At least from a techno-libertarian sort of perspective, isn't this what we're looking for? These stupid junk fax-ers are imposing a huge cost on buisnesses and therefore on everyone else indirectly. Instead of using government time and money to investigate, private citizens did the footwork, with the promise of a reward from the 'offenders.' And the whole thing went through small-claims type courts which kept legal costs down.
... i would be concerned, since windows get broken a lot. Dumb birds, stray baseballs, and clumsy houseguests could be a big problem for the wallet - just to name a few.
50-100mps as user-availalble bandwith is more than sufficiant now, but what about three or four years down the line? This network could be complete in 2010, by which point the size of data (even judging conservativly, from past estimates) will far exceed that. Imagine what we might have considered a 'fast' net connection seven to tens years ago...
The new 15" looks great; but I bet its introduction means that there are some good deals to be had for those looking to switch over to Mac OS X to get an last-generation 15". Where is the best place to look?
er, 'The obvious answer is a tax on IM's and cell-based text messaging. Because it would be impossible to tell which users abuse the technology to spread negativity and damage the expensive-to-craft images of these movies, the most democratic thing to do is to tax all IM/text users. The fee would be small -- fractions of a penny per message -- adding up to a few hundred dollars per year. Such a fee would help compensate artists and theater owners for the loss incurred.'
The sporting events don't exist solely in order to have something upon which to bet; yet I would doubt that you would consider taking points on the super-bowl to be 'speculation...'
God, I am amazed that this proposal has gone this far!
The only benefit to this proposal (over gas taxes) is that it could be used to charge different rates at different times to reduce congestion. The huge pitfall is that it would remove the disincentive to economize (use more fuel efficient cars). Furthermore, there are all of the other problems people have pointed out - people crossing from CA to get cheap gas, for example. Not to mention the speeding tickets which will eventually be implemented.
HOW ABOUT CHARGING HIGHER TOLLS DURING PEAK TIMES TO REDUCE CONGESTION? IF A ROAD IS VERY CROWDED, CHARGE TOLLS AT PEAK TIMES, OR ALL THE TIME WITH HIGHER RATES DURING PEAK HOURS. Perhaps if I yell loud enough the state legislature might hear me. This would both raise revenue and reduce congestion (and therefore pollution) without buying a bunch of these stupid boxes.
I'm not quite sure what I'm replying to (I just skimmed it) but I'm quite sure that I'm right and the poster is mistaken; he's either a liberal or a conservative and wrong either way. Plus he's an MS troll. Or a Linux troll. His cat website is cool thought.
There is something reassuring about calm and respectful discussion of a serious issue; it also seems, from the text of the Lord's discussion, that the Lords hadn't entirley made up their minds about this issue - wheas in the US Senate, it is always a debate, never a discussion
Give 1,000 Southerners each a shotgun, and provide infinite ammo. As t-> intinity, they will produce the entire works of shakespear,,, in brail on the back of road signs.
I belive there is a fundamental difference between
a) re-createing or re-interpreting another artist's theme with your own intruments; this is the essence of creativity and artistic response. As far as I am concerened, the only thing you owe the orginal artist here is credit
b) digitally swiping and replaying another's recording in your own; even if you change the speed (the verve) around a bit, you're simply repackaging someone else's work. The fundamental idea of music is that you are creating and assembling notes, wheras this crap is just replaying and rearanging other's taped notes.
I'm sure people are going to respond saying "find a technical, not a political, solution." The fact is, this problem exists now, and a technical solution isn't forthcoming. Sometimes, a political solution is appropriate to legislate interactive conduct. A silly, but still applicable analogue: shoplifting might be considered a 'technical problem' with running a store - but we still pass laws against it! At the same time, stores employ technical means against shoplifters. Similarly, SPAM is probably best addressed from both sides - the public and private approach, if you will...
Already in my dorm, I can see three computers with iTunes 4 on the network, sharing their libraries. I can listen to other's music like a radio station- I can't save it, of course, but it's fun to set someone else's playlist on random play and listen to what they have. And if they have something I like, it's off to the apple store
I have to stand by the idea that this is Big News for the music industry, and more importantly for music users... Steve Jobs took to heart the fact that the cost of music is the cover price plus the cost the user associates with any copy protection. Under that system of accounting, this is perhaps the cheapest (legal) large scale music distribution system yet. Anohter user posted a question as to whether artists will be allowed to post 'tunes in the store without a record company - I would guess that the anwser is no, in order to get the companies on board, but if they could, the relevancy of record companies would suddenly become much more questionable.
Either way, it seems like this has the potential to revolutionize how people listen to music. And I'm glad Apple is on the right side of the curve.
Yes, but the money (in theory; in the last few decades we just seem to be borrowing and borrowing) is 'paid back' in taxes during boom times, when the government needs to slow the economy to prevent inflation (or so goes the idea of Keynsian stimulus.) The simple beuty of this idea is that the government borrows money to stimulate the economy when it needs it, and pays it back by slowing it down when needed. If everyone got together and spent or saved as needed, there would be no need for this - but you try convincing everyone to spend money at the same time... Tax cuts acheive a similar, but dilouted function- some of the rebate is saved, not spent.
I'm sorry, Christ, but you're wrong. Stimulus spending does not come from tax revenue; rather, it is finianced by borrowing (government deficit). Some economists belive there is a risk of crowding out (raised interest rates) because of this, but it is not as you describe it
But you're missing an important distinction; I'm not interested in screwing the bells - I'm interested in not having them screw me! Competitve market forces exist in the cell phone industry, because the fixed costs are so much lower in running a cell network. Hell, I'd buy my phone coverage from Microsoft, or anyone else if the price was right.
I agree- but for one thing: I get telemarketing calls on my cell phone too! I know it's illegal, but what can I do about it? Not to mention that many times I get calls from friends in the dorm, where caller ID won't work, so I can't screen calls that way
I think the real motivation for the undetecatblilty by other snoopers clause is for this reason: if you were doing something illegal, and it were possible to detect a tap if you were also tapping, then it would make sense to tap your own connection, and you could determine if anyone else (the feds / police) were doing so
Slashdot Mirror
er, it's a pun.
"better" not make money... "beta" not make money...
yea, a bad pun. but not an error
At least from a techno-libertarian sort of perspective, isn't this what we're looking for? These stupid junk fax-ers are imposing a huge cost on buisnesses and therefore on everyone else indirectly. Instead of using government time and money to investigate, private citizens did the footwork, with the promise of a reward from the 'offenders.' And the whole thing went through small-claims type courts which kept legal costs down.
I'm not shedding any tears over Fax.com.
... i would be concerned, since windows get broken a lot. Dumb birds, stray baseballs, and clumsy houseguests could be a big problem for the wallet - just to name a few.
50-100mps as user-availalble bandwith is more than sufficiant now, but what about three or four years down the line? This network could be complete in 2010, by which point the size of data (even judging conservativly, from past estimates) will far exceed that. Imagine what we might have considered a 'fast' net connection seven to tens years ago...
I like the headline on apple's main page:
"Hell Froze Over"
(really - check it out
The new 15" looks great; but I bet its introduction means that there are some good deals to be had for those looking to switch over to Mac OS X to get an last-generation 15". Where is the best place to look?
er, 'The obvious answer is a tax on IM's and cell-based text messaging. Because it would be impossible to tell which users abuse the technology to spread negativity and damage the expensive-to-craft images of these movies, the most democratic thing to do is to tax all IM/text users. The fee would be small -- fractions of a penny per message -- adding up to a few hundred dollars per year. Such a fee would help compensate artists and theater owners for the loss incurred.'
(Then again, they might really listen to me...)
Acording to nyt/ap report: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/29/politics/29WIRE- PENT.html?hp it is over... free reg required
It took all of what, 8 hours?
Right. So how would you classify SPORTS BETTING?
The sporting events don't exist solely in order to have something upon which to bet; yet I would doubt that you would consider taking points on the super-bowl to be 'speculation...'
God, I am amazed that this proposal has gone this far!
The only benefit to this proposal (over gas taxes) is that it could be used to charge different rates at different times to reduce congestion. The huge pitfall is that it would remove the disincentive to economize (use more fuel efficient cars). Furthermore, there are all of the other problems people have pointed out - people crossing from CA to get cheap gas, for example. Not to mention the speeding tickets which will eventually be implemented.
HOW ABOUT CHARGING HIGHER TOLLS DURING PEAK TIMES TO REDUCE CONGESTION? IF A ROAD IS VERY CROWDED, CHARGE TOLLS AT PEAK TIMES, OR ALL THE TIME WITH HIGHER RATES DURING PEAK HOURS. Perhaps if I yell loud enough the state legislature might hear me. This would both raise revenue and reduce congestion (and therefore pollution) without buying a bunch of these stupid boxes.
It's a tough read, but it's definitly worth it:
Godel, Esher and Bach
See it on amazon or go to the library
I'm not quite sure what I'm replying to (I just skimmed it) but I'm quite sure that I'm right and the poster is mistaken; he's either a liberal or a conservative and wrong either way. Plus he's an MS troll. Or a Linux troll. His cat website is cool thought.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to write up the submission...
try those "href" tags; it's not that hard - links are good when they work.
Remember - *hyper*text
There is something reassuring about calm and respectful discussion of a serious issue; it also seems, from the text of the Lord's discussion, that the Lords hadn't entirley made up their minds about this issue - wheas in the US Senate, it is always a debate, never a discussion
I like this version better:
,,, in brail on the back of road signs.
Give 1,000 Southerners each a shotgun, and provide infinite ammo. As t-> intinity, they will produce the entire works of shakespear
So if I shuffle the tracks on my play list I have created a new album (every ten burns - thanks Steve J)? Where do you make the distinction?
I belive there is a fundamental difference between
a) re-createing or re-interpreting another artist's theme with your own intruments; this is the essence of creativity and artistic response. As far as I am concerened, the only thing you owe the orginal artist here is credit
b) digitally swiping and replaying another's recording in your own; even if you change the speed (the verve) around a bit, you're simply repackaging someone else's work. The fundamental idea of music is that you are creating and assembling notes, wheras this crap is just replaying and rearanging other's taped notes.
I'm sure people are going to respond saying "find a technical, not a political, solution." The fact is, this problem exists now, and a technical solution isn't forthcoming. Sometimes, a political solution is appropriate to legislate interactive conduct. A silly, but still applicable analogue: shoplifting might be considered a 'technical problem' with running a store - but we still pass laws against it! At the same time, stores employ technical means against shoplifters. Similarly, SPAM is probably best addressed from both sides - the public and private approach, if you will...
Already in my dorm, I can see three computers with iTunes 4 on the network, sharing their libraries. I can listen to other's music like a radio station- I can't save it, of course, but it's fun to set someone else's playlist on random play and listen to what they have. And if they have something I like, it's off to the apple store
I have to stand by the idea that this is Big News for the music industry, and more importantly for music users... Steve Jobs took to heart the fact that the cost of music is the cover price plus the cost the user associates with any copy protection. Under that system of accounting, this is perhaps the cheapest (legal) large scale music distribution system yet. Anohter user posted a question as to whether artists will be allowed to post 'tunes in the store without a record company - I would guess that the anwser is no, in order to get the companies on board, but if they could, the relevancy of record companies would suddenly become much more questionable.
Either way, it seems like this has the potential to revolutionize how people listen to music. And I'm glad Apple is on the right side of the curve.
Yes, but the money (in theory; in the last few decades we just seem to be borrowing and borrowing) is 'paid back' in taxes during boom times, when the government needs to slow the economy to prevent inflation (or so goes the idea of Keynsian stimulus.) The simple beuty of this idea is that the government borrows money to stimulate the economy when it needs it, and pays it back by slowing it down when needed. If everyone got together and spent or saved as needed, there would be no need for this - but you try convincing everyone to spend money at the same time... Tax cuts acheive a similar, but dilouted function- some of the rebate is saved, not spent.
I'm sorry, Christ, but you're wrong. Stimulus spending does not come from tax revenue; rather, it is finianced by borrowing (government deficit). Some economists belive there is a risk of crowding out (raised interest rates) because of this, but it is not as you describe it
But you're missing an important distinction; I'm not interested in screwing the bells - I'm interested in not having them screw me! Competitve market forces exist in the cell phone industry, because the fixed costs are so much lower in running a cell network. Hell, I'd buy my phone coverage from Microsoft, or anyone else if the price was right.
I agree- but for one thing: I get telemarketing calls on my cell phone too! I know it's illegal, but what can I do about it? Not to mention that many times I get calls from friends in the dorm, where caller ID won't work, so I can't screen calls that way
I think the real motivation for the undetecatblilty by other snoopers clause is for this reason: if you were doing something illegal, and it were possible to detect a tap if you were also tapping, then it would make sense to tap your own connection, and you could determine if anyone else (the feds / police) were doing so