I remember the reasoning behind the telecom act of 1996. It went something like, "deregulating telecommunications will allow there to be more competition, therefore reducing prices."
Yeah... right. That really happened. Is this then the deregulation of deregulation? It seems that this time the deregulation will reestablish the monopolies, but without government regulation. At least before AT&T was broken up, there was some regulation, and they couldn't gouge people TOO much.
I guess I'll just continue using my other-unregulated-monopoly cable modem.
Let them continue to "trusted computing," as well as intel. Actually, I wish they had already done it.
The reason being is that by making such drastic changes in the OS/platform towards DRM, there will be a continuous decrease in the numbers of people who will be willing to buy their products. People will look elsewhere. The major vendors will be forced to start shipping systems with Linux or no OS in order to remain competitive.
I always consider that there is a possibility that my assesment may not be on the mark. However, I do find it odd that the mainstream media tends to provide massive coverage of relatively unimportant things like who in Hollywood is marrying|divorcing|murdering|whatever else rather than stuff that directly affects the population of this country, such as the remewal of the patriot act, presidential orders 13303 and 13315, Echelon, etc..., whereas indymedia does cover these topics.
Maybe this is just a symptom of the apathy of the American people and I'm just making mountains out of molehills. Maybe not. I don't really know.
Don't you send your posts from an anonymizing location via someone else's rootkitted system?
Hehehe... Stupid as I may be, I submit from home and work.
You're likely correct that it already has happened here, without taking down the whole server. Oh well, I guess that many of us are probably on some list somewhere, at the very least, for marketing purposes;)
While it is a large mistake to make, I can almost see this mistake as a good thing.
The reason for this is that it brings to light how aggressive the US government can be (or is assumed to be, arguably), in cens^H^H^H^H protecting the people from those 'dissenting terrorists.' [sarcasm]After all, if you're not with us, then you must be a terrorist. [/sarcasm]... and this seems to include reporting on anything that is not approved by the Ministry of Truth.
The interesting thing to me is that this apparently has not happened with the/. servers, given some of the comments that some people make here (extreme on both sides of the fence).
It's been a long time, and I was only thinking in the narrow-minded ways of the infantry where they made us chant: *Hands on M16* - this is my weapon *Hands on crotch* - this is my gun *Hands on M16* - this is for killing *Hands on crotch* - this is for fun
Now that I've stopped being pedantic, I'll agree with you 100% about DRM - it is all about context.
Agreed. The main reason that my family is hesitant to migrate to any distro of Linux is the learning curve involved. I see this as very helpful in making it easier for Windows users to transition to Linux. To me, this is the middle ground that may not be so scary for the average home user. I would even be willing to pay for it, if it makes it easier for me to support my family's system, and eventually move them to a more "pure" distro.
...Army) takes a hard line on drug use and I have o problem with that. See, I dont like the idea of the guy next to me with a gun being stoned
Somebody who refers to a weapon as a "gun" is not in the Army. Having been in the Army, I would agree that it is not good having somebody in your unit stoned, but not everybody is in the Army, nor does everybody carry a weapon. People who do not have jobs that can put others at risk should be free to do what they want in their own time, including smoking a J.
Hmmm... This will indeed discourage tourism. However, it comes as no surprise, given that everytime Bush has given a speech or press conference, he's been saying things like, "we've got to get them tourist groups with ties to Al-Qaeda."
Peter Gibbons: You see Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. Bob Porter: Don't... don't care? Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's another thing, I have eight different bosses right now. Bob Porter: Eight? Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
That's interesting. I live in Virginia and I'm quite happy with him. So is everybody else I know.
He has cut back a lot of programs, but that was mostly due to those programs being payoffs to other politician's friends (and those were ALWAYS way over budget). Just look at the "mixing bowl" project - that has been going on for over 12 years, with little noticeable progress, and the Virginia government just threw more and more money at it. Now, it too is making significant progress, and may actually be finished!
Look at it this way, he inherited a real mess, and is making do with the resources with which he has to work. One of the first things that Warner did was to start work on reducing the corruption in the commonwealth. If he runs for president, maybe he can do the same at the federal level. Seems to me that reducing the corruption there is even more important than in Virginia.
The problem is that you are not actually a shareholder, the mutual fund is. You only have shares of the fund. Therefore, the fund manager (and management company) is who has the power to vote out the current management.
It seems to me that the most you can do is send a letter to the fund manager requesting that they take some action. Or, you can transfer your money out of that fund and into one that does not invest in these companies. If enough people did this (and informed the fund managers of the reasons), then the funds would likely have to sell their stock in sony in order to keep the fund alive. This would have a serious impact on sony's bottom line, and their major investors are the mutual funds.
If consumers can just pick and choose songs, why should artists bother releasing anything other than what they feel confident will be a hit single? Why bother stringing themes throughout multiple songs or writing tunes that are longer/heavier/whatever-er than what passes as a single.
That's an interesting point. I've usually found that the better songs on a CD are not the ones that are "hits." I think these songs are the ones that the artists put on there because they want to.
The concern that I have with the "download one song at a time" idea is that it may end up being a disincentive to the artists to actually create quility music; that the labels won't let them make anything that won't be an over-promoted sounds-like-all-the-other-crappy-radio-music hit.
[oldFogey] Popular music today isn't what is used to be in my day; now it's all crap [/oldFogey]
Agreed. It seems to me that there is still a loooooong way to go with SS storage. IMHO, the people who would need this kind of speed are likely to be editing a lot of video (or some other system-intensive stuff), so therefore would also need tons of storage.
That being said, I do like the idea, and when they have something that's 300GB+ and solid state, I'd be happy to pay a few hundred dollars for it. It would be quite useful for a media system.
Live performance. Some musicians can actually sing outside of a studio. People will pay to see this. Others are pretty good at putting on a show and miming, people will pay to see this too. This is the product that musicians should be trying to sell - entertainment
I think this just about sums it up. Musicians make much more from touring than CD sales. They get a higher percentage of the ticket sales, as well as a cut of all of the 'stuff' sold at the venues (tee-shirts, etc...).
The problem stems from the fact that the music industry does not care about real musical talent, only about the money they can make from entertainment. Entertainers usually know how to prance about the stage, and may or may not know how to sing. Those are the pretty people. Real musicians don't have to look good for people to enjoy their shows. In order for these entertainers to make money for the labels, they have to be over-promoted, and this means payola, excessive advertising, cross-promotion with television, as well as bitching about how their CD sales are down due to 'piracy' (I detest that term, as I doubt we'll see many geeks pillaging ships on the high seas - I digress).
These people know that their sorry-excuse-for-music sucks, but which of these means more sales for them and the labels? A) Whining about people downloading their "music" for free, or B) Admiting that they are not really musicians
Please allow me to dispel this myth that the majority of the American people support this asshole.
From this page: 2004 Election Data Summary Bush: 62,041,268 (50.73%) Kerry: 59,028,548 (48.27%) Total: 122,293,720 Turnout rate among voting-eligible: 60.3%
So, doing the math, only 30.59019% of the voting-eligible population actually support him. That is not over 50% of the population. Also, I have spoken with several people who actually did vote for this guy, and they have since told me that they regret it . Not that it does any good now:(
I, for one, do not support violence. I think that things would have to go really far in order for there to be enough people pissed off to actually stage a violent revolt. I really hope it never gets to that point.
That being said, if it really comes down to that, then it does, and action of that sort will have to be taken.
As an aside (and response to GP), there is a significant number of trained soldiers in the civilian populace (I am one), so lack of training for such a thing would not be so much of an issue. Military-grade weapons, while not available to the civilians at first, can be appropriated with time.
They aren't even fundamentalists. If these people were really religious, they would not be bombing people all over the world (thou shalt not kill; love thy neighbor, etc...). This applies to democrats too.
These people are nothing but a bunch of crooks.
Disclaimer: I am assuming that you were referring to religious fundamentalists.
The issue is not specifically a republican one now. It's an issue of greed, corruption, and basic anti-social behavior that is driving this agenda. The republican party has been taken over by a bunch of thugs, so it does not really represent the real conservatives (who actually value privacy) any more. The democratic party is just as bad, their "officials" being either too stupid (or afraid) to stand up to the thugs, or they have joined the thugs.
However, in both parties, there are a few (very few) exceptions. Those few are the ones that will actually be reelected in the midterms and 2008, the rest will be canned.
[tin-foil-hat] This is provided we actually have legitimate elections. [/tin-foil-hat]
Companies show time and time again that what they care about is "who's at the office?"
Isn't this the truth?
At my previous employer, I had VPN access, and could work from home. One day, during hurricane Ivan, my manager insisted that I be physically in the office. I responded with several emails providing links to the hurricane information, the NWS site, and even our state governor's message to employers telling them to let their employees stay home. He continued to be adamant. Finally, I told him that neither he nor the company was worth risking my life for, and he finally gave up. The next day, I asked him why he was so persistent about it, and the best he could do was to tell me that he wanted his boss to see me at the office.
That was when I knew that I was time to start looking for another job.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... right. That really happened. Is this then the deregulation of deregulation? It seems that this time the deregulation will reestablish the monopolies, but without government regulation. At least before AT&T was broken up, there was some regulation, and they couldn't gouge people TOO much.
I guess I'll just continue using my other-unregulated-monopoly cable modem.
Well written - Hehehe
The reason being is that by making such drastic changes in the OS/platform towards DRM, there will be a continuous decrease in the numbers of people who will be willing to buy their products. People will look elsewhere. The major vendors will be forced to start shipping systems with Linux or no OS in order to remain competitive.
Let 'em.
Classic! Thanks for the laugh!
Maybe this is just a symptom of the apathy of the American people and I'm just making mountains out of molehills. Maybe not. I don't really know.
Hehehe... Stupid as I may be, I submit from home and work.
You're likely correct that it already has happened here, without taking down the whole server. Oh well, I guess that many of us are probably on some list somewhere, at the very least, for marketing purposes ;)
The reason for this is that it brings to light how aggressive the US government can be (or is assumed to be, arguably), in cens^H^H^H^H protecting the people from those 'dissenting terrorists.' [sarcasm]After all, if you're not with us, then you must be a terrorist. [/sarcasm] ... and this seems to include reporting on anything that is not approved by the Ministry of Truth.
The interesting thing to me is that this apparently has not happened with the /. servers, given some of the comments that some people make here (extreme on both sides of the fence).
But... did they let you keep your red Swingline stapler?
:-)
It's been a long time, and I was only thinking in the narrow-minded ways of the infantry where they made us chant:
*Hands on M16* - this is my weapon
*Hands on crotch* - this is my gun
*Hands on M16* - this is for killing
*Hands on crotch* - this is for fun
Now that I've stopped being pedantic, I'll agree with you 100% about DRM - it is all about context.
One could say that FBI is an acromyn for:
For Big Industry.
Agreed. The main reason that my family is hesitant to migrate to any distro of Linux is the learning curve involved. I see this as very helpful in making it easier for Windows users to transition to Linux. To me, this is the middle ground that may not be so scary for the average home user. I would even be willing to pay for it, if it makes it easier for me to support my family's system, and eventually move them to a more "pure" distro.
Somebody who refers to a weapon as a "gun" is not in the Army. Having been in the Army, I would agree that it is not good having somebody in your unit stoned, but not everybody is in the Army, nor does everybody carry a weapon. People who do not have jobs that can put others at risk should be free to do what they want in their own time, including smoking a J.
btw... IANAPS.
:)
Peter Gibbons: You see Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
Bob Porter: Don't... don't care?
Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's another thing, I have eight different bosses right now.
Bob Porter: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
He has cut back a lot of programs, but that was mostly due to those programs being payoffs to other politician's friends (and those were ALWAYS way over budget). Just look at the "mixing bowl" project - that has been going on for over 12 years, with little noticeable progress, and the Virginia government just threw more and more money at it. Now, it too is making significant progress, and may actually be finished!
Look at it this way, he inherited a real mess, and is making do with the resources with which he has to work. One of the first things that Warner did was to start work on reducing the corruption in the commonwealth. If he runs for president, maybe he can do the same at the federal level. Seems to me that reducing the corruption there is even more important than in Virginia.
It seems to me that the most you can do is send a letter to the fund manager requesting that they take some action. Or, you can transfer your money out of that fund and into one that does not invest in these companies. If enough people did this (and informed the fund managers of the reasons), then the funds would likely have to sell their stock in sony in order to keep the fund alive. This would have a serious impact on sony's bottom line, and their major investors are the mutual funds.
That's an interesting point. I've usually found that the better songs on a CD are not the ones that are "hits." I think these songs are the ones that the artists put on there because they want to.
The concern that I have with the "download one song at a time" idea is that it may end up being a disincentive to the artists to actually create quility music; that the labels won't let them make anything that won't be an over-promoted sounds-like-all-the-other-crappy-radio-music hit.
[oldFogey]
Popular music today isn't what is used to be in my day; now it's all crap
[/oldFogey]
That being said, I do like the idea, and when they have something that's 300GB+ and solid state, I'd be happy to pay a few hundred dollars for it. It would be quite useful for a media system.
I think this just about sums it up. Musicians make much more from touring than CD sales. They get a higher percentage of the ticket sales, as well as a cut of all of the 'stuff' sold at the venues (tee-shirts, etc...).
The problem stems from the fact that the music industry does not care about real musical talent, only about the money they can make from entertainment. Entertainers usually know how to prance about the stage, and may or may not know how to sing. Those are the pretty people. Real musicians don't have to look good for people to enjoy their shows. In order for these entertainers to make money for the labels, they have to be over-promoted, and this means payola, excessive advertising, cross-promotion with television, as well as bitching about how their CD sales are down due to 'piracy' (I detest that term, as I doubt we'll see many geeks pillaging ships on the high seas - I digress).
These people know that their sorry-excuse-for-music sucks, but which of these means more sales for them and the labels?
A) Whining about people downloading their "music" for free, or
B) Admiting that they are not really musicians
*Hands on M16* - this is my weapon
*Hands on crotch* - this is my gun
*Hands on M16* - this is for killing
*Hands on crotch* - this is for fun
Yes - we really had to do this.
From this page:
2004 Election Data Summary
Bush: 62,041,268 (50.73%)
Kerry: 59,028,548 (48.27%)
Total: 122,293,720
Turnout rate among voting-eligible: 60.3%
So, doing the math, only 30.59019% of the voting-eligible population actually support him. That is not over 50% of the population. Also, I have spoken with several people who actually did vote for this guy, and they have since told me that they regret it . Not that it does any good now :(
That being said, if it really comes down to that, then it does, and action of that sort will have to be taken.
As an aside (and response to GP), there is a significant number of trained soldiers in the civilian populace (I am one), so lack of training for such a thing would not be so much of an issue. Military-grade weapons, while not available to the civilians at first, can be appropriated with time.
These people are nothing but a bunch of crooks.
Disclaimer: I am assuming that you were referring to religious fundamentalists.
However, in both parties, there are a few (very few) exceptions. Those few are the ones that will actually be reelected in the midterms and 2008, the rest will be canned.
[tin-foil-hat]
This is provided we actually have legitimate elections.
[/tin-foil-hat]
Isn't this the truth?
At my previous employer, I had VPN access, and could work from home. One day, during hurricane Ivan, my manager insisted that I be physically in the office. I responded with several emails providing links to the hurricane information, the NWS site, and even our state governor's message to employers telling them to let their employees stay home. He continued to be adamant. Finally, I told him that neither he nor the company was worth risking my life for, and he finally gave up. The next day, I asked him why he was so persistent about it, and the best he could do was to tell me that he wanted his boss to see me at the office.
That was when I knew that I was time to start looking for another job.