This is exactly what the majority of slashdotters have been screaming for. Go after the abusers rather than the technology. It'll be interesting to see what the comments on this thread will be like. Let this hypocrisy begin... now.
If the telcos aren't doing anything about it, then there isn't enough consumer demand to justify the cost. Getting the government involved with this is just wasting more of my hard earned money. I don't want to subsidize the telecommunications industry if they aren't even willing to spend money on it themselves, and if people aren't willing to pay for it.
"Why not? If he calls charitable work by open source developers "communist" and "cancer" why should he be immune from the same kind of criticism?"
Um, because what he does actually saves starving people and other individuals dying of AIDS. Are you trying to draw a parallel between open source code and truly massive amounts of money given to charitable causes? I sure hope you don't speak for the majority of slashdot. And to whomever modded this up: shame on you.
It's not spying. You yourself could get on gnutella and log the IPs of the people you are downloading from and the ones downloading from you. The RIAA probably has a lot of bots roaming gnutella and other file sharing protocols logging IPs. After the bots got a sizable list of IPs, they probably ran a whois on the IPs and contacted the corporations that these IP blocks belong to. It's hardly spying. Besides, isn't this what slashdot has been calling them to do; going after the people that violate the law, rather than the protocol? It seems like they can't win, even if they are doing the precise thing slashdot asked them to do.
That's utter BS. Most of the cable news networks and the three major broadcast stations here in the US get their stories from the New York Times, or the major news wires (AP, Reuters, etc). Television is only a fraction of the news outlets out there. You have the internet, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. To say that they are supressing this is utter conspiracy at best.
Secondly, they aren't taking control of the internet. There will always be several ways to get internet access. You have telephone lines, satellite connections, other companies that own the last mile fiber, and more. Ten years ago, it looked like the telephone companies would 'own' the internet. But looking back, it turned out to be nothing. The same thing holds true right now. Just because cable companies are doing a good job providing high speed access doesn't mean that it will stay that way ten years down the road.
Those European countries sure do like to talk about their free speech. What was that about European nations scoring higher on freedom of the press, when they are asking google at the same time to censor data they deem to be 'racist'? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Uh, the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theory doesn't work. There are five factors that can throw Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium off course: mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, non-random breeding, and natural selection. As you can see, Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium doesn't hold up in real life. Since genetic flow is a factor to people with red hair, then it will indeed change the allele frequency. So, the other poster is completely correct in his conclusions, and you are misguided.
They are testing an AOL client for Windows. For some reason, the story didn't post to it. Anyways, here's the URL: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_details.ph p?id=15
Because Slashdot doesn't like Microsoft, and they'll be damned if they let pesky facts get in the way of their bash-fest.
With that said, I think the difference with the slashdotters is the open source aspect of the OS. Since Windows isn't opensource, they aren't allowed to do the same thing that open source OSes do, like embedding applications/languages. One could also use the arguement that Microsoft is a monopoly and monopolies aren't allowed to "abuse" their status. Although, since open source operationg systems do the exact same thing, I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about.
Anyways, don't ask an interesting question like that. In the end, you'll get modded down and then flamed by the enraged linux zealots that try to dismember the interesting parallel you just made.
Special suits are made for high G's. Once you reach high G's, the special suit squeezes the blood from your feet back up to your brain so you won't pass out. The human body (while wearing this suit) can handle around 9 G's. So I don't think this is feasable for passenger travel, as it takes special training with the suit and it costs a lot of money for the equipment.
If people keep piggybacking off consumer broadband connections, then it will just force the ISPs to go to a bandwidth metering charging system. So unless you want to pay per megabyte instead of the 'unlimited' service you currently get, stop letting people use your consumer connection. And when the ISPs _do_ go to a per megabyte charging plan, don't bitch here about it and wonder why they are doing it. I'll just point you to this article.
"Why should the editors be held to ideological consistency between each other?"
And why should the slashdot population? You keep proving my point: Hardly no one on slashdot partakes in these silly boycotts.
"And since when does realism mean "screw your ideals"?"
Realism is that the vast majority of slashdot users don't share the ideology that this particular game maker should be boycotted, which proves the point that not many people here care about the boycott.
"I don't HONESTLY think that Blizzard will personally miss my money."
Of course they don't care about your money; You represent a minority market.
"I'm not doing it for the actual economic benefit, I'm doing it because I think it's wrong to support them."
More power to you. Virtually no one else is partaking in the boycott, which makes the boycott useless.
"If others agree, and they lose money because of it, great"
Not many people do. They won't lose enough money to make the silly boycott worth the effort of the majority of slashdot.
"If not, at least I'll have done what I believe is the Right Thing."
Whatever makes you feel like you're important in the world, do it.
"Why should the editors have to be ideologically consistant between each other?"
Doesn't that prove my point? Isn't an effective boycott on slashdot one that has many people commited to it? My point is that the majority of people on slashdot DO NOT CARE about the silly boycotts. The ones that do commit themselves to a boycott here on slashdot is extremely small, and inneffective. Using your quote, wouldn't it be accurate to say "Why should slashdot users have to be ideologically consistant between eachother?". I'll answer that: If they aren't, then a boycott doesn't do shit. Which proves my point. I'm glad you think my way after all.
"Oh, and you have some kind of statistical evidence to back this up or something?"
Do you have any statistical evidence that "many others" abide by whatever silly boycott is going on at the moment on slashdot?
"Sure, the number of people willing to avoid a particular product based on ideology is certainly the minority, but not the miniscule fraction you suggest."
Slashdot represents a very small number of potential customers for game makers anyways. Of the slashdot population, a lot don't buy games that won't run on Linux. So that slims the potential userbase of slashdot that will buy said game to a small fraction. The people actually commited to a boycott is going to be very small as well. We have seen this with this *AA's and Taco posting about some new cool DVD that is out. If the editors don't even abide by boycotts, don't you think that reflects on the general population of slashdot? I sure do.
"So I'll quit being "naive" if you'll stop being "a dick"."
If your definition of being a "dick" is being a "realist", then you will be naive for a _long time_. Good luck with your boycott; I'm sure they will miss your money. Hah.
"Second, and more importantly, maybe YOU don't take boycotts seriously, but many others do."
Har har har. If by "many others" you mean "extreme minority", then you are right. Most people here on slashdot are blow-hards that sacrifice their ideology as soon as the new cool gadget from comes out. Quit being so naive.
If by summary, you mean bias, then you're correct. I think most people here agree that The Register hops on the Microsoft-bashing bandwagon to generate more ad revenue. Take an objective look at it rather than consuming The Register's spin.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what the majority of slashdotters have been screaming for. Go after the abusers rather than the technology. It'll be interesting to see what the comments on this thread will be like. Let this hypocrisy begin... now.
If the telcos aren't doing anything about it, then there isn't enough consumer demand to justify the cost. Getting the government involved with this is just wasting more of my hard earned money. I don't want to subsidize the telecommunications industry if they aren't even willing to spend money on it themselves, and if people aren't willing to pay for it.
Doesn't the term 'near miss' infact mean we were actually hit?
That should be nsa.GOV, not nsa.MIL.
"Why not? If he calls charitable work by open source developers "communist" and "cancer" why should he be immune from the same kind of criticism?"
Um, because what he does actually saves starving people and other individuals dying of AIDS. Are you trying to draw a parallel between open source code and truly massive amounts of money given to charitable causes? I sure hope you don't speak for the majority of slashdot. And to whomever modded this up: shame on you.
And the US tax payer sure is 'feeling' this birthday... in the wallet.
It's not spying. You yourself could get on gnutella and log the IPs of the people you are downloading from and the ones downloading from you. The RIAA probably has a lot of bots roaming gnutella and other file sharing protocols logging IPs. After the bots got a sizable list of IPs, they probably ran a whois on the IPs and contacted the corporations that these IP blocks belong to. It's hardly spying. Besides, isn't this what slashdot has been calling them to do; going after the people that violate the law, rather than the protocol? It seems like they can't win, even if they are doing the precise thing slashdot asked them to do.
That's utter BS. Most of the cable news networks and the three major broadcast stations here in the US get their stories from the New York Times, or the major news wires (AP, Reuters, etc). Television is only a fraction of the news outlets out there. You have the internet, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. To say that they are supressing this is utter conspiracy at best.
Secondly, they aren't taking control of the internet. There will always be several ways to get internet access. You have telephone lines, satellite connections, other companies that own the last mile fiber, and more. Ten years ago, it looked like the telephone companies would 'own' the internet. But looking back, it turned out to be nothing. The same thing holds true right now. Just because cable companies are doing a good job providing high speed access doesn't mean that it will stay that way ten years down the road.
Those European countries sure do like to talk about their free speech. What was that about European nations scoring higher on freedom of the press, when they are asking google at the same time to censor data they deem to be 'racist'? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Uh, the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theory doesn't work. There are five factors that can throw Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium off course: mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, non-random breeding, and natural selection. As you can see, Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium doesn't hold up in real life. Since genetic flow is a factor to people with red hair, then it will indeed change the allele frequency. So, the other poster is completely correct in his conclusions, and you are misguided.
Anything routed to UUnet from Comcast (AT&T) has been picking up a 800ms lag. It has been doing this off and on for the past week or so.
They are testing an AOL client for Windows. For some reason, the story didn't post to it. Anyways, here's the URL: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_details.ph p?id=15
"They kept putting the capital of Germany, Berlin near Paris."
Yea, ther Germans still haven't gotten over the fact that they lose WW2. They are still trying to make Paris part of Germany.
Because Slashdot doesn't like Microsoft, and they'll be damned if they let pesky facts get in the way of their bash-fest.
With that said, I think the difference with the slashdotters is the open source aspect of the OS. Since Windows isn't opensource, they aren't allowed to do the same thing that open source OSes do, like embedding applications/languages. One could also use the arguement that Microsoft is a monopoly and monopolies aren't allowed to "abuse" their status. Although, since open source operationg systems do the exact same thing, I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about.
Anyways, don't ask an interesting question like that. In the end, you'll get modded down and then flamed by the enraged linux zealots that try to dismember the interesting parallel you just made.
"No... really... a better idea would be to show up and hand out slackware and debian CD's."
And you, my friend, have no life.
Special suits are made for high G's. Once you reach high G's, the special suit squeezes the blood from your feet back up to your brain so you won't pass out. The human body (while wearing this suit) can handle around 9 G's. So I don't think this is feasable for passenger travel, as it takes special training with the suit and it costs a lot of money for the equipment.
And then he would add "BAM!" for the final touch.
XP doesn't compete with OSX. They run on completely different platforms.
If people keep piggybacking off consumer broadband connections, then it will just force the ISPs to go to a bandwidth metering charging system. So unless you want to pay per megabyte instead of the 'unlimited' service you currently get, stop letting people use your consumer connection. And when the ISPs _do_ go to a per megabyte charging plan, don't bitch here about it and wonder why they are doing it. I'll just point you to this article.
"We could always start boycotting used CDs"
Yea, that'll work about as well as the other boycotts suggested on slashdot. Just ask Taco how that MPAA boycott is going.
"Why should the editors be held to ideological consistency between each other?"
And why should the slashdot population? You keep proving my point: Hardly no one on slashdot partakes in these silly boycotts.
"And since when does realism mean "screw your ideals"?"
Realism is that the vast majority of slashdot users don't share the ideology that this particular game maker should be boycotted, which proves the point that not many people here care about the boycott.
"I don't HONESTLY think that Blizzard will personally miss my money."
Of course they don't care about your money; You represent a minority market.
"I'm not doing it for the actual economic benefit, I'm doing it because I think it's wrong to support them."
More power to you. Virtually no one else is partaking in the boycott, which makes the boycott useless.
"If others agree, and they lose money because of it, great"
Not many people do. They won't lose enough money to make the silly boycott worth the effort of the majority of slashdot.
"If not, at least I'll have done what I believe is the Right Thing."
Whatever makes you feel like you're important in the world, do it.
"Why should the editors have to be ideologically consistant between each other?"
Doesn't that prove my point? Isn't an effective boycott on slashdot one that has many people commited to it? My point is that the majority of people on slashdot DO NOT CARE about the silly boycotts. The ones that do commit themselves to a boycott here on slashdot is extremely small, and inneffective. Using your quote, wouldn't it be accurate to say "Why should slashdot users have to be ideologically consistant between eachother?". I'll answer that: If they aren't, then a boycott doesn't do shit. Which proves my point. I'm glad you think my way after all.
"Oh, and you have some kind of statistical evidence to back this up or something?"
Do you have any statistical evidence that "many others" abide by whatever silly boycott is going on at the moment on slashdot?
"Sure, the number of people willing to avoid a particular product based on ideology is certainly the minority, but not the miniscule fraction you suggest."
Slashdot represents a very small number of potential customers for game makers anyways. Of the slashdot population, a lot don't buy games that won't run on Linux. So that slims the potential userbase of slashdot that will buy said game to a small fraction. The people actually commited to a boycott is going to be very small as well. We have seen this with this *AA's and Taco posting about some new cool DVD that is out. If the editors don't even abide by boycotts, don't you think that reflects on the general population of slashdot? I sure do.
"So I'll quit being "naive" if you'll stop being "a dick"."
If your definition of being a "dick" is being a "realist", then you will be naive for a _long time_. Good luck with your boycott; I'm sure they will miss your money. Hah.
"Second, and more importantly, maybe YOU don't take boycotts seriously, but many others do."
Har har har. If by "many others" you mean "extreme minority", then you are right. Most people here on slashdot are blow-hards that sacrifice their ideology as soon as the new cool gadget from comes out. Quit being so naive.
"The Register has a nice summary."
If by summary, you mean bias, then you're correct. I think most people here agree that The Register hops on the Microsoft-bashing bandwagon to generate more ad revenue. Take an objective look at it rather than consuming The Register's spin.