I think we should stick to calling them fraud artists, I don't become less me when someone else chooses to impersonate me (I think that financial institutions have been quite happy to encourage people to think of themselves as the victims when accounts are opened using fraudulent details; individuals certainly face most of the consequences, but those consequences are coming from the banks and credit bureaus, not the fraudster, the fraudster is ripping off the institution, not the individual).
I certainly agree that people should be thoughtful when posting information to public and semi public systems, but I also do not think that the majority of those people are going to face *any* difficulty from those activities, let alone difficulties having a major impact on the course they want their lives to take.
I guess, but it has been 17 years since we had a president that did not admit to recreational drug use (and Bush Sr. probably was not a teetotaler).
At least the discomfort of losing the job would be offset with the not working for a hypocrite anymore.
(I'm sure I am a hypocrite, but I don't think it is awesome, and you would have to think it was pretty awesome to fire someone for doing something you also did)
People using MySQL under the GPL are mostly O.k., they just have to figure out how they are going to patch bugs and such, and then they have time to decide if the ongoing development of the GPL version is going to work for them.
People using it under a proprietary license are really worried that Oracle isn't going to play ball. I'm sure many of them are looking at alternatives, and comparing the costs of transitioning to the problems of ongoing uncertainty about the attitude of the owner of the codebase.
A couple of the first 10 results are in other countries, and then a couple more are about warrants being served, and most of the other 6 are 'extraordinary circumstances' (i.e., government owned computers being confiscated, or stuff happening at the border (which is still probably bullshit, but it isn't exactly the BSA stomping on the innocent)).
I picked a number that I figured would probably be too high; my argument works even if that is the case. Here is a 32" from Viewsonic, for $570, so indeed, too high:
Ah, but that takes us from 'launch pains' to 'bad attitude'.
Of course, I would tend to assume that the company selling billions of dollars of ads is somehow providing 'good enough' service, at least to most of the people who want to give them money.
If the internet ends up crippled, people will promptly build a new one, with hookers and blackjack.
My point is that as a customer, I don't ever expect to have to do much about it, except maybe put up with no internet for short periods of time (by which I mean, when I switch to the competent ISP, and the only reason any waiting would be involved is the stupid way that the last mile is regulated in the United States).
You mean like when a website limits download speeds for people that choose not to pay them money, like Rapidshare?
I'm in favor of a net neutrality where providers have to offer all comers the same service packages at identical prices, beyond that, I'm not real worried about it. It would be nice if conglomerates were required to separate content and infrastructure operations (to the point that the one actually bills the other), but they'll squabble amongst themselves anyway (as managers try to push costs off on other groups to make themselves look better).
What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?
Slashdot Mirror
An aside:
I think we should stick to calling them fraud artists, I don't become less me when someone else chooses to impersonate me (I think that financial institutions have been quite happy to encourage people to think of themselves as the victims when accounts are opened using fraudulent details; individuals certainly face most of the consequences, but those consequences are coming from the banks and credit bureaus, not the fraudster, the fraudster is ripping off the institution, not the individual).
I certainly agree that people should be thoughtful when posting information to public and semi public systems, but I also do not think that the majority of those people are going to face *any* difficulty from those activities, let alone difficulties having a major impact on the course they want their lives to take.
I notice that Jack Thompson was a lawyer.
I guess, but it has been 17 years since we had a president that did not admit to recreational drug use (and Bush Sr. probably was not a teetotaler).
At least the discomfort of losing the job would be offset with the not working for a hypocrite anymore.
(I'm sure I am a hypocrite, but I don't think it is awesome, and you would have to think it was pretty awesome to fire someone for doing something you also did)
Sure, but the set of things that society uses to judge is also constantly in flux.
Alternatively, the things you call consequences may simply disappear.
Duh, it is a KOREAN company, just like HYUNDAI.
People using MySQL under the GPL are mostly O.k., they just have to figure out how they are going to patch bugs and such, and then they have time to decide if the ongoing development of the GPL version is going to work for them.
People using it under a proprietary license are really worried that Oracle isn't going to play ball. I'm sure many of them are looking at alternatives, and comparing the costs of transitioning to the problems of ongoing uncertainty about the attitude of the owner of the codebase.
Do you mean to say that you do not chew gum on principle?
And you claim that passing over $1,000 for this 'principle' was a good idea?
Really?
They didn't physically raid that guy, they sent him a letter.
I feel like I should call you some sort of baked good, but I can't think of one. Sorry, Pot Roast.
http://www.google.com/search?q=any+story+about+computers+being+confiscated
A couple of the first 10 results are in other countries, and then a couple more are about warrants being served, and most of the other 6 are 'extraordinary circumstances' (i.e., government owned computers being confiscated, or stuff happening at the border (which is still probably bullshit, but it isn't exactly the BSA stomping on the innocent)).
The next 20 aren't way out of line with that.
You linked a 24" TV.
I picked a number that I figured would probably be too high; my argument works even if that is the case. Here is a 32" from Viewsonic, for $570, so indeed, too high:
http://www.amazon.com/Viewsonic-N3235W-Widescreen-1080P-Hdtv/dp/B002J1I1EK/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1263008265&sr=1-6
Ah, but that takes us from 'launch pains' to 'bad attitude'.
Of course, I would tend to assume that the company selling billions of dollars of ads is somehow providing 'good enough' service, at least to most of the people who want to give them money.
Do you have some examples?
Google: We have your stupid answers.
Ya know, a whole bunch of people do pay them to place advertising, and they have been doing so for a few years now.
Not particularly, but I'd rather risk it than have some vaguely worded "No throttling" legislation passed.
The degree to which the US Consumer Product Safety Commission is insisting that you cooperate?
Are those things happening?
They could easily serve pretzels on a certain number of flights each week.
If the internet ends up crippled, people will promptly build a new one, with hookers and blackjack.
My point is that as a customer, I don't ever expect to have to do much about it, except maybe put up with no internet for short periods of time (by which I mean, when I switch to the competent ISP, and the only reason any waiting would be involved is the stupid way that the last mile is regulated in the United States).
Then A and B are incompetent.
And they very much can do something about it, they can route around C.
Well, as long as they are throttling all their customers (at a particular service tier) in the same manner, I wouldn't be real worried about it.
You mean like when a website limits download speeds for people that choose not to pay them money, like Rapidshare?
I'm in favor of a net neutrality where providers have to offer all comers the same service packages at identical prices, beyond that, I'm not real worried about it. It would be nice if conglomerates were required to separate content and infrastructure operations (to the point that the one actually bills the other), but they'll squabble amongst themselves anyway (as managers try to push costs off on other groups to make themselves look better).
You could probably successfully wreck an old pair of glasses by applying your own polarizing film.
Or maybe a pair of drug store glasses that are close enough.
What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?