients?
If the government cannot provide the best possible service than they either need to get out of the business or allow open competition from the private sector. Throwing more money into a losing scheme is a waste and saves no_lives.
A little late with a comeback, but don't you think our tax returns should have a questionaire which polls tax payers on what they want their money to go to?
For instance, which of the following areas do you want your money spent on?
1) Housing
2) Food stamps and food assistance
3) Medical care for low income and elderly residents.
4) Unemployment assistance
5) Defense
6) Foreign aid
7) NASA and space exploration
etc..
Although it would most likely be skewed by either the current government or by the tabulation department, it would be nice if our elected officials asked us where we would like our money to go. It would be even better if we could vote on general spending arrangements ourselves, but then, what do we know?
I am sure they would be surprised.
I am so delighted with your description of NHS that I will encourage my elected representatives to enact it here in the States!
This is a sarcastic message for all of those who laud the "wonderful, equal, free government supported health care systems of Europe". Why dontcha ask someone who lives there?
Words marked. You make some good points, but something you did not address was one of my overall statements - that this does not affect most people.
The 16-year old may be interested in this, but the average person does things the easy way. Right now, it is easier to drive to Blockbuster, order the movie online for delivery or watch on pay-per-view. This may change of course with broadband access and related technology, but even in that case, the delivery medium will be such that the average viewer/listener will not bother with trying to circumnavigate restrictions.
Unless devices are made (and legalized) which makes downloading, decrypting and viewing "illegal" versions of various media, this will not be applicable to most persons. An example of a legality being successfully circumnavigated would be the radar detector and the speed limit changes in the mid-1970's.
What Mr. Valenti and his cohorts really need to do is crack down on the distribution of their products by foreign governments. Countries like China do nothing to discourage the copying and distribution of movies, software and music. In fact, they encourage it and benefit from the financial rewards of providing cheap entertainment to their people. I really don't care if you and I pass files back and forth; what sickens me is a despotic, intrinsically evil government like the Chinese benefitting from free countries' products. However, I am even more disgusted by the actions of our government at ignoring the Chinese absence of human rights in favor of getting a few cheap imports.
However, arresting and demonizing 16-year olds in Norway and suing startup companies is far easier to digest for Valenti and his lawyer goons. It is also easier to spin this to the public.
No thanks.
Whether or not Mr. Valenti or the others wish to admit it, the genie is out of the bottle. Suing 2600 or arresting 16-year old Norwegians is like trying to keep a dog from having puppies by taking them away after they are born.
/. demographics, most people are not going to search and download an online version of a pirated movie. It is far easier and accessible for the regular person to stroll down to Blockbuster and pick it up. (The big problem with this whole issue is not what a handful of Westerners do with that pirated material off the Internet, but what China does with it - big fat lot of good trade agreements do with the Chinese).
The fix is for the movie execs to develop technology which will protect their copywritten material. And although it makes it interesting for some to find their way around it, the reality of the situation is with the exception of perhaps
What's annoying are some of the hypothetical questions being asked of Mr. Valenti. "What if a librarian is doing a report on the Holocaust and uses three minutes of Schindlers' List would that person go to jail?" At any moment, there are probably three people in the universe who fit that description. Get real. Put some real questions to Mr. Valenti such as
"Since DVD is relatively new compared to analog recordings, what percentage of movie sales do they really comprise? And with that in mind, do you have figures to back that 2Billion dollar loss you state? And what is the cost of producing that DVD vs. the overall profit of selling that DVD: when do you break even and start making money? After selling 500 copies or 5million?"