Wrong. Paying the cable company is paying for the lines to your house and the infrastructure of the network. You aren't, and never were, charged for CBS or any of the other channels. Nor was the cable fee ever meant to replace commercials. The bill you pay to the cable company is just to get the service to your house (unless you purchase HBO or something).
Are you on crack or something? Who says you HAVE to purchase their products? Do they "force" themselves on YOUR desktop? Do they prevent you from installing linux/freebsd/whatever on your hardware? How is that any different than the home entertainment area? A lot of people here forget that you don't have to purchase any of their products. Contrary to the prevailing thought here on slashdot, you DO have a choice. And if you "fear" a little plastic box, then you need some serious counseling. I personally don't think the people here "fear" it; you're all alone on that one.
I'm in college now. You are confused a little as I was. In Computer Science (at most universities), you have what's called a 'Software track' or 'Systems track'. In the Software track, programming and software development is more emphasized. In the Systems track, system administration is more emphasized. You should definately go to college, becuase as a sysadmin you will have opportunities to advance. Without a college education, you won't have as good of a chance to advance. College will also develope you socially and in other subjects such as political science, etc. College in today's competitive society is a must, especially with foreign competition becoming more feirce.
Why _should_ Microsoft renew a contract with RealName? I still don't understand it. In this free market, if a company feels like it can do better by itself rather than contract work out, why should it contract the work out? On that guy's homepage, he talks as if it is RealName's _right_ for MSN to use their service. Maybe they want their own keyword system, or they feel that it is inferior. To tell you honestly, it's a pretty stupid concept anyways and I don't see the future of the internet going toward that paradigm. There are lots of dot coms whining about their right for other companies to use their service. If RealName didn't have much of a business model (which they didn't), how can they survive? And MSN's justification is correct; the internet is moving toward a Google type system, not a "keyword" type system. AOL already provides a service like RealName did and it only works well if you have ownership of the browsing software. RealName didn't own IE, so it was prone to getting left out in the rain like it did. They should have saw this coming.
You obviously have no clue what government is about. The job of government is to protect the weakest among us, and to protect the people from foreign agression. Any other laws are made by the will of the people. If the majority of the people within the jourisdiction of a government don't agree with the laws that government passes, then the majority of the people is oppressed rather than the minority. What you preach is not democracy. And by the way, the PURPOSE of a REPUBLIC lies in the definition of REPUBLIC. In a REPUBLIC, the representatives of the population legislate based on the opinion of their represented public. You use words you don't know the definition of.
Aperantly you have no clue how or why a government exists. A government only exists with the blessing of the majority of the public. The only reason the Bill of Rights exist today is because the population agrees to adhere to it. Once they don't agree to it anymore, they have a right to change or amend to it. They can either do that peacfully via representatives or violently via a revolt. If the Will of the people is not served by government, then that government is no longer valid by the people. Government doesn't protect people, the people protect the government. It's only "scary" becuase it's reality. Reality is scary to people that usually don't live within it.
Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic. The Will of the people decides what is right and wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will. To think that the government should be some outside entity not influenced by the public opinion of the people it serves is insane. Get a grip with reality and don't resort to childish idealism that so many people here do.
Did you even bother to read the article? He wasn't being investigated becuase he was against nuclear weapons. And they just didn't "assume" he was a communist. He, in all actuality, was a communist. If you read the article, you would know that he was affiliated with 34 communist front groups between 1937-1954, and was a chairman in three of those groups. The government had every right to be suspicious about him. Read the article before you rant about something you have no clue about.
Programming isn't a life-threatening occupation such as many medical occupations. In programming, if people don't have ethics enough not to program evil applications, then they are going to do it anyways no matter how many oaths you make them take. And if the majority of people DO take this oath, and abide by it, then all it would do is artifically inflate the wages of people that ARE willing to do the "unethical" work. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone. Human nature is flawed; deal with it.
Every single theory of society is an "ideal". None of them will be perfectly becuase human nature is flawed. And by the way, companies are supposed to want total control of a market. They are supposed to want other businesses gone. That's the fundamental idea behind Capitalism. They are supposed to be trying their best to eliminate other competition. So you basically contradicted yourself over and over again.
Actually, it's basically a classical struggle of female dominance. Several journals have pointed that out and I have done a lot of research on Snow White for an English final. It's really not about stages of life.
Snow White was not created by Disney. It has been folklore for centuries before Disney was a company. Do your homework before you make yourself look like a clueless ass on slashdot.
Wrong. Quantum cryptography is not a destructive weapon. It will be treated no differently than it is now. Anyone with enough money to impliment it will be able to do so without any restrictions. The goverernment (in the USA) won't restrict it. The population is becoming more tech savvy and major magazines/institutions have picked up on it. You could say that the genie is out of the bottle now. If they ever wanted to restrict it, it's a little too late now.
On a side note, I have no clue how posts like the parent get modded up. Comparing cryptography to plutonium just doesn't make sense to me. But then again, maybe I'm an idiot.
Actually, NO, it isn't the point. The point of a remedy in an anti-trust trial is to create more competition, not add punitive damages. Read the laws, then come to a knee-jerk reaction.
Yea, who would have?! Who would have thought that you can go to the bookstore and *gasp* read through the book before you purchase it?! Who would have though that bookstores would setup tables where you can partake in such a ground-breaking activity? Gee Whiz.
"I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it."
No you wouldn't. You will still complain that the record labels are ripping you off. There would still be thousands of rationalizations for pirating music. The problem is not going to be solved by dropping prices or have a per-track fee.
Sharp doesn't make money off the techies that want to hack it though. If it's hard to use and doesn't work well for what it is designed to do (which is not to hack it), then Sharp will drop it like a bad habbit.
No, but in both cases just about every government in the world regulates them. Here in the US, people have to go through a background check. In some countries, it's very hard to obtain a gun. Also, every country that I can think of has safety regulations on cars. They have to have a crash resistant frame, seat belts, and a lot of other regulations. How does this apply to P2P? Well, by using your analogy, shouldn't the government regulate it like they regulate all those other markets to protect the consumer (in the case of P2P, the copyright holder) from being shafted? I sure think so.
Yea, and the funny part is that in that article, the majority of the posts were praising the technology. Now that it's about Microsoft, eveyone is quick to critisize it. Gotta love the bias here.
Yea, I was surprised at Murdoch's decision too. Like you said, he, along with just about everyone on FoxNews, is conservative. They also don't get along with Disney. I think the buck stops with him though.. Anything for the buck.
First of all, ISPs are under common carrier status. I don't think they are liable for anything illegal. I'm also sure that's a federal law which will trump that state law. In any event, in the US free market system (well, just about a free market), corporations should not be held liable to enforce federal law. Not only does this cost the ISP more, but those costs get passed down to the consumer. The consumer is the one getting hosed here. Let's not become a police state. I have a solution: Just lock up the people that break the law. When you try to prevent it from happening, the citizens get hosed with more costs and the government starts becoming more of a thought police. I'm a Conservative, and even I disafree with the ramifications of this law. Hopefully someone takes this to the supreme court.
I don't quite get that logic though. You talk like encryption is illegal in America. I think this is just needless bashing perpetuated by this "community." Here in the USA, it is legal to use encryption. Just because they don't hand it to you on a CD doesn't mean that it isn't encouraged. I think a lot of people in this "community" need to get a grasp of reality rather than living in a fantasy world where they think the government is out to get them all the time. Encryption is legal in the rest of western europe and America.
What? I don't quite get that post. Are you saying there wasn't free speech in Germany immediately before encryption? And what does this have to do with any other citizens using encryption? To the best of my knowledge, the rest of western europe (or the americas) doesn't forbid their citizens from using the exact same encryption technology; They just don't go handing it out on CDs. So enlighten me, what does this have to do with free speech? I believe this is a matter of government sponsorship rather than freedom of speech. It wasn't outlawed to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Paying the cable company is paying for the lines to your house and the infrastructure of the network. You aren't, and never were, charged for CBS or any of the other channels. Nor was the cable fee ever meant to replace commercials. The bill you pay to the cable company is just to get the service to your house (unless you purchase HBO or something).
Are you on crack or something? Who says you HAVE to purchase their products? Do they "force" themselves on YOUR desktop? Do they prevent you from installing linux/freebsd/whatever on your hardware? How is that any different than the home entertainment area? A lot of people here forget that you don't have to purchase any of their products. Contrary to the prevailing thought here on slashdot, you DO have a choice. And if you "fear" a little plastic box, then you need some serious counseling. I personally don't think the people here "fear" it; you're all alone on that one.
I'm in college now. You are confused a little as I was. In Computer Science (at most universities), you have what's called a 'Software track' or 'Systems track'. In the Software track, programming and software development is more emphasized. In the Systems track, system administration is more emphasized. You should definately go to college, becuase as a sysadmin you will have opportunities to advance. Without a college education, you won't have as good of a chance to advance. College will also develope you socially and in other subjects such as political science, etc. College in today's competitive society is a must, especially with foreign competition becoming more feirce.
"Since we are an ISP"
So which part of your body do you shove the fiber optic lines and tech support?
Why _should_ Microsoft renew a contract with RealName? I still don't understand it. In this free market, if a company feels like it can do better by itself rather than contract work out, why should it contract the work out? On that guy's homepage, he talks as if it is RealName's _right_ for MSN to use their service. Maybe they want their own keyword system, or they feel that it is inferior. To tell you honestly, it's a pretty stupid concept anyways and I don't see the future of the internet going toward that paradigm. There are lots of dot coms whining about their right for other companies to use their service. If RealName didn't have much of a business model (which they didn't), how can they survive? And MSN's justification is correct; the internet is moving toward a Google type system, not a "keyword" type system. AOL already provides a service like RealName did and it only works well if you have ownership of the browsing software. RealName didn't own IE, so it was prone to getting left out in the rain like it did. They should have saw this coming.
You obviously have no clue what government is about. The job of government is to protect the weakest among us, and to protect the people from foreign agression. Any other laws are made by the will of the people. If the majority of the people within the jourisdiction of a government don't agree with the laws that government passes, then the majority of the people is oppressed rather than the minority. What you preach is not democracy. And by the way, the PURPOSE of a REPUBLIC lies in the definition of REPUBLIC. In a REPUBLIC, the representatives of the population legislate based on the opinion of their represented public. You use words you don't know the definition of.
Aperantly you have no clue how or why a government exists. A government only exists with the blessing of the majority of the public. The only reason the Bill of Rights exist today is because the population agrees to adhere to it. Once they don't agree to it anymore, they have a right to change or amend to it. They can either do that peacfully via representatives or violently via a revolt. If the Will of the people is not served by government, then that government is no longer valid by the people. Government doesn't protect people, the people protect the government. It's only "scary" becuase it's reality. Reality is scary to people that usually don't live within it.
Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic. The Will of the people decides what is right and wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will. To think that the government should be some outside entity not influenced by the public opinion of the people it serves is insane. Get a grip with reality and don't resort to childish idealism that so many people here do.
Did you even bother to read the article? He wasn't being investigated becuase he was against nuclear weapons. And they just didn't "assume" he was a communist. He, in all actuality, was a communist. If you read the article, you would know that he was affiliated with 34 communist front groups between 1937-1954, and was a chairman in three of those groups. The government had every right to be suspicious about him. Read the article before you rant about something you have no clue about.
Programming isn't a life-threatening occupation such as many medical occupations. In programming, if people don't have ethics enough not to program evil applications, then they are going to do it anyways no matter how many oaths you make them take. And if the majority of people DO take this oath, and abide by it, then all it would do is artifically inflate the wages of people that ARE willing to do the "unethical" work. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone. Human nature is flawed; deal with it.
Every single theory of society is an "ideal". None of them will be perfectly becuase human nature is flawed. And by the way, companies are supposed to want total control of a market. They are supposed to want other businesses gone. That's the fundamental idea behind Capitalism. They are supposed to be trying their best to eliminate other competition. So you basically contradicted yourself over and over again.
Actually, it's basically a classical struggle of female dominance. Several journals have pointed that out and I have done a lot of research on Snow White for an English final. It's really not about stages of life.
Snow White was not created by Disney. It has been folklore for centuries before Disney was a company. Do your homework before you make yourself look like a clueless ass on slashdot.
Wrong. Quantum cryptography is not a destructive weapon. It will be treated no differently than it is now. Anyone with enough money to impliment it will be able to do so without any restrictions. The goverernment (in the USA) won't restrict it. The population is becoming more tech savvy and major magazines/institutions have picked up on it. You could say that the genie is out of the bottle now. If they ever wanted to restrict it, it's a little too late now.
On a side note, I have no clue how posts like the parent get modded up. Comparing cryptography to plutonium just doesn't make sense to me. But then again, maybe I'm an idiot.
Actually, NO, it isn't the point. The point of a remedy in an anti-trust trial is to create more competition, not add punitive damages. Read the laws, then come to a knee-jerk reaction.
Yea, who would have?! Who would have thought that you can go to the bookstore and *gasp* read through the book before you purchase it?! Who would have though that bookstores would setup tables where you can partake in such a ground-breaking activity? Gee Whiz.
"I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it."
No you wouldn't. You will still complain that the record labels are ripping you off. There would still be thousands of rationalizations for pirating music. The problem is not going to be solved by dropping prices or have a per-track fee.
Sharp doesn't make money off the techies that want to hack it though. If it's hard to use and doesn't work well for what it is designed to do (which is not to hack it), then Sharp will drop it like a bad habbit.
No, but in both cases just about every government in the world regulates them. Here in the US, people have to go through a background check. In some countries, it's very hard to obtain a gun. Also, every country that I can think of has safety regulations on cars. They have to have a crash resistant frame, seat belts, and a lot of other regulations. How does this apply to P2P? Well, by using your analogy, shouldn't the government regulate it like they regulate all those other markets to protect the consumer (in the case of P2P, the copyright holder) from being shafted? I sure think so.
Yea, and the funny part is that in that article, the majority of the posts were praising the technology. Now that it's about Microsoft, eveyone is quick to critisize it. Gotta love the bias here.
Yea, I was surprised at Murdoch's decision too. Like you said, he, along with just about everyone on FoxNews, is conservative. They also don't get along with Disney. I think the buck stops with him though.. Anything for the buck.
First of all, ISPs are under common carrier status. I don't think they are liable for anything illegal. I'm also sure that's a federal law which will trump that state law. In any event, in the US free market system (well, just about a free market), corporations should not be held liable to enforce federal law. Not only does this cost the ISP more, but those costs get passed down to the consumer. The consumer is the one getting hosed here. Let's not become a police state. I have a solution: Just lock up the people that break the law. When you try to prevent it from happening, the citizens get hosed with more costs and the government starts becoming more of a thought police. I'm a Conservative, and even I disafree with the ramifications of this law. Hopefully someone takes this to the supreme court.
I don't quite get that logic though. You talk like encryption is illegal in America. I think this is just needless bashing perpetuated by this "community." Here in the USA, it is legal to use encryption. Just because they don't hand it to you on a CD doesn't mean that it isn't encouraged. I think a lot of people in this "community" need to get a grasp of reality rather than living in a fantasy world where they think the government is out to get them all the time. Encryption is legal in the rest of western europe and America.
What? I don't quite get that post. Are you saying there wasn't free speech in Germany immediately before encryption? And what does this have to do with any other citizens using encryption? To the best of my knowledge, the rest of western europe (or the americas) doesn't forbid their citizens from using the exact same encryption technology; They just don't go handing it out on CDs. So enlighten me, what does this have to do with free speech? I believe this is a matter of government sponsorship rather than freedom of speech. It wasn't outlawed to begin with.
No becuase NDS is owned by NewsCorp which is a US-based corporation. That's why they are suing in the US.