A facebook is a just a pictured list of students that they hand out to freshmen so they can get acquainted. Zuckerberg jumps from that to registering "Facebook" to wanting to control xyzBook ?
The thing is, it's a kind of blackmailing process: If you want access to the largest economy in the world (the US), you have to play by its rules, no matter where you are on the globe.
It's an economic calculation for businesses: target all of the world without restrictions, or target most of it plus the US?
Of course, this only works so long as the US is on top.
With China becoming the second-largest economy now, it'll become the largest in a few decades, and then the gig is up:
Is there something inherent in a huge, unwieldy piece of paper that makes suitable for "serious news"?
Or is it that broadsheets are meant for people reading the news at their desks?
And tabloids for people that need their paper to take up as little space as possible because they're working class people on the bus/subway/train? And the latter sort would be more interested in non-serious news?
First of all, I don't agree that there should be any special protections for journalists. Everybody should have the right to say what they want, and to be able to protect their privacy.
But I never thought that there would be a difference in protection for a columnist vs. a "journalist". After all, isn't a columnist free to speak his mind? You could say that a columnist actually needs greater protection because he is the one who is usually speaking against government officials, not journalists, who fancy a notion of impartiality.
And why wouldn't a columnist be allowed to do original research? Is there a law that says columnists can only form their opinions based upon the news in the AP newswire, and they can't receive information from sources directly?
There's a big debate among water purification vendors about this.
On the one hand, makers of non-RO (reverse osmosis) systems say that you need minerals in water.
Vendors of reverse-osmosis or large solar distillers reply that people have been drinking rain water (which doesn't have minerals) without adverse health effects, so you don't need minerals in water.
For one, from the user perspective, you don't have to install applications. Leaving aside the permissions issue, it's an advantage that you don't have to give full access to your computer to 10 random apps off the Web when you're evaluating, say a mail program or a graphics program.
Second, again you don't have to install programs. It's easier and faster to get to the point where you're running the program. You don't have to go through the download, run, click through the "Are you sure you want to run this dangerous program" dialog, click through the installer, and then find the program in Start>Programs. And there's no uninstall, no VB/VC/.NET runtimes or other detritus left on your system.
Third, again from the vendor perspective, the user doesn't have to run install programs. If you want to make an update, or fix a bug, you do it, test, and roll out. The change is instantly available to users without having to go through and upgrade process.
Finally, you while you lose the nicety of some native widgets, you gain the link paradigm, which is great because you can easily connect various portions of an application.
Well, if you're a conservative, you probably believe in the original intent of the Consitution, which includes the power of Congress to create post offices and roads for transporting post (mail).
The analogy to backbone exchanges and Internet tubes carrying e-mail (and other POSTs and GETs) is quite obvious. So the Congress has the ability under the Constitution to create infrastructure for information sharing. (If you don't accept that extension, then you can't extend the First Amendment and freedom of the "press" to electronic forms of communication, either.)
In fact, it seems that Congress could even set up a monopoly in public electronic network infrastructure if it wanted to.
Finally, isn't a lot of the Internet backbone carried over railway rights-of-way? Apparently, all railroads are designated post roads. As such, that gives Congress an additional power to regulate the Internet (above merely being interstate commerce).
On the other hand, Internet packets should be treated something like the mail as far as privacy goes.
But the Internet is not simply an amusement. It's basic infrastructure. Like roads and ports. With better and faster Internet access:
1) More people could telecommute easier. Complete virtual offices. 2) Less new roads needed. 3) People can do jobs in rural communities, lessening urban overcrowding 4) Less oil needs to be imported from unstable countries etc.
The current system of the Internet is like if American Airlines owned its own airports, and then if you were going to fly to Disneyland, AA would request a cut of the profits from Disney!
One alternative to FCC-imposed net neutrality might be going with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).
Basically: 1. If you operate a network (BBS, whatever) strictly within state lines, do watcha wanna do.
2. If you contract with entities for cross-state services (Internet backbone access), AND if you advertise "Internet service", you have to provide real "Internet service".
3. Otherwise, you can advertise "AOL", Compuserve, "Comcast network service", etc., not "Internet service"
What I don't understand is why the government can't allow other companies to either string along their own wires (in neighborhoods that have telephone poles) or pull wires (in neighborhoods that have "a series of tubes" underground).
Even though ports in the US are (often) managed by private companies (which is sort of like the monopolies granted to ISPs), they are not allowed to discriminate on ship traffic.
But, wait, just how did Comcast, Verizon, etc. string all those cables and associated network detritus across people's property?
Is that a case of takings?
Is that unjust enrichment of one group?
I'd agree with you if we were talking about taking resources from Microsoft's private to give to poor Birkenstock-wearing students.
How about this: Acme, Inc., can play with its network however it wants, but it also can't tresspass on any homeowner's property. Does that sound OK?
Or how about this: Stop trying to double-dip, stop trying to be an arbiter of who is able to communicate with whom and keep the benefits given to network companies by the people and governments over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference here, though, is that "facebook" is a generic term.
It would be like the respective companies above tried to register "vacuum flask" and "moving staircase" instead of thermos and escalator.
The funniest thing about it is "facebook" is a generic noun!
"A reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook
A facebook is a just a pictured list of students that they hand out to freshmen so they can get acquainted. Zuckerberg jumps from that to registering "Facebook" to wanting to control xyzBook ?
Origins of Facebook
Did this guy pull the chute and slide down on his way out?
Is that Answerin' Genesis?
Or Answering Enesis?
I don't know what an "Enesis" is, but it sounds to close to "enema" for comfort.
The thing is, it's a kind of blackmailing process: If you want access to the largest economy in the world (the US), you have to play by its rules, no matter where you are on the globe.
It's an economic calculation for businesses: target all of the world without restrictions, or target most of it plus the US?
Of course, this only works so long as the US is on top.
With China becoming the second-largest economy now, it'll become the largest in a few decades, and then the gig is up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=china+second+largest+economy
Was that, ahem, "Unbreakable Linux" that broke?
Just when you need it the most:
http://www.gizoogle.com/
For some reason it isn't working at the moment. (Are the North Koreans translating their Facebook page?)
South Korea has Facebook.com access. North Korea has PoliceBlotter.kp
In South Korea, people Blip when they buy something. In North Korea, they don't need to because there's nothing to buy.
Also, in South Korea only old people use email. But in North Korea, Nigeria can't email them.
In South Korea, they can access the whole Internets. But in North Korea, they have no goatse.cx.
So, you see, it's a wash.
No one should need more than 640 ports.
Rape, murder? Eh.
Just wait for the really big one:
He torrented a movie off of Pirate Bay.
The thing is, I don't understand why they have to make bike seats with a pointy thing protruding.
Can't they make a wide seat that the buttocks rest on with a cut in the middle?
I thought that this was going to end with "does anyone hear it"?
The thing is, why should "tabloid" mean sleazy?
After all, it's just a paper size.
Is there something inherent in a huge, unwieldy piece of paper that makes suitable for "serious news"?
Or is it that broadsheets are meant for people reading the news at their desks?
And tabloids for people that need their paper to take up as little space as possible because they're working class people on the bus/subway/train? And the latter sort would be more interested in non-serious news?
Are you serious, or just surmising?
First of all, I don't agree that there should be any special protections for journalists. Everybody should have the right to say what they want, and to be able to protect their privacy.
But I never thought that there would be a difference in protection for a columnist vs. a "journalist". After all, isn't a columnist free to speak his mind? You could say that a columnist actually needs greater protection because he is the one who is usually speaking against government officials, not journalists, who fancy a notion of impartiality.
And why wouldn't a columnist be allowed to do original research? Is there a law that says columnists can only form their opinions based upon the news in the AP newswire, and they can't receive information from sources directly?
Do you mind sharing what water filtration system you have?
There's a big debate among water purification vendors about this.
On the one hand, makers of non-RO (reverse osmosis) systems say that you need minerals in water.
Vendors of reverse-osmosis or large solar distillers reply that people have been drinking rain water (which doesn't have minerals) without adverse health effects, so you don't need minerals in water.
I'll admit that it's slower than native code.
But it's not "completely pointless".
For one, from the user perspective, you don't have to install applications. Leaving aside the permissions issue, it's an advantage that you don't have to give full access to your computer to 10 random apps off the Web when you're evaluating, say a mail program or a graphics program.
Second, again you don't have to install programs. It's easier and faster to get to the point where you're running the program. You don't have to go through the download, run, click through the "Are you sure you want to run this dangerous program" dialog, click through the installer, and then find the program in Start>Programs. And there's no uninstall, no VB/VC/.NET runtimes or other detritus left on your system.
Third, again from the vendor perspective, the user doesn't have to run install programs. If you want to make an update, or fix a bug, you do it, test, and roll out. The change is instantly available to users without having to go through and upgrade process.
Finally, you while you lose the nicety of some native widgets, you gain the link paradigm, which is great because you can easily connect various portions of an application.
>Looks like a Global Supply Manager position just became available!
To whom should I make out the check?
Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999) (TV)
Triumph of the Nerds
Nerds 2.0.1
Well, if you're a conservative, you probably believe in the original intent of the Consitution, which includes the power of Congress to create post offices and roads for transporting post (mail).
The analogy to backbone exchanges and Internet tubes carrying e-mail (and other POSTs and GETs) is quite obvious. So the Congress has the ability under the Constitution to create infrastructure for information sharing. (If you don't accept that extension, then you can't extend the First Amendment and freedom of the "press" to electronic forms of communication, either.)
In fact, it seems that Congress could even set up a monopoly in public electronic network infrastructure if it wanted to.
Finally, isn't a lot of the Internet backbone carried over railway rights-of-way? Apparently, all railroads are designated post roads. As such, that gives Congress an additional power to regulate the Internet (above merely being interstate commerce).
On the other hand, Internet packets should be treated something like the mail as far as privacy goes.
Right, if we're talking about Mr. Bean dolls or Cabbage Patch Kids, let them charge whatever the market will bear.
But the Internet is not simply an amusement. It's basic infrastructure. Like roads and ports. With better and faster Internet access:
1) More people could telecommute easier. Complete virtual offices.
2) Less new roads needed.
3) People can do jobs in rural communities, lessening urban overcrowding
4) Less oil needs to be imported from unstable countries
etc.
The current system of the Internet is like if American Airlines owned its own airports, and then if you were going to fly to Disneyland, AA would request a cut of the profits from Disney!
One alternative to FCC-imposed net neutrality might be going with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).
Basically:
1. If you operate a network (BBS, whatever) strictly within state lines, do watcha wanna do.
2. If you contract with entities for cross-state services (Internet backbone access), AND if you advertise "Internet service", you have to provide real "Internet service".
3. Otherwise, you can advertise "AOL", Compuserve, "Comcast network service", etc., not "Internet service"
What I don't understand is why the government can't allow other companies to either string along their own wires (in neighborhoods that have telephone poles) or pull wires (in neighborhoods that have "a series of tubes" underground).
Yeah, here's another one:
Even though ports in the US are (often) managed by private companies (which is sort of like the monopolies granted to ISPs), they are not allowed to discriminate on ship traffic.
But, wait, just how did Comcast, Verizon, etc. string all those cables and associated network detritus across people's property?
Is that a case of takings?
Is that unjust enrichment of one group?
I'd agree with you if we were talking about taking resources from Microsoft's private to give to poor Birkenstock-wearing students.
How about this: Acme, Inc., can play with its network however it wants, but it also can't tresspass on any homeowner's property. Does that sound OK?
Or how about this: Stop trying to double-dip, stop trying to be an arbiter of who is able to communicate with whom and keep the benefits given to network companies by the people and governments over the years.