I'll grab the designs to this thing, make it crap me out a statue of myself on the lawn. In fact, I'll make it poop all over the neighborhood... making pools and statues and anything else cement.
All they gotta do now is make a robot that potties metal and we can make home made cars and real buildings. What a treat!
Of course it will be shown in a bad light. Nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that the earth can be blown up a hundred times over with all the nuclear weapons all over the place. When you try and explain how nuclear power (bombs) can be used to safely generate power, of course they're not going to listen.
Just look at all the movies where there's nuclear reactors that have had problems. No one wants to be one of the victims of radiation poisoning. Most people know that cancer and radiation poisoning go hand in hand. When you try and just state that most of the public is uninformed and that coal/oil plants generate more polution, everyone already knows that.
Aren't you mainly talking about technological improvements obsoleting buisness models? That has always been the case. What is happening now is a movement of jobs not to increase innovation, but rather to sustain another faulty buisness model (Overpaid management).
When you have changes in any model, the model must either change to accomodate the current situation or be protected to extinction. If no changes occur, the model is always obsoleted either by chance or by a planned attack (usually by chance). The problem is that there is a definate model which is being protected. Think for a moment about the management of a company and wages of people who actually provide innovation and the lifeblood of the company. There definately is something wrong when upper management if willing to destroy it's lifeblood for profits. What they are doing is running the company into the ground for a short term profit.
Simple solution. A buisness model will occur that will allow the people who have nothing to lose (laid off workers) to form their own company like existance that will beat the pants off the competition mainly because they won't have to pay a multi-million dollar CEO salary.
Seriously, do you think that an emerging country like india will just sit around and be the economical slaves of another country? Sooner or later, they're just going to replace their foreign management with their own, work as a direct compeditor with a huge advantage (already in the market, no startup costs, efficient model). If investors want to see a return to profits, they basically have to see that if the economy is doing bad, they should expect the management to take the first cost of getting back to profit.
I have several problems with the current state of affairs with the RIAA. They are preaching that if you download anything and not pay for it, you are stealing. This is grossly incorrect. I do not want anyone preaching to kids that copyright infringement is stealing. There are many movies and songs that you can download without "breaking the law". Apparently copyright infringement is more dangerous than drinking and driving.
The second problem I have is how distinguishing downloading a song from the internet is illegal but recording a song from the radio isn't. That can never be fully explained to me in a way that i would say "Damn, you're right. How could i ever group those two things as seperate instances". As far as i care, if it's on the radio, it's public domain.
Trust networks?.. possible, but too time consuming, and as long as there's someone who'll profit from it, they'll sell out a trusted server to release spam.
The real answer-> kill all open relays and bounce back the spam to the origionator. DOS attacks on the origionators of the spam. Contact their ISP and block their ip addies. In fact, contact their providers and get them to cancel their service to the offending ISP.
maybe they should start advertising as "limited bandwidth" and "for the casual consumer only" instead of unlimited time and fast connection 24/7. Lets face it, why the hell do you have a cable modem if you look at a few web pages and get yer email? You do not need that speed. Get some net enchancer program that will cache common images and go back to dial up. Your paying 4x more money than you should.
Seriously, who cares? If both the dvd+r and dvd-r play equally well, then it's your choice. Maybe a drive will come out that will record on both medias. That will win hands down on both counts.
The only other factor is speed and price. Also I'd say I'd actually buy a dvd recorder if one of them supported dual layered and dual layered double sided formats. I'd really like to copy my dual layered movies and games and not have to remove stuff from the dvds to make them fit.
As a huge discovery that'll cause social upheval. Lets get something straight, innovation will occur all the time no matter what so eventually whatever someone tries to hold back will come to light. No one is really that set to say that something could never be possible.
Illegal to fake a watermark? Why support devices that require them in the first place?.. you're just giving a reason for people to get them. If you don't support all that digital rights management crap, then no one will buy the devices that use them. If no one buys the devices that use them, then this bill will be pointless. You have to draw the line somewhere and think before you buy a product.
Seriously, where do they come up with this crap? Under redistributing services, they can threaten anyone with a router. When the hell did violating some crappy TOS lead towards criminal investigations?
This all has to do with 9-11. The feds are going to love that whole "unknown users to anonymous plan criminal acts through your account". Apparently your next door neighboor is someone anonymous who is planning some terrorist activity now.
I suggest a broad boycott of their whole stinkin' service. Hit them where it hurts. In the mean time switch to verizon online or some other crappy service which doesn't push such crap on you.
New money is supposed to look more like
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 1
Monopoly money. Maybe it's just some strange message from the gov't?
Seriously, where do they have the time and the money to spend on new designs and colors? I for one think it's a total waste of time to make a new design and add color to some bills which have just changed in the past 10 years. Don't you think the gov't has more important issues to deal with other than issuing new colored money?
Order a few copies of America's Army from the U.S. army and let the kids play it. Do you really think the gov't is going to acknoledge that a game that they made is/would be harmfull to children?;)
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of bandwidth sharing for cable modems? If no one is using the pipe for the neighborhood, i'll get full speed on it, but once someone else jumps on and uses it, I'll get half of what i'm getting? I'm not talking about uncapping and all that garbage, I'm talking about usage according to what's offered. And I'm sorry, but 24/7 access is the same as 24/7 utilization. There's no difference. If there was, the buisness model would include time charges, like long distance phone calls.
Justifying the charges due to how much it costs them isn't my dilema. It's what's advertised. In fact, anything at or above 100k is fine with me. According to my math, using the person above's post, a t1 can support up to 7 users at 200k, 14 users at 100k. 14x55=770. Now you claim a T1 is 1000$ a month, but where the hell do you get that figure? I sincerely doubt that comcast or any of the major providers (baby bells) pay that much. I mean, the baby bells own the damn pipes. They certainly aren't paying what average geek joe would get for a t1. I'm sure the major cable companies (read comcast) has a sweet deal going. But it's not even like that. On a good day on my cable modem, i get like 50k at most, only does it shoot up past 100k during the night. This is the kind of service that i'm forced to pay for because of no competition in the area. DSL is plagued with last x mile connection, and it does not reach me in a rural place such as PA (one of comcast's states).
Now back to something that people seem to forget to acknoledge is the fact that when order comcast broadband, they touted the fact that you can use the service 24/7, and seemly encouraged people to do so. Unless you own a server, there's practically no feasible way to use the connection all the time. But since u/l is capped at around 10-15k, there's no real way to run a server. This connection is primarily for d/l only. How can you actually defend their decision to up the rates of people who use it. Are they going to lower the rates of people who don't? And if they raise it on me, then it's not a flat fee after all, which they market it to be.That's the whole problem right there. Until you can address why i should have to pay more for the same service, it won't make any sense to me. You can claim all the figures you want, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not the one who made the buisness model. It's like paying for one of those flat fee long distance plans, then having the company come back to you and telling you "Ohh, we're going to have to raise the rates on you because you're actually using the plan we offered. We thought you were going to just get it and keep paying the fees without using it". I'm sorry, but that plan does not work. And discrimination is based upon differences. If I'm a computer enthusiast (read geek), I'm different than most people.
Constitutionally, there's a clause that says they protect against race, gender, age, ect. ect., that does not mean that other rights not in the laws are not protected.
practically every expense you just mentioned also occurs in dial-up connections for the isps to pay.
Besides that, the argument is what's advertised, and that's 24/7 usasge. I'm not complaining about what speed it get now (though it's crappy), I'm complaining about wanting to raise rates on people who take comcast on their offer. Nor have i ever said that i don't pay, or don't wish to pay, but for what i pay now i certainly deserve 24/7 access using it however much i want to. It's what was offered to me and what i plan to use. Raising the rates should be illegal as it's a form of discrimination.
You're analogy is wrong about the diamonds. Let me make it more correct for you.
Here comes company A and they say "Pay us 5000$ a year and you can have up to 50 diamonds per year" to jewlers. Most jewlers take them up on this offer and take about 5 diamonds each. Jewlers who have seen this as a good deal try to take a full 50 diamonds that they're offering, but company A only has 30 diamonds to give those 20% who want to take a good deal for what it is. Instead of appologizing for offering a deal which company A could never fulfill, they tell those 20% of the companies, "We'll give you the 20 other diamonds in the deal for 5000$ more".
That is what's going on. You take their max bandwidth they're offering, and check out how much it is a month. If they cannot meet that, then what they're offering isn't what they can fulfill. And if that's true, they shouldn't be offering that much. Again, that's the problem with flat fee services, but no one wants to pay per usage, because the only times they want to apply this is to people that use the max bandwidth. How many companies have tried to applied this to people who just check email and moderate webpage viewing? It doesn't make sense to do this because they would be losing money. If you think about it that way, the 80% of users who don't use the full bandwidth or anywhere near it pay extra so the 20% can. That's the problem of flat fee services, or maybe that's the bonus of having that system.
read the post. I said it doesn't cost anything once it's already in place. That means the cost after the pipes have been laid, routers, switch,es multiplexers, ect. have been installed. Peering to other backbones is a shared cost of all the users, same as repairing them. Monitoring them? I don't see why that even needs to be done. Would go under repair if you ask me.
But when you start charging everyone 55$ a month for crappy service to begin with, then start adding more fees for people who actually use them when there usually is no alternative to broadband in the area, it's not right.
Yeah, I agree they have a clause in there like that, but how legal is that anyways? Contracts mean nothing when there's a clause in it that says it can be changed at will at anytime. What's the point then?
And I haven't seen any improvement at all on comcast. I've had experience with their crappy service, and not once since i've had it has it improved. The buisness model is wrong when you offer a service, yet can only handle 15% of the users at one time. Porn hound or not, if they can't offer what they claim, they should be taken to court like aol for overselling their service.
Also, you claim your cable modem is faster than a t1, and i assume you're on comcast? Well from my experience, considering i've never had a faster connection than the lowest verizon offers for dsl, you're pretty damn lucky. Then again, when you're offered that much speed, see how fast they'll consider you a bandwidth hog when you actually use the service.
regardless of how much it costs, when it's advertised as unlimited 24/7 at a certain speed, it's hard to put the blame on people who use that offer for what it's worth.
If comcast was serious in charing people for what they use, would they lower the price on the people who maybe use 1 gig a month? Why do all the companies think that this is a one way street, and somehow people agree with them. It's the same thing as companies charging more for a product cuz they claim they need to increase sales from piracy. It's just another excuse to try and rape more money out of the situation.
People pay for their access not for the latency, but for the bandwidth. These companies don't have limits on their user contracts, to enforce imaginary clauses is illegal. Someone should sue their asses. Besides, the pipes are already there, using them costs no extra money to the providers, especially for a company like comcast.
hey, it would be great to have an augmented suit counter-strike party. You could rent out paint ball places and instead of getting nasty welts, you could have a great game of cs and own people.
sue them back for legal fees.. You should all contact each other (the companies being sued) and hire a single good lawyer. That lawyer can then take the cases to court (they're all the same case after all) win easily, and then countersue for a higher than cost fee. You'll make them go bankrupt in no time.
Not only that, but you should look through other courses. Contact your congressman so they can investigate this fraudulent copyright. Previous art definately applies to this case.
Your isp can require you to drink the blue koolaid on their contract, doesn't mean you have to listen. You pay for service already, don't you? Besides, the worst they can do is to cut your service.
Slashdot Mirror
They should just start banning passengers. If there's no passengers, there's no threat, right?
Your information will be used to vote for a president of course. Nothing like dead people voting, it brings a tear to my eyes.
All they gotta do now is make a robot that potties metal and we can make home made cars and real buildings. What a treat!
Here's how to do it.
Step 1 - Build a time machine
Step 2 - go back to 1990 and find a job in the IT sector
Step 3 - Profit!
Just look at all the movies where there's nuclear reactors that have had problems. No one wants to be one of the victims of radiation poisoning. Most people know that cancer and radiation poisoning go hand in hand. When you try and just state that most of the public is uninformed and that coal/oil plants generate more polution, everyone already knows that.
When you have changes in any model, the model must either change to accomodate the current situation or be protected to extinction. If no changes occur, the model is always obsoleted either by chance or by a planned attack (usually by chance). The problem is that there is a definate model which is being protected. Think for a moment about the management of a company and wages of people who actually provide innovation and the lifeblood of the company. There definately is something wrong when upper management if willing to destroy it's lifeblood for profits. What they are doing is running the company into the ground for a short term profit.
Simple solution. A buisness model will occur that will allow the people who have nothing to lose (laid off workers) to form their own company like existance that will beat the pants off the competition mainly because they won't have to pay a multi-million dollar CEO salary.
Seriously, do you think that an emerging country like india will just sit around and be the economical slaves of another country? Sooner or later, they're just going to replace their foreign management with their own, work as a direct compeditor with a huge advantage (already in the market, no startup costs, efficient model). If investors want to see a return to profits, they basically have to see that if the economy is doing bad, they should expect the management to take the first cost of getting back to profit.
The second problem I have is how distinguishing downloading a song from the internet is illegal but recording a song from the radio isn't. That can never be fully explained to me in a way that i would say "Damn, you're right. How could i ever group those two things as seperate instances". As far as i care, if it's on the radio, it's public domain.
Trust networks?.. possible, but too time consuming, and as long as there's someone who'll profit from it, they'll sell out a trusted server to release spam.
The real answer-> kill all open relays and bounce back the spam to the origionator. DOS attacks on the origionators of the spam. Contact their ISP and block their ip addies. In fact, contact their providers and get them to cancel their service to the offending ISP.
maybe they should start advertising as "limited bandwidth" and "for the casual consumer only" instead of unlimited time and fast connection 24/7. Lets face it, why the hell do you have a cable modem if you look at a few web pages and get yer email? You do not need that speed. Get some net enchancer program that will cache common images and go back to dial up. Your paying 4x more money than you should.
Seriously, who cares? If both the dvd+r and dvd-r play equally well, then it's your choice. Maybe a drive will come out that will record on both medias. That will win hands down on both counts.
The only other factor is speed and price. Also I'd say I'd actually buy a dvd recorder if one of them supported dual layered and dual layered double sided formats. I'd really like to copy my dual layered movies and games and not have to remove stuff from the dvds to make them fit.
As a huge discovery that'll cause social upheval. Lets get something straight, innovation will occur all the time no matter what so eventually whatever someone tries to hold back will come to light. No one is really that set to say that something could never be possible.
Illegal to fake a watermark? Why support devices that require them in the first place?.. you're just giving a reason for people to get them. If you don't support all that digital rights management crap, then no one will buy the devices that use them. If no one buys the devices that use them, then this bill will be pointless. You have to draw the line somewhere and think before you buy a product.
Seriously, where do they come up with this crap? Under redistributing services, they can threaten anyone with a router. When the hell did violating some crappy TOS lead towards criminal investigations?
This all has to do with 9-11. The feds are going to love that whole "unknown users to anonymous plan criminal acts through your account". Apparently your next door neighboor is someone anonymous who is planning some terrorist activity now.
I suggest a broad boycott of their whole stinkin' service. Hit them where it hurts. In the mean time switch to verizon online or some other crappy service which doesn't push such crap on you.
Monopoly money. Maybe it's just some strange message from the gov't?
Seriously, where do they have the time and the money to spend on new designs and colors? I for one think it's a total waste of time to make a new design and add color to some bills which have just changed in the past 10 years. Don't you think the gov't has more important issues to deal with other than issuing new colored money?
Order a few copies of America's Army from the U.S. army and let the kids play it. Do you really think the gov't is going to acknoledge that a game that they made is/would be harmfull to children? ;)
Justifying the charges due to how much it costs them isn't my dilema. It's what's advertised. In fact, anything at or above 100k is fine with me. According to my math, using the person above's post, a t1 can support up to 7 users at 200k, 14 users at 100k. 14x55=770. Now you claim a T1 is 1000$ a month, but where the hell do you get that figure? I sincerely doubt that comcast or any of the major providers (baby bells) pay that much. I mean, the baby bells own the damn pipes. They certainly aren't paying what average geek joe would get for a t1. I'm sure the major cable companies (read comcast) has a sweet deal going. But it's not even like that. On a good day on my cable modem, i get like 50k at most, only does it shoot up past 100k during the night. This is the kind of service that i'm forced to pay for because of no competition in the area. DSL is plagued with last x mile connection, and it does not reach me in a rural place such as PA (one of comcast's states).
Now back to something that people seem to forget to acknoledge is the fact that when order comcast broadband, they touted the fact that you can use the service 24/7, and seemly encouraged people to do so. Unless you own a server, there's practically no feasible way to use the connection all the time. But since u/l is capped at around 10-15k, there's no real way to run a server. This connection is primarily for d/l only. How can you actually defend their decision to up the rates of people who use it. Are they going to lower the rates of people who don't? And if they raise it on me, then it's not a flat fee after all, which they market it to be.That's the whole problem right there. Until you can address why i should have to pay more for the same service, it won't make any sense to me. You can claim all the figures you want, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not the one who made the buisness model. It's like paying for one of those flat fee long distance plans, then having the company come back to you and telling you "Ohh, we're going to have to raise the rates on you because you're actually using the plan we offered. We thought you were going to just get it and keep paying the fees without using it". I'm sorry, but that plan does not work. And discrimination is based upon differences. If I'm a computer enthusiast (read geek), I'm different than most people.
Constitutionally, there's a clause that says they protect against race, gender, age, ect. ect., that does not mean that other rights not in the laws are not protected.
Besides that, the argument is what's advertised, and that's 24/7 usasge. I'm not complaining about what speed it get now (though it's crappy), I'm complaining about wanting to raise rates on people who take comcast on their offer. Nor have i ever said that i don't pay, or don't wish to pay, but for what i pay now i certainly deserve 24/7 access using it however much i want to. It's what was offered to me and what i plan to use. Raising the rates should be illegal as it's a form of discrimination.
Here comes company A and they say "Pay us 5000$ a year and you can have up to 50 diamonds per year" to jewlers. Most jewlers take them up on this offer and take about 5 diamonds each. Jewlers who have seen this as a good deal try to take a full 50 diamonds that they're offering, but company A only has 30 diamonds to give those 20% who want to take a good deal for what it is. Instead of appologizing for offering a deal which company A could never fulfill, they tell those 20% of the companies, "We'll give you the 20 other diamonds in the deal for 5000$ more".
That is what's going on. You take their max bandwidth they're offering, and check out how much it is a month. If they cannot meet that, then what they're offering isn't what they can fulfill. And if that's true, they shouldn't be offering that much. Again, that's the problem with flat fee services, but no one wants to pay per usage, because the only times they want to apply this is to people that use the max bandwidth. How many companies have tried to applied this to people who just check email and moderate webpage viewing? It doesn't make sense to do this because they would be losing money. If you think about it that way, the 80% of users who don't use the full bandwidth or anywhere near it pay extra so the 20% can. That's the problem of flat fee services, or maybe that's the bonus of having that system.
But when you start charging everyone 55$ a month for crappy service to begin with, then start adding more fees for people who actually use them when there usually is no alternative to broadband in the area, it's not right.
And I haven't seen any improvement at all on comcast. I've had experience with their crappy service, and not once since i've had it has it improved. The buisness model is wrong when you offer a service, yet can only handle 15% of the users at one time. Porn hound or not, if they can't offer what they claim, they should be taken to court like aol for overselling their service.
Also, you claim your cable modem is faster than a t1, and i assume you're on comcast? Well from my experience, considering i've never had a faster connection than the lowest verizon offers for dsl, you're pretty damn lucky. Then again, when you're offered that much speed, see how fast they'll consider you a bandwidth hog when you actually use the service.
If comcast was serious in charing people for what they use, would they lower the price on the people who maybe use 1 gig a month? Why do all the companies think that this is a one way street, and somehow people agree with them. It's the same thing as companies charging more for a product cuz they claim they need to increase sales from piracy. It's just another excuse to try and rape more money out of the situation.
People pay for their access not for the latency, but for the bandwidth. These companies don't have limits on their user contracts, to enforce imaginary clauses is illegal. Someone should sue their asses. Besides, the pipes are already there, using them costs no extra money to the providers, especially for a company like comcast.
hey, it would be great to have an augmented suit counter-strike party. You could rent out paint ball places and instead of getting nasty welts, you could have a great game of cs and own people.
Not only that, but you should look through other courses. Contact your congressman so they can investigate this fraudulent copyright. Previous art definately applies to this case.
Contracts aren't worth their salt anymore.
Your isp can require you to drink the blue koolaid on their contract, doesn't mean you have to listen. You pay for service already, don't you? Besides, the worst they can do is to cut your service.