More seriously, what happens when *nix finally rules the (software) world, and huge chunks of code are opensource or GPL?
Will the Linux behemoth-to-come harass companies to ensure that they are complying with the software licenses? Will there be mandatory code 'sweeps' to make sure all GPL'd code is available to others outside the company that developed it? -----
D. Fischer
Interesting...haven't gotten the (-1, Flamebait) before. (But I should have realized that asking timely questions about significant current events that could impact the future of our economic/political/judicial systems was equivalent to trolling:)
FWIW, I am genuinely interested in whether Microsoft is taking any notice of the DOJ case, or if it's just business as usual. As the largest, and arguably, most influential companies in the US (if not world), I think it's extremely interesting to know how/if legal proceedings against the company filter down to the work process & ethic of the employees.
I'd guess that this was strongly encouraged by the manufacturers, to decrease customer service costs, and by hardware people, to increase USB & Firewire sales.
Most users don't want to fiddle with the innards of their computer. If upgrading to a new drive, peripheral, etc. is merely a matter of plugging in USB cable, then life is easier for consumer, and service costs for manufacturer go down. (I've experienced this recently with a USB printer and scanner. When it works, it's very nice.)
As for large corporate installations, this has the potential to cut costs a great deal. The tech people would not need to hassle with opening up cases; instead, just plug cord in, insert driver disk, and job done.
as for the hardcore tweakers, well, they don't buy XP certified PCs from Dell anyway; they build it themselves, so they wouldn't be affected. -----
D. Fischer
In what ways, if any, has the DOJ anti-trust case affected Microsoft's "competitive strategies", as well as the work towards "interoperability"? -----
D. Fischer
Right there, you answered your own question! It's economic voodoo, involving books, calculators, accountants, and most likely the sacrifice of virgins to volcanoes. -----
D. Fischer
If you're looking for ROI (return on investment) via growth, it's all about the slope, baby! I'd rather invest in $5 stocks that increase to $15, than invest in $100 stocks that increase to $110.
The more appropriate question, is whether Red Hat will exist in five years. (Of course, some ask the same about MS.) It's considered by most a bad idea to invest in companies that won't exist in a few years. -----
D. Fischer
The Salon.com subscription fee makes sense to me. They state plainly that they need money, and to try and get some they will be offering a subscription service, along with even more overt ads for the free service. As a consistent, multi-year reader of Salon, I'm considering coughing up the dough.
But the reason I do is because they provide information / content that I don't get elsewhere, and it's content that I value.
What I wonder is why people would pay for ad-free service at/. or equivalent. For here, the content is wholly provided by the users. I'm not interested in paying someone else for my own content.
So what about it? Why would you pay/not-pay for/.-esque content? -----
D. Fischer
That link goes to a discussion/explanation of why the DVD isn't anamorphic, isn't 5.1 DD, and has a lesser set of special features. The link to their review is also there, in the first paragraph. -----
D. Fischer
I and my 14 siblings were so poor we had to write our own TCP/IP stack doing all computations on our fingers and toes. And when our father wanted to compile Linux, we had to exhume our dead grandparents (may they rest in peace) to have enough fingers and toes for the computations! And because I was a slow counter, when dear old dad wanted to play Q3A, they had to kill me, and bring in the local smart kid to count using my fingers and toes!
[Please note: This and the preceeding posts are best read aloud in an over-the-top British accent] -----
D. Fischer
Lucas has consistently guarded his properties with great zeal. This is nothing new, nor is it surprising. The end result is that Lucas has created a veritable empire of "Star Wars" properties, generally of very high quality (movie plots aside:), and has also made a tidy profit from them. And that's his perogative.
Furthermore, while "Park Wars" claims to be a not-for-profit endeavor, and is likely a 'labor of love', it should also be expected that this would be used as a demo, in the least, in seeking future employment. As such, they would clearly be seeking to (indirectly) profit from Lucas' work. Furthermore, they wrote that Comedy Central used it for part of one of their programs. Thus, Comedy Central would also seek to profit, indirectly, from Lucas' property.
I have a hard time getting worked up about George Lucas & co. stopping others from using over an hour of their work without licensing.
"The Handspring Visor Edge(TM) is the thinnest, infinitely expandable handheld computer"
I don't suppose they have an even thinner, but finitely expandable handheld computer. (I'm assuming infinity requires a bit more space) I don't really need to store life, the universe, and everything, and I wouldn't mind saving another hundred bucks. -----
D. Fischer
I understood that as saying that you won't need to acquire a new activation code. You'd use the one you already have.
Presumably, at some point, if you replace enough hardware, or install to a new machine, you'll have to get a new activation code. And then the MS database will scream bloody-murder because you already were given a code, and then you'll have to talk to someone and convince them that, no, you're not a pirate, you're just installing Office on a modified/new computer.
At least that's how I understood it. -----
D. Fischer
That's an interesting point, since I've heard the same said about naturalistic evolution: There are not falsifiable predictions made regarding evolutionary theory, and thus evolution cannot be considered a usable theory. In effect your posted your key question to the creationism side, so allow me to ask my question:
"Regarding the study of life and its genesis and development, are what are the falsifiable predictions?" -----
D. Fischer
I'm agnostic regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life. And while there are some interesting discoveries that show that the possibility of ET life is not unfounded, we are not yet at the point of saying, "Life is plentiful" with regards to any location except our own planet.
What do we have?
- Indirect evidence of planets. Note, there is not yet any direct observation of planets. Rather, they are inferred from the detecteed motion of stars, which is best explained by the presence of giant planets (e.g. Jupiter and larger). (I'm not trying to suggest that the scientists are wrong; just trying to make clear what we know and have have directly observed).
- Evidence of carbon and water molecules in the further reaches of space.
- Discoveries of extreme-condition life; the microbes that live in extreme environmental conditions.
Well, good, it's generally believed that those are necessary ingredients for life, and we find that life will survive in pretty radical situations. But life this does not guarantee. Just because we find evidence of yeast and flour, it doesn't mean that there is bread nearby.
Something that's been bothering me for a while, as a scientist, is my (possibly incorrect) understanding of the study of biological evolution. The physical sciences require both observations and predictions. Most scientists, I believe, hold that a theory is not truly useful unless it can be falsified. That is, a theory must predict something that can be verified or shown incorrect, e.g. the rate of descent of an object is independent of its mass.
However, when it comes to the formation of life and its development, my impression is that there is a lack of falsifiable predictions. There are not predictions of the sort, given chemicals X & Y we will see life Z emerge; or, given environmental conditions A, life Z will develop into related form Z'. Instead, it is largely a matter of noting, conditions A existed when life Z' lived. Therefore, Z' must have been caused by A.
This is not 'complete' science. So then, perhaps some of the more biologically-minded folk out there can answer my question:
"Regarding the study of life and its genesis and development, are what are the falsifiable predictions?"
IANAB (I am not a biologist), so I may be way off base here, but if so, please point me in the direction of some useful info. I'd appreciate it. -----
D. Fischer
I believe your comments about the gaining and use of a Trademark are somewhat inaccurate.
Here's my understanding with relevant quotes from Trademark Basics
Trademark is established either via actual use and/or through Federal registration.
Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark...
It's generally a first-come, first-serve process, and trademarks can be held indefinitely.
Generally, the first party who either uses a mark in commerce or files an application in the PTO has the ultimate right to register that mark.
Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify its goods or services. The term of a federal trademark registration is 10 years, with 10-year renewal terms.
For Federal registration one must engage in interstate commerce, or intend on doing so (and not just be capable of doing so, as the previous poster stated).
Furthermore, it must be state-to-state, or US to Foreign-country commerce. Intrastate do not qualify as "interstate commerce" for Trademark purposes.
An applicant may apply for federal registration in three principal ways. (1) An applicant who has already commenced using a mark in commerce may file based on that use (a "use" application). (2) An applicant who has not yet used the mark may apply based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce (an "intent-to-use" application)....Use of a mark in purely local commerce within a state does not qualify as "use in commerce."...(3) Additionally, under certain international agreements, an applicant from outside the United States may file in the United States
Regarding the notion of a "Trademark Clearing House" as some suggest, I wonder if that might run afoul of this requirement:
The application must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark...
It seems to me that creating, consistently using, and defending a logo for one's endeavors, regardless of commerce, gives you defacto Trademark status.
If you want to Federally register it for further protection, you must sell goods or services from one state to another.
As always, IANAL, just some guy that can read web pages. -----
D. Fischer
I see what you're saying, though in my limited experience, resource cards are not exhausted (it could happen, but it seems unlikely, even if players try and force it by hoarding). And that's what made me think it might not be a zero-sum game--my getting resources does not prevent someone else from getting resources as well. And with trading, my getting resources may help someone else get resources (similar to what another poster was saying about MULE).
As for limited plots of land -- well, that's just like in real life.
But considering the largest army & longest road cards, and understanding that each point gained makes it harder for someone else to win (as another poster explained elsewhere), this is indeed a zero-sum game.
But a very good one, nonetheless:) -----
D. Fischer
"Balderdash" - make up definitions to obscure words and try and get everyone to believe yours is the real one
Out of curiosity, would a game such as the classic computer game "M.U.L.E." or the contemporary board game "Settlers of Catan" be considered a non-zero sum game? In these type of games, you compete for limited resource producing areas, but these areas produce reources which are not limited (in that my getting resources does not prevent you from getting resources). Or is this just a more complex version of a zero-sum game such as Monopoly (Resources -> $$ -> Acquisitions -> win game) -----
D. Fischer
Let's hope that his analogy isn't too accurate:
"Say you were an English yeoman in the 15th century.... Then your boss' boss up in the manor house said everyone had to trade his bow for a rifle.... Early firearms were so bad they mostly just made noise. The longbow was not only more accurate in the hands of a good archer, it had longer range. But in time, firearms met the accuracy of bows and exceeded them. A 15th century futurist would see that. The trick is in timing when to jump to the new way of doing things."
The problem with this analogy is that guns didn't exceed bows until about 300 hundred years later (and the yeoman, and his children, and children's children, et. cyk. hopefully stuck with archery.)
I'm hoping to see nifty plastic computers sooner than that. But until then, I think I'll hang onto my yew-wood bow, er, semiconductor computer. -----
D. Fischer
Well, I got paid today, so I've got plenty of ants on hand and I've got a few beetles to spare, but it would have to be a mint condition cartridge for my preying mantises. -----
D. Fischer
Though I have no interest in paying for most web content, much less double paying for ISP and content, there are a few systems similar to this scenario already in action.
Everyone has access to a bi-directional data service that can transmit almost any type of content anywhere in the world: the postal service. Most people pay for this indirectly via taxes and directly via postage charges. And people get a great deal of "content" free (coupons, ads, bill reminders, etc.) But for premium content, there are additional charges -- I have to pay the subscription fee for Newsweek. I already pay, in some fashion for access to Newsweek, so I'd rather not pay again for the content, but that's how it works.
Phone service:
Basic monthly fee just to have phone service (regardless of usage), plus taxes for various services (911, and such). And I still don't have access to the premium services (e.g. long-distance, voicemail) Those require additional monthly fees.
I don't relish the notion of basic phone service plus ISP charges plus web-content costs just to read CNN.com. But I won't be surprised to see it in the next few years, because but it's no different from how most everything else works: I pay for access and then I pay for additional services. -----
D. Fischer
If you suddenly had to pay a monthly fee for/., would you? How much? $1? $3? $10?
Will the web eventually follow the model of Cable TV, where you subscribe to a package of services?
Or perhaps the Web will move in a direction that Cable TV will eventually follow?
Currently, with cable, you pay a monthly fee to get a few pretty good stations and a bunch of other junk you never watch (at least that's how it has been for me and friends:). You can't subscribe to just CNN for $3/month. You have to take CNN and 25 other stations for $30/month.
So perhaps web content services will move in that direction. For $30/month, you get Yahoo, Slashdot, CNN, Salon, and 200 other web pages you don't care about.
Or perhaps, the web will lead the way to magazine-style subscriptions; $1.50/month for Slashdot, $2.00 for CNN, $0.10 for Yahoo, etc. Perhaps then Cable would follow, allowing for a la carte station subscriptions.
Slashdot Mirror
More seriously, what happens when *nix finally rules the (software) world, and huge chunks of code are opensource or GPL?
Will the Linux behemoth-to-come harass companies to ensure that they are complying with the software licenses? Will there be mandatory code 'sweeps' to make sure all GPL'd code is available to others outside the company that developed it?
-----
D. Fischer
From the article: aspiring "tele-poets"
Poets aspire.
Words inspire.
Athletes perspire.
Warranties expire.
Sears tower no longer tallest because it lacks a spire.
-----
D. Fischer
Interesting...haven't gotten the (-1, Flamebait) before. (But I should have realized that asking timely questions about significant current events that could impact the future of our economic/political/judicial systems was equivalent to trolling :)
FWIW, I am genuinely interested in whether Microsoft is taking any notice of the DOJ case, or if it's just business as usual. As the largest, and arguably, most influential companies in the US (if not world), I think it's extremely interesting to know how/if legal proceedings against the company filter down to the work process & ethic of the employees.
But that's just me.
-----
D. Fischer
I'd guess that this was strongly encouraged by the manufacturers, to decrease customer service costs, and by hardware people, to increase USB & Firewire sales.
Most users don't want to fiddle with the innards of their computer. If upgrading to a new drive, peripheral, etc. is merely a matter of plugging in USB cable, then life is easier for consumer, and service costs for manufacturer go down. (I've experienced this recently with a USB printer and scanner. When it works, it's very nice.)
As for large corporate installations, this has the potential to cut costs a great deal. The tech people would not need to hassle with opening up cases; instead, just plug cord in, insert driver disk, and job done.
as for the hardcore tweakers, well, they don't buy XP certified PCs from Dell anyway; they build it themselves, so they wouldn't be affected.
-----
D. Fischer
In what ways, if any, has the DOJ anti-trust case affected Microsoft's "competitive strategies", as well as the work towards "interoperability"?
-----
D. Fischer
"somehow magically adjust that to $600K"
Right there, you answered your own question! It's economic voodoo, involving books, calculators, accountants, and most likely the sacrifice of virgins to volcanoes.
-----
D. Fischer
If you're looking for ROI (return on investment) via growth, it's all about the slope, baby! I'd rather invest in $5 stocks that increase to $15, than invest in $100 stocks that increase to $110.
The more appropriate question, is whether Red Hat will exist in five years. (Of course, some ask the same about MS.) It's considered by most a bad idea to invest in companies that won't exist in a few years.
-----
D. Fischer
The Salon.com subscription fee makes sense to me. They state plainly that they need money, and to try and get some they will be offering a subscription service, along with even more overt ads for the free service. As a consistent, multi-year reader of Salon, I'm considering coughing up the dough.
/. or equivalent. For here, the content is wholly provided by the users. I'm not interested in paying someone else for my own content.
/.-esque content?
But the reason I do is because they provide information / content that I don't get elsewhere, and it's content that I value.
What I wonder is why people would pay for ad-free service at
So what about it? Why would you pay/not-pay for
-----
D. Fischer
The Digital Bits info & review
That link goes to a discussion/explanation of why the DVD isn't anamorphic, isn't 5.1 DD, and has a lesser set of special features. The link to their review is also there, in the first paragraph.
-----
D. Fischer
You were lucky!
I and my 14 siblings were so poor we had to write our own TCP/IP stack doing all computations on our fingers and toes. And when our father wanted to compile Linux, we had to exhume our dead grandparents (may they rest in peace) to have enough fingers and toes for the computations! And because I was a slow counter, when dear old dad wanted to play Q3A, they had to kill me, and bring in the local smart kid to count using my fingers and toes!
[Please note: This and the preceeding posts are best read aloud in an over-the-top British accent]
-----
D. Fischer
Lucas has consistently guarded his properties with great zeal. This is nothing new, nor is it surprising. The end result is that Lucas has created a veritable empire of "Star Wars" properties, generally of very high quality (movie plots aside :), and has also made a tidy profit from them. And that's his perogative.
Furthermore, while "Park Wars" claims to be a not-for-profit endeavor, and is likely a 'labor of love', it should also be expected that this would be used as a demo, in the least, in seeking future employment. As such, they would clearly be seeking to (indirectly) profit from Lucas' work. Furthermore, they wrote that Comedy Central used it for part of one of their programs. Thus, Comedy Central would also seek to profit, indirectly, from Lucas' property.
I have a hard time getting worked up about George Lucas & co. stopping others from using over an hour of their work without licensing.
-----
D. Fischer
"Worse, it's too general"
:)
"too general" == oxymoron, when it comes to patents.
That's how you play the game: write the patent as broadly as possible to stake out as much intellectual 'property' as possible.
As Morpheus said to Neo, "Welcome to the real world."
-----
D. Fischer
"The Handspring Visor Edge(TM) is the thinnest, infinitely expandable handheld computer"
I don't suppose they have an even thinner, but finitely expandable handheld computer. (I'm assuming infinity requires a bit more space) I don't really need to store life, the universe, and everything, and I wouldn't mind saving another hundred bucks.
-----
D. Fischer
"But, the problem is problematic..."
Boy, how I hate those problematic problems. They're the worst.
-----
D. Fischer
But this is Microsoft. Since they'll never fail, this is a non-issue.
:)
-----
D. Fischer
I understood that as saying that you won't need to acquire a new activation code. You'd use the one you already have.
Presumably, at some point, if you replace enough hardware, or install to a new machine, you'll have to get a new activation code. And then the MS database will scream bloody-murder because you already were given a code, and then you'll have to talk to someone and convince them that, no, you're not a pirate, you're just installing Office on a modified/new computer.
At least that's how I understood it.
-----
D. Fischer
That's an interesting point, since I've heard the same said about naturalistic evolution: There are not falsifiable predictions made regarding evolutionary theory, and thus evolution cannot be considered a usable theory. In effect your posted your key question to the creationism side, so allow me to ask my question:
"Regarding the study of life and its genesis and development, are what are the falsifiable predictions?"
-----
D. Fischer
(sigh)
I'm agnostic regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life. And while there are some interesting discoveries that show that the possibility of ET life is not unfounded, we are not yet at the point of saying, "Life is plentiful" with regards to any location except our own planet.
What do we have?
- Indirect evidence of planets. Note, there is not yet any direct observation of planets. Rather, they are inferred from the detecteed motion of stars, which is best explained by the presence of giant planets (e.g. Jupiter and larger). (I'm not trying to suggest that the scientists are wrong; just trying to make clear what we know and have have directly observed).
- Evidence of carbon and water molecules in the further reaches of space.
- Discoveries of extreme-condition life; the microbes that live in extreme environmental conditions.
Well, good, it's generally believed that those are necessary ingredients for life, and we find that life will survive in pretty radical situations. But life this does not guarantee. Just because we find evidence of yeast and flour, it doesn't mean that there is bread nearby.
Something that's been bothering me for a while, as a scientist, is my (possibly incorrect) understanding of the study of biological evolution. The physical sciences require both observations and predictions. Most scientists, I believe, hold that a theory is not truly useful unless it can be falsified. That is, a theory must predict something that can be verified or shown incorrect, e.g. the rate of descent of an object is independent of its mass.
However, when it comes to the formation of life and its development, my impression is that there is a lack of falsifiable predictions. There are not predictions of the sort, given chemicals X & Y we will see life Z emerge; or, given environmental conditions A, life Z will develop into related form Z'. Instead, it is largely a matter of noting, conditions A existed when life Z' lived. Therefore, Z' must have been caused by A.
This is not 'complete' science. So then, perhaps some of the more biologically-minded folk out there can answer my question:
"Regarding the study of life and its genesis and development, are what are the falsifiable predictions?"
IANAB (I am not a biologist), so I may be way off base here, but if so, please point me in the direction of some useful info. I'd appreciate it.
-----
D. Fischer
Here's my understanding with relevant quotes from Trademark Basics
Trademark is established either via actual use and/or through Federal registration.
Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark...
It's generally a first-come, first-serve process, and trademarks can be held indefinitely.
Generally, the first party who either uses a mark in commerce or files an application in the PTO has the ultimate right to register that mark.
Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify its goods or services. The term of a federal trademark registration is 10 years, with 10-year renewal terms.
For Federal registration one must engage in interstate commerce, or intend on doing so (and not just be capable of doing so, as the previous poster stated).
Furthermore, it must be state-to-state, or US to Foreign-country commerce. Intrastate do not qualify as "interstate commerce" for Trademark purposes.
An applicant may apply for federal registration in three principal ways. (1) An applicant who has already commenced using a mark in commerce may file based on that use (a "use" application). (2) An applicant who has not yet used the mark may apply based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce (an "intent-to-use" application)....Use of a mark in purely local commerce within a state does not qualify as "use in commerce."...(3) Additionally, under certain international agreements, an applicant from outside the United States may file in the United States
Regarding the notion of a "Trademark Clearing House" as some suggest, I wonder if that might run afoul of this requirement:
The application must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark...
It seems to me that creating, consistently using, and defending a logo for one's endeavors, regardless of commerce, gives you defacto Trademark status.
If you want to Federally register it for further protection, you must sell goods or services from one state to another.
As always, IANAL, just some guy that can read web pages.
-----
D. Fischer
I see what you're saying, though in my limited experience, resource cards are not exhausted (it could happen, but it seems unlikely, even if players try and force it by hoarding). And that's what made me think it might not be a zero-sum game--my getting resources does not prevent someone else from getting resources as well. And with trading, my getting resources may help someone else get resources (similar to what another poster was saying about MULE).
:)
As for limited plots of land -- well, that's just like in real life.
But considering the largest army & longest road cards, and understanding that each point gained makes it harder for someone else to win (as another poster explained elsewhere), this is indeed a zero-sum game.
But a very good one, nonetheless
-----
D. Fischer
"Balderdash" - make up definitions to obscure words and try and get everyone to believe yours is the real one
Out of curiosity, would a game such as the classic computer game "M.U.L.E." or the contemporary board game "Settlers of Catan" be considered a non-zero sum game? In these type of games, you compete for limited resource producing areas, but these areas produce reources which are not limited (in that my getting resources does not prevent you from getting resources). Or is this just a more complex version of a zero-sum game such as Monopoly (Resources -> $$ -> Acquisitions -> win game)
-----
D. Fischer
Let's hope that his analogy isn't too accurate: ... Then your boss' boss up in the manor house said everyone had to trade his bow for a rifle. ... Early firearms were so bad they mostly just made noise. The longbow was not only more accurate in the hands of a good archer, it had longer range. But in time, firearms met the accuracy of bows and exceeded them. A 15th century futurist would see that. The trick is in timing when to jump to the new way of doing things."
"Say you were an English yeoman in the 15th century.
The problem with this analogy is that guns didn't exceed bows until about 300 hundred years later (and the yeoman, and his children, and children's children, et. cyk. hopefully stuck with archery.)
I'm hoping to see nifty plastic computers sooner than that. But until then, I think I'll hang onto my yew-wood bow, er, semiconductor computer.
-----
D. Fischer
"for sale for a bug a cardtridge"
Well, I got paid today, so I've got plenty of ants on hand and I've got a few beetles to spare, but it would have to be a mint condition cartridge for my preying mantises.
-----
D. Fischer
Though I have no interest in paying for most web content, much less double paying for ISP and content, there are a few systems similar to this scenario already in action.
Everyone has access to a bi-directional data service that can transmit almost any type of content anywhere in the world: the postal service. Most people pay for this indirectly via taxes and directly via postage charges. And people get a great deal of "content" free (coupons, ads, bill reminders, etc.) But for premium content, there are additional charges -- I have to pay the subscription fee for Newsweek. I already pay, in some fashion for access to Newsweek, so I'd rather not pay again for the content, but that's how it works.
Phone service:
Basic monthly fee just to have phone service (regardless of usage), plus taxes for various services (911, and such). And I still don't have access to the premium services (e.g. long-distance, voicemail) Those require additional monthly fees.
I don't relish the notion of basic phone service plus ISP charges plus web-content costs just to read CNN.com. But I won't be surprised to see it in the next few years, because but it's no different from how most everything else works: I pay for access and then I pay for additional services.
-----
D. Fischer
If you suddenly had to pay a monthly fee for /., would you? How much? $1? $3? $10?
:). You can't subscribe to just CNN for $3/month. You have to take CNN and 25 other stations for $30/month.
Will the web eventually follow the model of Cable TV, where you subscribe to a package of services?
Or perhaps the Web will move in a direction that Cable TV will eventually follow?
Currently, with cable, you pay a monthly fee to get a few pretty good stations and a bunch of other junk you never watch (at least that's how it has been for me and friends
So perhaps web content services will move in that direction. For $30/month, you get Yahoo, Slashdot, CNN, Salon, and 200 other web pages you don't care about.
Or perhaps, the web will lead the way to magazine-style subscriptions; $1.50/month for Slashdot, $2.00 for CNN, $0.10 for Yahoo, etc. Perhaps then Cable would follow, allowing for a la carte station subscriptions.
Well, just some random thoughts.
-----
D. Fischer