As Abcd1234 said, you're not average. You're slightly ahead of the curve. The cable companies (and phone companies too since they sell cable TV now too) don't worry about one or two online video users. However, when they see a trend forming towards online video (like the one that has slowly taken shape over the last couple of years), they start breaking out in a nervous sweat and looking for ways to protect their profits. In this case, "protect profits" = "institute caps so that no one can view too much online video without paying obscene overage fees."
You might prefer that, but they would prefer that you paid them $50 a month for cable TV, $50 a month for Internet usage, $45 a month for Internet bandwidth overage fees, and $45 a month for phone service. Don't worry though, bundle it all together and sign up for a year's worth of service and they'll chop $5 off your monthly bill. It's a bargain!
They're not excited. They're terrified. With services like Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, and other legitimate online video sources, the draw of their cable TV services is weakened. Why pay the cable company $50 a month if all of your favorites TV shows are online? (Legally, again. Let's not consider pirated shows for the moment as that introduces different arguments.)
So they institute caps. Now you can download and watch a couple of HD movies from Hulu, but that could eat up your entire month's bandwidth allotment. So you're less likely to use online video and more likely to tune in on your TV. Cable wins. And if you decide to buck the system and view online videos? They charge you overage fees which coincidentally add up to approximately the cost of a cable subscription. Cable wins again.
And just to introduce a Network Neutrality wrinkle into the equation, I'm pretty sure that they'll exempt any online video services that they introduce. If Time Warner releases "RoadRunner Online" where you can watch your favorite shows on your computer, they'll keep that usage from counting toward your monthly bandwidth cap. The net result will be that ISP sponsored online video sources will be given an advantage (maybe they will thrive, maybe not) while other legal online video sources will be held back with every attempt made to get them to wither and die. All to protect the cable companies' bottom lines.
I actually saw a commercial last night (on Time Warner cable) for "Prime Time On-Demand" which sounds like this very thing. You can order up (for free) the latest episodes of various network shows. Of course, knowing Time Warner cable's On-Demand selection, the same 5 episodes will display for weeks on end only to suddenly and mysteriously be swapped out with another 5 episodes. (My kids like watching one of the Kids On Demand channels but it gets grating watching the same 5 Sesame Street episodes over and over and over.)
Every time this comes up, I think that I really should find a way to accurately measure how much bandwidth I'm using. We have three computers in my household. (Well, four, but the fourth is never used.) A desktop computer upstairs used as a file/print server and to downloading log files. My wife's laptop which she uses most of the day. And finally, my work laptop which I bring home with me at the end of the day. Unfortunately, my router is older and doesn't support log files. (It claims to, but then doesn't give a way to get at those log files.) I could install an application to track our usage on each computer, but then I'd not only have to add it all up, but would need to turn the application off while I'm at work. (Since that bandwidth usage wouldn't count.) I might just need to get a new router. Any suggestions for an inexpensive wireless/wired router that will allow me to track how much bandwidth I use per month?
Ah, ok. I did know that Bittorrent uploaded pieces of the file as you downloaded it, but read "leechers" and for some reason thought they were people who were downloading the file with clients configured to not allow any uploads. Thanks for the correction.
So in your view, Linux users should only consist of that small group of people who know how to code new features/drivers/etc for Linux? Everyone else should just use Windows? If you kick out all users who can't code anything in Linux for themselves, you'll be limiting your user base to a tiny group of people. Some Linux users seem to want it both ways. They go around complaining about how all these idiotic users are using Windows when Linux is clearly superior, but then when one of those users tries Linux, they get pushed away for not having the knowledge needed to code the inner workings of Linux.
The other problem with the "code it yourself" reply is that it presumes that the person with the problem a) knows how to code, b) knows that particular type of coding (e.g. I'm great with server-side web coding/JavaScript/databases, but wouldn't know where to begin if told to code a device driver), c) has the time to get up to speed on coding in Linux, and d) has the time to figure out the solution and code it. If you expect all that, you should also expect that the person will simply move to Windows or another operating system that doesn't impose all of these requirements on them. This is why distributions like Ubuntu are so popular. You can install Ubuntu and be up and running most times without having to worry about recompiling the kernel or doing anything resembling coding.
Not to nitpick, but the MPAA/RIAA doen't sue downloaders (despite the bad reporting of the media. They only sue uploaders. So you're not 1 out of 59,294 to them. You're 1 in 22,425.
Ack! Now I'm:-) infected. How could:-) you go posting:-) such a virulent:-) virus where:-) everyone could see i:-)t? I thin:-)k th:-)e inf:-)ect:-)ion's g:-)et:-)tin:-)g wo:-)rs:-)e n:-)o:-)w. I:-)'m of:-)f t:-)o pa:-)t:-)ch:-) m:-)y s:-)ys:-)te:-)m.:-):-):-):-):-)
You're new here, aren't you? (Yes! There's that "Used a tired old meme Achievement!")
Nowadays it is in to get enraged when someone sells your privacy for monetary gain. When someone sells your privacy down the river just for the technical thrill of it, well that's just old school geekery!
I for one, welcome our new Achievements overlords. ("Used a tired old meme Achievement x2!!")
So what you're saying is that the 2 most powerful groups on the Internet are Stephen Colbert fans and 4chan users. Let us hope that they never come to virtual blows or it'll be the Internet Apocalypse! (Or at least very entertaining.)
Then you have an accomplished blogger who doesn't get how to be engaging on a micro-blogging service. Not surprising. Would you dismiss blogging as an idiotic idea because some prolific novel authors tried their hand at blogging and wrote nothing but inane posts? Of course not. Not everyone is going to be able to excel at all possible means of communication. And that is all Twitter is. Another method of communication. Some will use it to post every trivial detail about their lives and some will use it to post more interesting content. For an example of interesting content, there was a series of tweets a few months back by Adam Savage from Mythbusters which included some comments (and photos) about a myth they were testing.
Or, you could send a regular text message to only the friend(s) you're supposed to be meeting up with, so not to bother people not involved in the plans with your trivial minutiae.
Well, with Twitter, when you send a message, it only goes to people who follow you. (Yes, it's also visible on the public timeline if your updates aren't protected, but I don't think many people really read the main timeline and then get mad that their time was wasted.) If you want to message to be specifically for someone, you can either a) use the "@" notation (e.g. @donttrythis Going to be late. Someone peed on the third rail & got electrocuted. Myth confirmed?) or b) send a direct message (e.g. d donttrythis Going to be late. Someone peed on the third rail & got electrocuted. Myth confirmed?) The "@" notation will be seen by everyone, but they will understand that it is intended as a comment for an individual (albeit one that everyone can see). The direct message isn't viewable by everyone.
If an individual is sending too many trivial minutiae messages, there's a simple solution: unfollow them. Once you do that, the person can post as many trivial messages as they like and you won't be bothered by a single one.
In my searches, I've seen a couple of different offerings that promise close to the functionality that I'm looking for. It makes me think that this type of set top box is right on the cusp of being available to the non-hobbyist.
Actually, yes there is. The Big Bang theory explains the origin of the Universe and matter. There are other theories that explain how stars (like our sun) formed and how our planet was formed. Once we get to the point of planetary formation, there are theories that take over to explain how the Earth got to the "covered with water" state.
All of these theories are testable in some fashion. No, we can't go back and look at all of the events, but we can look back to some degree. Since light travels at a limited speed through space, as we look further out in the Universe, we look further back in time. Although we can't see the Big Bang moment, we can currently see billions of years back. The structures that we see can be compared with the types of structures that our theories indicate should be there. If they don't match, the theories need tweaking or overhauling depending on how bad the mismatch is.
As for "earth-bound" theories (like how Earth came to be covered with water) we can look at core samples to determine what the climate and even atmospheric content was like millions or billions of years ago.
Are these perfect forms of observation and testing? No, but they are infinitely more scientific evidence sources than a simple "God Did It" explanation.
Not all of these ID/Creationists want to "just" deny evolution. Many of them are Young Earth Creationists who want to "prove" that the world is only around 6,000 years old. Any evidence to the contrary is chalked up to false evidence planted by God to mislead the non-faithful. To me, this kind of a god goes beyond "trickster god" to "maliciously decietful god." He gives us brains which put together these patterns, leaves fake patterns for us to find, and then punishes us if we take the all-too-obvious course of connecting the dots? I don't know about you but I refuse to believe in a God that would be this malicious.
When Slashdot first began referring to Hulu blocking Boxee, I thought that this was some kind of set top box that would allow you to easily (using your remote) play online or locally stored content. Since this is exactly what I'm in the market for, I looked it up and was a bit disappointed to find out that it's just a software offering. (No knock against Boxee intended. It just wasn't what I was seeking.) I wonder when someone will make a decent, relatively inexpensive ($150 or less) set top box that can play movies stored on your network and can browse the web/play online videos.
Skumanick seems to be using a loophole at the moment. He hasn't actually filed charges, just threatened to do so. Once he files charges, though, he'll need to release all evidence (including those photos) to the defense attorneys. If he doesn't, the defense attorneys can get the photos tossed out of the evidence list and then Skumanick won't have any shred of a case at all.
I prefer to use Xenocode's Browser appliances. With them I can compare IE6, IE7, and IE8. They also have FireFox, Safari, and Google Chrome. (I don't use these though. I have FireFox installed and the others have too small market share to really spend time testing against.)
Why should we give someone a monopoly for being so idiotic that they can't monetize their own creations
Sometimes it's not a matter of idiocy but of resources and recourse. Let's assume that there was no copyright law. Let's also say that tomorrow I wrote a book and shopped it around to various publishers. Publishers A-D refused publication, but small-publisher E made a limited run of my book. It became a hit and less-than-scrupulous Publisher B decides to cash in. They take the manuscript copy I gave them when applying and publish it, raking in the profits for themselves. (They do put my name on it, but don't send me any money.)
Now, there's no copyright, so I can't sue them saying that they misappropriated my book for their own profits. I might be able to get a lawyer to send Publisher B a threatening note, but I would have no real legal legs to stand on. And once they see the money Publisher B is making, Publisher's C and D might jump on board. Soon, the book released from Publisher E (the one that actually gives money to me) is pushed off the shelves. My book is selling thousands of copies - but no money goes to me.
I'm not saying that copyright needs to last for as long as it does, the length of copyright today is a sick joke, but there is a place for copyright. If copyrights were scaled back down to 14 years plus a one time 14 year renewal, they would protect released works for 14-28 years just as well as they do today. The major difference would be that the work would go into the Public Domain after a relatively short period of time instead of remaining in copyright and making the author virtually nothing. How many books, songs, movies, games, etc actually make money 28 years after they're released? For every Star Wars, there are at least a hundred that don't make anything anymore. So we shouldn't eliminate copyright, just restrict the time span of it.
Should we really teach kids that knowledge comes from a single authoritarian figure like a teacher, or should we tell them that they need to investigate numerous versions of the view of history?
So long as we also teach them critical thinking. Make them aware that numerous views of history aren't necessarily correct. Some might be different viewpoints (from the victor in a battler, from the loser in a battle), but some might take liberties or be outright falsifications (e.g. Holocaust Deniers). Teach kids to read the numerous accounts and critically evaluate each one. Teach them to spot the falsifications and how to do backup research. ("Aushwitz never used to kill people? Well, these old news articles say differently. So do these German plans and notes.") If you teach them critical thinking and research skills, many other things will fall into place. Kids don't necessarily need to know that The French and Indian War lasted for 9 years, but if they do happen to need that knowledge sometime, they should have the skills to seek out the information.
Years back, I used my real name for all of my online activities. After my kids were born, though, I reconsidered using my real name and address. So when I started a blog, I made up an "anonymous" name. I'm under no illusion that it is 100% anonymous, but I do my best to keep my "real name identity" and my "blog identity" separate. I'm go "blog identity" on all of the sites I frequent, but I'm unwilling to disappear as "Jason Levine" and either a) pretend to be a newbie at the site for awhile or b) reveal to everyone that "Jason Levine" and "BLOG_ID" are one and the same. While I might make some mistakes that wind up linking the two, I'm not going to come out and do it on purpose. (A really creative type could locate my blog ID though. I'll even give a hint: it's through my wife's blog name.)
Slashdot Mirror
As Abcd1234 said, you're not average. You're slightly ahead of the curve. The cable companies (and phone companies too since they sell cable TV now too) don't worry about one or two online video users. However, when they see a trend forming towards online video (like the one that has slowly taken shape over the last couple of years), they start breaking out in a nervous sweat and looking for ways to protect their profits. In this case, "protect profits" = "institute caps so that no one can view too much online video without paying obscene overage fees."
You might prefer that, but they would prefer that you paid them $50 a month for cable TV, $50 a month for Internet usage, $45 a month for Internet bandwidth overage fees, and $45 a month for phone service. Don't worry though, bundle it all together and sign up for a year's worth of service and they'll chop $5 off your monthly bill. It's a bargain!
They're not excited. They're terrified. With services like Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, and other legitimate online video sources, the draw of their cable TV services is weakened. Why pay the cable company $50 a month if all of your favorites TV shows are online? (Legally, again. Let's not consider pirated shows for the moment as that introduces different arguments.)
So they institute caps. Now you can download and watch a couple of HD movies from Hulu, but that could eat up your entire month's bandwidth allotment. So you're less likely to use online video and more likely to tune in on your TV. Cable wins. And if you decide to buck the system and view online videos? They charge you overage fees which coincidentally add up to approximately the cost of a cable subscription. Cable wins again.
And just to introduce a Network Neutrality wrinkle into the equation, I'm pretty sure that they'll exempt any online video services that they introduce. If Time Warner releases "RoadRunner Online" where you can watch your favorite shows on your computer, they'll keep that usage from counting toward your monthly bandwidth cap. The net result will be that ISP sponsored online video sources will be given an advantage (maybe they will thrive, maybe not) while other legal online video sources will be held back with every attempt made to get them to wither and die. All to protect the cable companies' bottom lines.
I actually saw a commercial last night (on Time Warner cable) for "Prime Time On-Demand" which sounds like this very thing. You can order up (for free) the latest episodes of various network shows. Of course, knowing Time Warner cable's On-Demand selection, the same 5 episodes will display for weeks on end only to suddenly and mysteriously be swapped out with another 5 episodes. (My kids like watching one of the Kids On Demand channels but it gets grating watching the same 5 Sesame Street episodes over and over and over.)
Every time this comes up, I think that I really should find a way to accurately measure how much bandwidth I'm using. We have three computers in my household. (Well, four, but the fourth is never used.) A desktop computer upstairs used as a file/print server and to downloading log files. My wife's laptop which she uses most of the day. And finally, my work laptop which I bring home with me at the end of the day. Unfortunately, my router is older and doesn't support log files. (It claims to, but then doesn't give a way to get at those log files.) I could install an application to track our usage on each computer, but then I'd not only have to add it all up, but would need to turn the application off while I'm at work. (Since that bandwidth usage wouldn't count.) I might just need to get a new router. Any suggestions for an inexpensive wireless/wired router that will allow me to track how much bandwidth I use per month?
Ah, ok. I did know that Bittorrent uploaded pieces of the file as you downloaded it, but read "leechers" and for some reason thought they were people who were downloading the file with clients configured to not allow any uploads. Thanks for the correction.
So in your view, Linux users should only consist of that small group of people who know how to code new features/drivers/etc for Linux? Everyone else should just use Windows? If you kick out all users who can't code anything in Linux for themselves, you'll be limiting your user base to a tiny group of people. Some Linux users seem to want it both ways. They go around complaining about how all these idiotic users are using Windows when Linux is clearly superior, but then when one of those users tries Linux, they get pushed away for not having the knowledge needed to code the inner workings of Linux.
The other problem with the "code it yourself" reply is that it presumes that the person with the problem a) knows how to code, b) knows that particular type of coding (e.g. I'm great with server-side web coding/JavaScript/databases, but wouldn't know where to begin if told to code a device driver), c) has the time to get up to speed on coding in Linux, and d) has the time to figure out the solution and code it. If you expect all that, you should also expect that the person will simply move to Windows or another operating system that doesn't impose all of these requirements on them. This is why distributions like Ubuntu are so popular. You can install Ubuntu and be up and running most times without having to worry about recompiling the kernel or doing anything resembling coding.
Not to nitpick, but the MPAA/RIAA doen't sue downloaders (despite the bad reporting of the media. They only sue uploaders. So you're not 1 out of 59,294 to them. You're 1 in 22,425.
Ack! Now I'm :-) infected. How could :-) you go posting :-) such a virulent :-) virus where :-) everyone could see i:-)t? I thin:-)k th:-)e inf:-)ect:-)ion's g:-)et:-)tin:-)g wo:-)rs:-)e n:-)o:-)w. I:-)'m of:-)f t:-)o pa:-)t:-)ch:-) m:-)y s:-)ys:-)te:-)m. :-):-):-):-):-)
Ah, but IE can use Firefox Extensions now. Didn't you hear? http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/31/1950221&from=rss
You're new here, aren't you? (Yes! There's that "Used a tired old meme Achievement!")
Nowadays it is in to get enraged when someone sells your privacy for monetary gain. When someone sells your privacy down the river just for the technical thrill of it, well that's just old school geekery!
I for one, welcome our new Achievements overlords. ("Used a tired old meme Achievement x2!!")
So what you're saying is that the 2 most powerful groups on the Internet are Stephen Colbert fans and 4chan users. Let us hope that they never come to virtual blows or it'll be the Internet Apocalypse! (Or at least very entertaining.)
Then you have an accomplished blogger who doesn't get how to be engaging on a micro-blogging service. Not surprising. Would you dismiss blogging as an idiotic idea because some prolific novel authors tried their hand at blogging and wrote nothing but inane posts? Of course not. Not everyone is going to be able to excel at all possible means of communication. And that is all Twitter is. Another method of communication. Some will use it to post every trivial detail about their lives and some will use it to post more interesting content. For an example of interesting content, there was a series of tweets a few months back by Adam Savage from Mythbusters which included some comments (and photos) about a myth they were testing.
Well, with Twitter, when you send a message, it only goes to people who follow you. (Yes, it's also visible on the public timeline if your updates aren't protected, but I don't think many people really read the main timeline and then get mad that their time was wasted.) If you want to message to be specifically for someone, you can either a) use the "@" notation (e.g. @donttrythis Going to be late. Someone peed on the third rail & got electrocuted. Myth confirmed?) or b) send a direct message (e.g. d donttrythis Going to be late. Someone peed on the third rail & got electrocuted. Myth confirmed?) The "@" notation will be seen by everyone, but they will understand that it is intended as a comment for an individual (albeit one that everyone can see). The direct message isn't viewable by everyone.
If an individual is sending too many trivial minutiae messages, there's a simple solution: unfollow them. Once you do that, the person can post as many trivial messages as they like and you won't be bothered by a single one.
In my searches, I've seen a couple of different offerings that promise close to the functionality that I'm looking for. It makes me think that this type of set top box is right on the cusp of being available to the non-hobbyist.
Actually, yes there is. The Big Bang theory explains the origin of the Universe and matter. There are other theories that explain how stars (like our sun) formed and how our planet was formed. Once we get to the point of planetary formation, there are theories that take over to explain how the Earth got to the "covered with water" state.
All of these theories are testable in some fashion. No, we can't go back and look at all of the events, but we can look back to some degree. Since light travels at a limited speed through space, as we look further out in the Universe, we look further back in time. Although we can't see the Big Bang moment, we can currently see billions of years back. The structures that we see can be compared with the types of structures that our theories indicate should be there. If they don't match, the theories need tweaking or overhauling depending on how bad the mismatch is.
As for "earth-bound" theories (like how Earth came to be covered with water) we can look at core samples to determine what the climate and even atmospheric content was like millions or billions of years ago.
Are these perfect forms of observation and testing? No, but they are infinitely more scientific evidence sources than a simple "God Did It" explanation.
Not all of these ID/Creationists want to "just" deny evolution. Many of them are Young Earth Creationists who want to "prove" that the world is only around 6,000 years old. Any evidence to the contrary is chalked up to false evidence planted by God to mislead the non-faithful. To me, this kind of a god goes beyond "trickster god" to "maliciously decietful god." He gives us brains which put together these patterns, leaves fake patterns for us to find, and then punishes us if we take the all-too-obvious course of connecting the dots? I don't know about you but I refuse to believe in a God that would be this malicious.
Don't worry. The theologians will just grant themselves scientific degrees and then (presto-chango!) they'll be scientists too!
When Slashdot first began referring to Hulu blocking Boxee, I thought that this was some kind of set top box that would allow you to easily (using your remote) play online or locally stored content. Since this is exactly what I'm in the market for, I looked it up and was a bit disappointed to find out that it's just a software offering. (No knock against Boxee intended. It just wasn't what I was seeking.) I wonder when someone will make a decent, relatively inexpensive ($150 or less) set top box that can play movies stored on your network and can browse the web/play online videos.
Skumanick seems to be using a loophole at the moment. He hasn't actually filed charges, just threatened to do so. Once he files charges, though, he'll need to release all evidence (including those photos) to the defense attorneys. If he doesn't, the defense attorneys can get the photos tossed out of the evidence list and then Skumanick won't have any shred of a case at all.
I prefer to use Xenocode's Browser appliances. With them I can compare IE6, IE7, and IE8. They also have FireFox, Safari, and Google Chrome. (I don't use these though. I have FireFox installed and the others have too small market share to really spend time testing against.)
http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/
Sometimes it's not a matter of idiocy but of resources and recourse. Let's assume that there was no copyright law. Let's also say that tomorrow I wrote a book and shopped it around to various publishers. Publishers A-D refused publication, but small-publisher E made a limited run of my book. It became a hit and less-than-scrupulous Publisher B decides to cash in. They take the manuscript copy I gave them when applying and publish it, raking in the profits for themselves. (They do put my name on it, but don't send me any money.)
Now, there's no copyright, so I can't sue them saying that they misappropriated my book for their own profits. I might be able to get a lawyer to send Publisher B a threatening note, but I would have no real legal legs to stand on. And once they see the money Publisher B is making, Publisher's C and D might jump on board. Soon, the book released from Publisher E (the one that actually gives money to me) is pushed off the shelves. My book is selling thousands of copies - but no money goes to me.
I'm not saying that copyright needs to last for as long as it does, the length of copyright today is a sick joke, but there is a place for copyright. If copyrights were scaled back down to 14 years plus a one time 14 year renewal, they would protect released works for 14-28 years just as well as they do today. The major difference would be that the work would go into the Public Domain after a relatively short period of time instead of remaining in copyright and making the author virtually nothing. How many books, songs, movies, games, etc actually make money 28 years after they're released? For every Star Wars, there are at least a hundred that don't make anything anymore. So we shouldn't eliminate copyright, just restrict the time span of it.
So long as we also teach them critical thinking. Make them aware that numerous views of history aren't necessarily correct. Some might be different viewpoints (from the victor in a battler, from the loser in a battle), but some might take liberties or be outright falsifications (e.g. Holocaust Deniers). Teach kids to read the numerous accounts and critically evaluate each one. Teach them to spot the falsifications and how to do backup research. ("Aushwitz never used to kill people? Well, these old news articles say differently. So do these German plans and notes.") If you teach them critical thinking and research skills, many other things will fall into place. Kids don't necessarily need to know that The French and Indian War lasted for 9 years, but if they do happen to need that knowledge sometime, they should have the skills to seek out the information.
Years back, I used my real name for all of my online activities. After my kids were born, though, I reconsidered using my real name and address. So when I started a blog, I made up an "anonymous" name. I'm under no illusion that it is 100% anonymous, but I do my best to keep my "real name identity" and my "blog identity" separate. I'm go "blog identity" on all of the sites I frequent, but I'm unwilling to disappear as "Jason Levine" and either a) pretend to be a newbie at the site for awhile or b) reveal to everyone that "Jason Levine" and "BLOG_ID" are one and the same. While I might make some mistakes that wind up linking the two, I'm not going to come out and do it on purpose. (A really creative type could locate my blog ID though. I'll even give a hint: it's through my wife's blog name.)