Oh, hell, there's nowhere to start. A start implies a finish, and I'm just not motivated enough to deal with all the hyperbole, straw-man arguments, logical fallicies, etc.
This is, strictly speaking, terrorism: harming innnocent people as a way to pressure some central authority into doing what you want.
No. No... No, there's just something not right about that. I'm pretty sure that the definition of terrorism includes the idea of terror somewhere...
Ahhh. That's more like it: Terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Yeah, violence should induce terror. Not being able to send emails to my girlfriend, as hair-raising an idea as that might be, just doesn't seem to be in the same league.
And just in case Mr. Graham is too lazy to find a dictionary to look up hyperbole for himself: hyperbole - n : extravagant exaggeration
The Creative Commons site features a set of educational comics done under the CC license.
This sounds really interesting. I've always felt that the future of education is in comics. I really wanted to see what had been done when I saw this quote, but, alas, I couldn't find it on their website. Does anyone know what he's specifically talking about or, even better, have a direct link to said comics?
I don't want to see Disney come back. I want Disney to go down in flames. Let Disney serve as a lesson to all who decide that the proper way to earn money is to change laws.
I've boycotted them ever since I discovered the atrocity that is called the Sony Bono copyright act, and I'm elated to find that they're contributing to their own demise.
I think there are some people who are just gonna suffer no matter what they do. Does anyone remember the mechanical web hit counter that was linked to on slashdot back in the day? I just think that it's mechanically impossible for him to handle the slashdot effect.
The more I read, the more I discover, the easier and cheaper it becomes to contact us, the more beseiged we become by these spammers and phishers, the more convinced I am that the only possible response is to ban all email and calls from businesses. None should get through. Not a one.
We could make a "slight" exception for opt-in newsletters, but any sort of commercial message that has not been explicitly asked for, and signed for in the clearest possible way, should open the sender up to extreme fines. It is no longer worth the risk we run of having our bank accounts, our credit cards, our lives snooped into and stolen in exchange for the ability of Wal-Mart or Carrefour to send me a personalized greeting.
In 10 years, phone numbers will no longer mean a thing as we pass from telephones to VoIP, and then the floodgates will open. Someone did a very good analysis (I forget where) about telemarketing centers in India being able to turn a profit if they only ask for $5 per call (an amount that most people would be ready to pay for even the silliest things, witness ring-tones) and have an incredibly low-- 1 to 2%-- success rate. With all the detailed info they already have, and the ability to call you for FREE over an untraceable line, imagine what a fisher could do?
I hate to sound so vitriolic, and I don't mean to be a Chicken Little, but this is a serious issue that we have to attack now, not later. By accepting calls from unknown parties, we are rapidly losing the ability to distinguish between friend and foe. We should ban it all, at the source, and make companies ultra-cautious about contacting anyone without proper authorization. This is the only way I see that we're going to regain our ability to know that the person on the other end of the phone can be trusted.
P.S. I just bought my first mac, a PowerBook, and don't regret switching at all. The number of things Apple gets right overcomes the incredible boneheaded stuborness that is Rev. Steve and the ensuing inconvenience of having to use both hands to do anything useful with my computer.
Why should they be so scared of it? Is it made to attack them? Is the stated goal of BitTorrent to attack incessently, to give no quarter to the BSA?
Or are they just self-rightious overreacters that think that everything technological that doesn't come from them is a threat to their god-ordained, constitutionally protected business model?
yes... but you have to remember that outside the US nobody pays (even in minutes) for incoming calls. and to get on a proper network with decent coverage (and intl support) that 3500 minutes will cost you $150-$200. (from Cingular's website).
I won't argue that number, because I'm too lazy to check it out, but my mom is with Cingular, and she has 3500min/mo for $30 or so. I should know, I'm the one who signed her up a year ago January.
So I don't know exactly what you're talking about, but it sounds like premium services, and those are always super-duper expensive. My two hours are just that. Two hours. Nothing more. No special services, no cool intl support, no data, just talk time.
And, yeah, the incoming is only free for YOU. Pity the foo' who calls you (25c-45c/min).
I mean, in the long run, there was no way to know which system of billing for cell calls was better, but clearly America has the better system. I pay more in Europe for an SMS than I do for a minute in America. Puh-lease.
Well, I would start by arguing that the fact that America has various technologies is EXACTLY what is intended in an unregulated market. Each company is free to go its own way, and the best technology for the money comes out on top.
But, yes, in principle I agree with you about many things. However, lest we forget the purpose of a cell phone, it's to talk. Not to send emails. Not to send SMSs. Not to download web pages. To talk.
America: calling to a cellphone is free. Europe: calling to a cellphone costs from $0.25 to $0.45/min.
America: 3500 minutes for around $30/mo. France: 120 minutes for $70. (And England is even more expensive)
So while we do have access to these technologies, no one uses them because no one can afford them. In Europe, we have everyone jumping on the same bandwagon, 3G, and everyone was hemorraging money for a long time because no consumers wanted those services. Don't get me wrong, offer me unlimited surfing on my phone for free, and I *might* consider it. But ask me to pay $15/mo. for that?
They can take their technological advantage and shove it. I just want to pay less to talk.
Yeah, poor us yanks. We only get 3500min/mo for $30.
While it's really cool that the 3G networks can do so much, it doesn't make me feel any better about paying $70/mo in France for 2 hours of talk time. Because, you know, a cell phone is, like, for talkin' and stuff. I could easily do without that extra network capability that no one ever uses in exchange for 50% off my bill.
What about the NA internet market? It's absolutely absurd the prices that we have to pay in America. I agree with your general point, that the competition is essential, and I wholeheartedly agree with the cell phone market example, I completely disagree that internet is competitive. It's anything but, and the current players are doing their best to make it less and less.
(For reference, let's review the procedure for obtaining broadband in the U.S. Step #1: Call up your cable or DSL provider, walk through the options, and decide what you want. Step #2: Receive and install the modem, or have an installer do it for you. Step #3: There is no Step #3!)
Sometimes you get bad luck, and that's all there is to it. But I'd rather have a run of bad luck, and pay next to nothing, then have it instantly work, at miserable bandwidths, for gobs of money. It's amazing what a little bit of competition combined with a sensible urban growth policy (basically NOBODY lives more than a few km away from a DSLAM) gives.
The alleged perpetrators used the personal information of four NY-based clients to transfer ~$350,000 (Rs. 1.5 crores) in their names, a large sum in Indian currency.
I would have thought $350,000 is a large sum in ANY currency.
As much as I applaud the decision to save the environment, would this not cause problems for things such as bughunts? Would they sell two tiers of chips, those for developers, and those for consumers?
This is going to be very interesting to see played out. They're going after the iPod Shuffle market, with nary a thought to even partially concealing their inspiration.
However, there's absolutely nothing wrong with copying a good idea. Apple has no patent for the concept of an mp3 player, and I don't know if they can claim that a white tongue depressor is a "copyrighted piece of art". Otherwise the whole USB key market would be in a state of utter chaos, as my USB key looks pretty much like everyone elses.
The iPod Suffle is certainly a trademark, but the SuperShuffle isn't the same thing, and no one is going to be fooled. Apple doesn't make the "Shuffle"-- they make an iPod with "Shuffle" attached. I would argue that the SuperShuffle is as legal a name as the SuperPhoto or the SuperMini.
So, would Apple have a leg to stand on? Or is this a situation where the consumer (finally) is going to win on all sides?
Someone refresh my memory: doesn't Mac offer free upgrades for all Macs bought sufficiently close to the new version's release date? If this is the case, how close is close enough?
Slashdot Mirror
but then I figured that that pretty much shows how not smart I am.
Anyone else have a better way to measure my cranial capacity?
Oh, hell, there's nowhere to start. A start implies a finish, and I'm just not motivated enough to deal with all the hyperbole, straw-man arguments, logical fallicies, etc.
This is, strictly speaking, terrorism: harming innnocent people as a way to pressure some central authority into doing what you want.
No. No... No, there's just something not right about that. I'm pretty sure that the definition of terrorism includes the idea of terror somewhere...
Ahhh. That's more like it: Terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Yeah, violence should induce terror. Not being able to send emails to my girlfriend, as hair-raising an idea as that might be, just doesn't seem to be in the same league.
And just in case Mr. Graham is too lazy to find a dictionary to look up hyperbole for himself: hyperbole - n : extravagant exaggeration
The Creative Commons site features a set of educational comics done under the CC license.
This sounds really interesting. I've always felt that the future of education is in comics. I really wanted to see what had been done when I saw this quote, but, alas, I couldn't find it on their website. Does anyone know what he's specifically talking about or, even better, have a direct link to said comics?
I don't want to see Disney come back. I want Disney to go down in flames. Let Disney serve as a lesson to all who decide that the proper way to earn money is to change laws.
I've boycotted them ever since I discovered the atrocity that is called the Sony Bono copyright act, and I'm elated to find that they're contributing to their own demise.
Exactly! So, when shall you be joining us and under what name shall I reserve your hotel room?
"Bands like Coldplay will make enough money for their company to help them discover around 50 or 100 bands."
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME??? The point of a band is to make money for its label???
What about the label paying its bands living wages? Or does that just not count?
What about using the internet to develop and promote new bands? That doesn't count either?
Thank god I live in France where my right to download CDs and movies is now protected by "activist judges".
I think there are some people who are just gonna suffer no matter what they do. Does anyone remember the mechanical web hit counter that was linked to on slashdot back in the day? I just think that it's mechanically impossible for him to handle the slashdot effect.
The more I read, the more I discover, the easier and cheaper it becomes to contact us, the more beseiged we become by these spammers and phishers, the more convinced I am that the only possible response is to ban all email and calls from businesses. None should get through. Not a one.
We could make a "slight" exception for opt-in newsletters, but any sort of commercial message that has not been explicitly asked for, and signed for in the clearest possible way, should open the sender up to extreme fines. It is no longer worth the risk we run of having our bank accounts, our credit cards, our lives snooped into and stolen in exchange for the ability of Wal-Mart or Carrefour to send me a personalized greeting.
In 10 years, phone numbers will no longer mean a thing as we pass from telephones to VoIP, and then the floodgates will open. Someone did a very good analysis (I forget where) about telemarketing centers in India being able to turn a profit if they only ask for $5 per call (an amount that most people would be ready to pay for even the silliest things, witness ring-tones) and have an incredibly low-- 1 to 2%-- success rate. With all the detailed info they already have, and the ability to call you for FREE over an untraceable line, imagine what a fisher could do?
I hate to sound so vitriolic, and I don't mean to be a Chicken Little, but this is a serious issue that we have to attack now, not later. By accepting calls from unknown parties, we are rapidly losing the ability to distinguish between friend and foe. We should ban it all, at the source, and make companies ultra-cautious about contacting anyone without proper authorization. This is the only way I see that we're going to regain our ability to know that the person on the other end of the phone can be trusted.
I'm going to go claw my eyes out now.
Easy enough to explain. One-button mouse.
P.S. I just bought my first mac, a PowerBook, and don't regret switching at all. The number of things Apple gets right overcomes the incredible boneheaded stuborness that is Rev. Steve and the ensuing inconvenience of having to use both hands to do anything useful with my computer.
Why should they be so scared of it? Is it made to attack them? Is the stated goal of BitTorrent to attack incessently, to give no quarter to the BSA?
Or are they just self-rightious overreacters that think that everything technological that doesn't come from them is a threat to their god-ordained, constitutionally protected business model?
yes... but you have to remember that outside the US nobody pays (even in minutes) for incoming calls.
and to get on a proper network with decent coverage (and intl support) that 3500 minutes will cost you $150-$200. (from Cingular's website).
I won't argue that number, because I'm too lazy to check it out, but my mom is with Cingular, and she has 3500min/mo for $30 or so. I should know, I'm the one who signed her up a year ago January.
So I don't know exactly what you're talking about, but it sounds like premium services, and those are always super-duper expensive. My two hours are just that. Two hours. Nothing more. No special services, no cool intl support, no data, just talk time.
And, yeah, the incoming is only free for YOU. Pity the foo' who calls you (25c-45c/min).
I mean, in the long run, there was no way to know which system of billing for cell calls was better, but clearly America has the better system. I pay more in Europe for an SMS than I do for a minute in America. Puh-lease.
Well, I would start by arguing that the fact that America has various technologies is EXACTLY what is intended in an unregulated market. Each company is free to go its own way, and the best technology for the money comes out on top.
But, yes, in principle I agree with you about many things. However, lest we forget the purpose of a cell phone, it's to talk. Not to send emails. Not to send SMSs. Not to download web pages. To talk.
America: calling to a cellphone is free.
Europe: calling to a cellphone costs from $0.25 to $0.45/min.
America: 3500 minutes for around $30/mo.
France: 120 minutes for $70. (And England is even more expensive)
So while we do have access to these technologies, no one uses them because no one can afford them. In Europe, we have everyone jumping on the same bandwagon, 3G, and everyone was hemorraging money for a long time because no consumers wanted those services. Don't get me wrong, offer me unlimited surfing on my phone for free, and I *might* consider it. But ask me to pay $15/mo. for that?
They can take their technological advantage and shove it. I just want to pay less to talk.
Yeah, poor us yanks. We only get 3500min/mo for $30.
While it's really cool that the 3G networks can do so much, it doesn't make me feel any better about paying $70/mo in France for 2 hours of talk time. Because, you know, a cell phone is, like, for talkin' and stuff. I could easily do without that extra network capability that no one ever uses in exchange for 50% off my bill.
What about the NA internet market? It's absolutely absurd the prices that we have to pay in America. I agree with your general point, that the competition is essential, and I wholeheartedly agree with the cell phone market example, I completely disagree that internet is competitive. It's anything but, and the current players are doing their best to make it less and less.
(For reference, let's review the procedure for obtaining broadband in the U.S. Step #1: Call up your cable or DSL provider, walk through the options, and decide what you want. Step #2: Receive and install the modem, or have an installer do it for you. Step #3: There is no Step #3!)
Oh, yes there is. Pay, pay, pay, and pay some more. 512kbps/256kbps broadband for my parents in KY? $45/mo. In France, I get 8Mbps/512Mbps ADSL for 15Euro/mo ($20/mo) or 20Mbps/1Mbps ADSL2 for 30Euro/mo.
Sometimes you get bad luck, and that's all there is to it. But I'd rather have a run of bad luck, and pay next to nothing, then have it instantly work, at miserable bandwidths, for gobs of money. It's amazing what a little bit of competition combined with a sensible urban growth policy (basically NOBODY lives more than a few km away from a DSLAM) gives.
The alleged perpetrators used the personal information of four NY-based clients to transfer ~$350,000 (Rs. 1.5 crores) in their names, a large sum in Indian currency.
I would have thought $350,000 is a large sum in ANY currency.
Brother, can you spare $350K?
As much as I applaud the decision to save the environment, would this not cause problems for things such as bughunts? Would they sell two tiers of chips, those for developers, and those for consumers?
Okay, seriously, what did you do? CTRL-F and then "suffle" in order to find every post that made this mistake?
Either that, or I'm gonna start calling you "Eagle-eye".
BWAHAHA!
And to make matters worse, it took me a full 30 seconds to find that typo even after you'd pointed it out!
This is going to be very interesting to see played out. They're going after the iPod Shuffle market, with nary a thought to even partially concealing their inspiration.
However, there's absolutely nothing wrong with copying a good idea. Apple has no patent for the concept of an mp3 player, and I don't know if they can claim that a white tongue depressor is a "copyrighted piece of art". Otherwise the whole USB key market would be in a state of utter chaos, as my USB key looks pretty much like everyone elses.
The iPod Suffle is certainly a trademark, but the SuperShuffle isn't the same thing, and no one is going to be fooled. Apple doesn't make the "Shuffle"-- they make an iPod with "Shuffle" attached. I would argue that the SuperShuffle is as legal a name as the SuperPhoto or the SuperMini.
So, would Apple have a leg to stand on? Or is this a situation where the consumer (finally) is going to win on all sides?
Actually, I did preview, I just didn't notice it. For me, they're one and the same, although I understand that this is utter heresy to so many others.
I pledge to try not to cross my Macs with my Apples in the future.
And thanks to all those who, you know, actually bothered to answer my question.
Someone refresh my memory: doesn't Mac offer free upgrades for all Macs bought sufficiently close to the new version's release date? If this is the case, how close is close enough?
IANAL, so can someone explain why this decision should take months? Can't they just get it over and done with?