Everquest is same old crap over and over. Hack and slash, get exp, ohh crap, i died, i lose a week's worth of exp.
Seriously, how much fun is that? Evercrap just continues and continues to be a money whoring peice of crap. How many additions did they add onto the game? How much better did it make it?.. 0%. More time than not most of these addicts who play constantly have absolutly no life at all. That's why they play the goddamn game so much.
And who the hell thinks it's newsworthy that they're making evercrap2?.. new and improved with merchants. Who cares, so many other mmporgs have player classes that aren't based on hacking and slashing already, this is absolutly nothing new! It's called trade skills!
Hell. The whole idea that fat cells can be turned into stem cells has been known for over a year. So what was the whole big deal with getting stem cells from embryos?
Seriously, i can't wait till they combine this with nanotechnology. Then you really have real-time regeneration. Slice my finger off, nanobots convert fat cells into stem cells, put them into place and remake the nerve/bone/muscle/skin cells into a whole new finger. Sounds groovy to me, only about 30-40 years away from this (or less).
that there is a ton of money already gotten by taxes. The real problem lies in the allocation of tax money and how NASA keeps on getting cut more and more. Just allocate 1% of the military budget and we'd get people zippin' all across the solar system.
It will never be pay per packet. The internet isn't an electric company, nor a water company. The resources they're offering isn't as hard to produce and renew like those utilities. A better analogy is the cable company where access is a flat rate, but more can be bought for a price. Once the infrastructure is in place, it really doesn't cost much to provide service. It's paying for that infrastructure that too many isps and other companies were betting on and lost. They expanded too fast, spending too much.
Per packet is too irrational. What price per packet will you set? Even one cent per packet is too much. Think in terms of AOL and you'll see that flat based fees are the way to go. That's because usage even for common folk is still pretty high. Viewing streaming movies, downloading demos of programs, all that takes lots of bandwidth. Even if they don't have their computer on 24/7 and d/l music and warez constantly they still have the ability to overuse their set limits by any proposals except for the most generous ones.
Let me ask you this. If any ISPs plan to limit the usage on their dsls, cable modems, ect.. then why even offer that speed? Why not set the limit so the people on 24/7 filling up their pipes only reach the max at the end of the month. I'll tell you why. They're still treating broadband as a dial-up. Why offer big connection speeds if usage is restricted? Doesn't make sense to me.
But this is a service. I'm pretty sure they're blocking it just now even though it wasn't part of the service contract that they would.
A correct analogy would be to say that the cable company decided to block MTV because it's unappropriate. I agree that it's their choice to do such, but if (and i do suspect) that the ISPs down in NZ are very limited and is practically a monopoly, then many users don't have a choice to jump ship and go with someone with less draconian measures.
Ohh, and just because the rights aren't mentioned in the TOS doesn't mean you don't have them. If you're paying for a connection, it's a connection no matter how you look at it. Blocking ports limits the connection. I'm pretty sure it's advertised as an Internet Connection account, not a web proxy or a ftp service. An Internet Connection should be open for all ports and services that anyone could think of to use on the Internet. Besides, they're basically tell you they have the power to control what programs you run on your computer. That is a terrible precedence that someone probably is going to fight about.
Ohh wait, didn't they censor a big part of the internet already in NZ? I guess they had this coming then.
I am sick and tired of hearing about the crap excuses that ISPs make when trying to earn a profit. Practically all of them advertise a 24/7, flat fee for unlimited usage. Practically all of them claim in advertisements that they want you to use the connection as much as possible. Then they turn around and stick it to you when you actually take them up on their word.
The problem here isn't that it'll cost too much. The problem is false claims and not the correct math. You can't allocate a percentage of about 1/5th usage and expect every user to follow that on a always on, always ready connection. You have to figure out that at least 75% of the users will leave their computer on all the time and constantly use up the bandwidth that they're alloted.
The analogy that sharing a bill when someone orders a hell of a lot more than the rest is a bad one for this problem. It's more like everybody is a student on a university using a meal plan, and one or two of the students actually use it all up after a semester. Should they be thrown out of the meal plan? Should they have to pay more for the same meal plan? The answer is of course, no. If you want to limit this, you simply but clauses in the service contract that limits the bandwidth and or usage of the service, but don't blame me if your service isn't that popular.
Besides, lets face the facts here. Most people don't pay that much for the bandwidth, but the connection itself. If you don't use up all the bandwidth of that connection, you're practically wasting money. If it's there, let the users use it and don't complain.
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz
on
Review: Panic Room
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I want a "Lets Ban Katz from Writing" law to be passed, we'll call it the LBKW....SSSSCBDA.. so it'll be called the LBKWSSSSCBDA, the last could of letters is to make it look better and more confusing so senators have no choice but to pass it unanomously.
If anyone hasn't noticed by now, it's a complete waste of time to read anything writen by him. I don't know why he writes for slashdot at all. Anyone who ever defends him haven't read a single peice he's writen. It's just a simple fact. Hell, monkeys with half a brain could understand this simple movie and yet he has no clue.
Anyone want to start a petition to have him perminantly censored?
you know what i don't get?.. how to enforce watermarking in user encoded media. I would assume that encoders are going to have an option for watermarking. This won't stop someone from ripping and mp3ing britney spear's next album and putting it on a p2p network. Nor will it stop anyone from encoding tv shows on divx (hell, is that even illegal anyways?)
I'm all for watermarking. Why?.. because it's such a stupid and silly idea. How many corporations have products such as mp3s and or divx movies which they're selling over the net?.... If you know of any, I'd like to know. What about the future though? I guess that's what this is all about, right?.. in the forseeable future, some company will be selling movies and mp3s on the web, right? Anyone who's a warez trader will know not to use any format that has stupid water markings on them, they'll just convert it to a format that's totally free with no protections at all. So who do they plan on catching?.. common joe schmoe who gave a copy of some movie he paid for to his friend? Yes, do that, throw someone who paid for something in jail. That sounds like a plan.
umm, it's not getting local stations, but stations you can't get with a $2.25 device with an AA battery. If you go and live abroad it's comforting to have some radio you're used to. Also sports games from local stations are a blessing sometimes. There are lots and lots of reasons.
I'd like to see some new material played on internet radio other than the mass marketed garbage you hear on fm stations. This gives someone the perfect oppertunity to do so.
I agree with you 100%. Bad parenting is the main cause of children being violent in schools and elsewhere today. I do find it kind of disturbing that sometimes a parent thinks that being a good parent is providing for the child in terms of money and not in time and attention. There are very wrong misconceptions of what being a good parent is and unfortunately bad parenting usually stems from the previous generation and continues.
What's very interesting to me that no politician or lawyer has ever used as far as i know is that the children are the parent's (or guardian's) responsibility until their 18. Doesn't this make thier children's actions practically their actions? How come when the child does something bad the parents always claim that they had no idea that the child was contemplating some action. When a child brings guns to school and shoots everything up, the parents and the child should goto jail. The only exception i see is when the child is mentally ill, and if so they should of gotten help a while back anyways.
Re:I don't even know where to start with you
on
The Crime of Sharing
·
· Score: 1
first of all let me make one thing clear. Sharing is not profiting at all. That is a corperate mindset of greed. Music cannot always been translated into money.
I concede that i was mistaken about the home recording act of 1978, i was thinking of the copyright act of 1976 i believe.
In anycase, where does property stop at?.. if you play music for a friend, does the artist control the vibrations in the air?.. this isn't a pay per listen buisness model, this is a purchase and forget buisness model. There is no money loss between the artist or the record companies, i've tried to make this clear. Distribution will only further the artist's fame and fanbase thus generating more money. It is mainly the record company's shortsightedness in that they see it as a loss, but in the long run it's a gain.
Now about this something for nothing, it's actually not that simple. It's something less for nothing. You have to pay for the media you give your friend, and if i'm not mistaken there's a fee attached to blank media that goes straight to the record companies. How is that even legal? Besides the fact i'm not talking about overinflated prices on cd (price fixing) and copy protections which don't allow you to transfer the music to different media (it's in the home recording act of 1992) where does the record company's assault on your rights stop?
Like i said, stealing is a harsh word for sharing. Music especially is kind of hard to steal. It's like taking a photograph of a painting is stealing according to your definition. It's not the same quality first of all if it's encoded into mp3s. It doesn't last as long on a cd-r. If artists and or record companies were really worried about people "stealing" their music, they wouldn't put it for sale.
About the record companies existing as they do now, it's only legal because of certain backwards laws. I agree wholeheartedly that reproducing music and or movies and selling them is wrong. Sharing stuff to other people who would never of bought it is not stealing. You're doing everyone a favor. Besides that point, if the record companies weren't worried about their existance, organizations such as the RIAA wouldn't exist to fight every legal battle there is for them. Apparently they must have their heads not screwed on tight as they go after napster and kazaa but leave their own music city morpheous alone. Explain that one.
As for leaving the US, i believe in making things right. That's why i advocate sharing. There have been more than one time that the law was wrong and changed. When you have senators saying that napster was the coolest thing i think they're even having a change of heart. If i were you though i would find a new profession.
>The USA is becoming a police state.
Wake up, rub yer eyes and smell the coffee, this is a police state. Maybe it hasn't affected you yet, but rest assured, it sure as hell will.
What i don't get are the people that believe that sharing is the same as stealing. Most people's arguments against music sharing is that the artist loses some sort of compensation when a song is shared. I don't agree. That's assuming that an artist always recieves a compensation when a song is played or heard from the listener. This is of course not correct as many a songs are played on the radio.
Taking this argument another course, maybe a sale of a cd didn't happen because someone downloaded an album off the net. The artist was robbed of his money right? I mean this argument all comes down to money. But what if the person never had an intention of buying the cd to begin with. Was there money lost? No loss means not stealing as far as i can tell.
Here's another problem i see. Many well known artists are complaining that people share their music. But when you have contracts to allow stations to play your music people can record it off the radio and listen to it for free too, right? I mean before we had mp3s, that's what people did with cassetts. Was this a big problem then? Unknown artists should be happy to have their music distributed. It's called free advertisements. More of a fan base means more money. Metallica started this way, so i'm sure there were other bands that also got it's roots from free distribution.
Another fact, and yes i do call it a fact, is that mostly all the artists aren't talking out against free distribution. Only a hand picked bunch of sellouts which were paid one way or another thought this was a bad idea and protested. Other sellouts joined the napster side. It comes down to some artists being money whores and others who are in it for the music and the fun. The only ones who are fighting this for their lives are the record companies. Their whole livelyhood is the raping of musicians and selling their music. Now the artist recieves compensation from distributed music because of the extra fan base or maybe a purchased cd down the line which would not of been purchased, but distributing music cuts the record company's profits. Should this industry really exist the way it does now? How many musicians do you hear on popular radio stations that don't have a record contract? Of course this all comes down to money as radio stations need advertisements to make money.
Of course the argument that i haven't heard is how does the internet make sharing illegal? It was designed for sharing. If a friend makes a copy of a cd he has for you, gives it to you physically, how is that any different than doing it over the internet? If the copy was for personal use only, i don't see any legal ramifications from doing that. Under the home recording act of 1978 you can do this legally. Somehow the judges and lawyers think that doing so over the internet makes it different. I disagree.
editorial peice john. I hate your work because it's usually filled with idiotic statements that only you seem to find sense in.
The "Net" Isn't alive. The "Net" will never be alive. There is no heart of the net, as it's constantly changing by the input of countless of people. AOL is a provider, not the heart. BBS's were not even on the net, for as the name implies (Net) they would of have to of been interconnected, and that was not usually the case. Microsofting of the net?.. care to explain that? Sure they're a huge monopoly, but i don't see any part of the "Net" carved out for them. Only some servers running their code. Opensourcing is a reasonable outcome of interconnecting everyone together. I don't believe it's motives were purely political. There have been many collaberations going on before anyone mentioned anything about gpling their stuff.
All in all, the net is just a tool. Nothing more. To try and look at it in a different light is a waste of time.
Why the companies advertise a high speed internet connection with no restrictions, get you to sign on, then complain you're using it too much? In no contract i've ever seen (unless they say x ammount of data per month) do they state that they want you to limit yourself to how much you want to use the connection you have.
There's no such thing as bandwidth hogs. In terms of cable, each neighborhood shares a connection. Depending on how many people and how much they use it, they may up or lower the connection speed shared between people. Here is the main point. Unless you're uncapping your cable modem, which is considered to be theft of service in many places, the docsis standard for cable modems automatically will cut your bandwidth off if someone else on the same circuit requests some bandwidth to be used. So therefore you can only use as much bandwidth is available at the time. That's why cable modems only state a max speed which you can reach but does not guarantee that speed. They usually only guarantee a min speed of 28.8 modems (3k a sec) as their lowest (if everyone in your neighborhood is using the max bandwidth at the same time).
By putting that into perspective, how can someone be a bandwidth hog? Because he/she is using the service that the companies advertised? If they're competing with other companies and they advertise too low of a price, that's their own fault and they'll go out of buisness in no time. To target the users that actually use the service they're advertising and tell them they have to pay more or move out (which in many cases it's their only choice for a decent i-net connection) is extortion.
I am sick and tired of hearing the excuse "Well, they expect the average user to only use ammount X while the hog uses the connection 24/7 and uses an average of 5x that ammount" is crap. The service isn't like a cell phone plan where you pay a premium to use it during the day and less durring the night, it's a service which is like water.. 24/7 usage if you want to. Unlike water, it's a flat fee, so use it as much as you want to and you can. That's what's advertised (unless they explicitly say so).
DSL is even worse if they try to target you because unlike cable, you're guaranteed (usually) a min and max bandwidth (depending on your distance to the central office).
when the phone company wanted and did charge you for how many phone jacks you had. Cable companies wanted to charge for how many tv's you had as well. And now they want to charge for how many computers you have on the i-net connection you pay for. What a world:P
waaaa waaa, let me cry my tears away about piracy when it is one of the most overstated claims this side of buisness's wazoo. Give me a break. Piracy made DMCA, piracy made the ssca, piracy is putting sony, microsoft and nintendo all out of buisness.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but piracy is a lot lower than you think in percentage. And sometimes, so what?.. would those people who pirate shell out money for whatever they pirated to begin with?.. Answer is simply no.
ohh, and btw, GOD didn't intend anyone to use mod chips for playing imports. You wanna play an import, buy an imported system.
if it's meant for in home use, then i see no problem. That same kid that is transmitting inside the dorm to other people in the dorm is basically sharing the dvd with all of them. Why can't he just hand over the dvd when he's done to these kids?.. what's the difference? I don't see any.
sucked. Too many plot holes. I felt as if the whole story was fairly easy to guess. Especially the last part.
If the aliens were able to get through the shields, then why bother implanting bombs in clones and just drop bombs into the city. The whole explination of why tests weren't done on the guy to check if he was an imposter was stupid. Their check was to drill his heart out. They could of done the test he was trying to do in the first place. Not only that, but the stupidity of some people in the movie is astounding. The major could just be will farrel doing a skit the whole time as a retard.
That being said, the idea of not expecting much from a movie is... what? Paying 8.75$ to see a movie and the cost goes to... where? Not even just the cost to see a movie but i agree that this is a movie i'm going to see a lot 10 years down the road on the sci-fi channel because of it's sci-fi cheese plot.
hmm.. i think a purpose does matter. People just don't make up stuff then find reasons to use it, they first think of how to do something better, and try to create or improve on something that exists. Guns are meant for killing because they were invented for war. Encryption was created because of a desire for greater privacy.
By your way of thinking, a plastic fork can kill someone, but the chance that it can kill doesn't mean that it was intended to be used that way. Some things are just meant to be used in a certain way. A plastic fork is meant to be broken while trying to cut something:P Not to slowly sever someone's head. It does have to be taken into consideration though. Without taking it into consideration, then everything just becomes tools to be used in whichever way. And if that happens, the argument is pointless because everyone could have a different idea on how it should be used, which makes no relevance to how it is meant to be used.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, how much fun is that? Evercrap just continues and continues to be a money whoring peice of crap. How many additions did they add onto the game? How much better did it make it?.. 0%. More time than not most of these addicts who play constantly have absolutly no life at all. That's why they play the goddamn game so much.
And who the hell thinks it's newsworthy that they're making evercrap2?.. new and improved with merchants. Who cares, so many other mmporgs have player classes that aren't based on hacking and slashing already, this is absolutly nothing new! It's called trade skills!
Seriously, i can't wait till they combine this with nanotechnology. Then you really have real-time regeneration. Slice my finger off, nanobots convert fat cells into stem cells, put them into place and remake the nerve/bone/muscle/skin cells into a whole new finger. Sounds groovy to me, only about 30-40 years away from this (or less).
Immortality, here i come.
that there is a ton of money already gotten by taxes. The real problem lies in the allocation of tax money and how NASA keeps on getting cut more and more. Just allocate 1% of the military budget and we'd get people zippin' all across the solar system.
i think maybe this guy was doing experiments on how to make a spinfusor (tribes 2) rather than checking out the limitations of cds.
Per packet is too irrational. What price per packet will you set? Even one cent per packet is too much. Think in terms of AOL and you'll see that flat based fees are the way to go. That's because usage even for common folk is still pretty high. Viewing streaming movies, downloading demos of programs, all that takes lots of bandwidth. Even if they don't have their computer on 24/7 and d/l music and warez constantly they still have the ability to overuse their set limits by any proposals except for the most generous ones.
Let me ask you this. If any ISPs plan to limit the usage on their dsls, cable modems, ect.. then why even offer that speed? Why not set the limit so the people on 24/7 filling up their pipes only reach the max at the end of the month. I'll tell you why. They're still treating broadband as a dial-up. Why offer big connection speeds if usage is restricted? Doesn't make sense to me.
A correct analogy would be to say that the cable company decided to block MTV because it's unappropriate. I agree that it's their choice to do such, but if (and i do suspect) that the ISPs down in NZ are very limited and is practically a monopoly, then many users don't have a choice to jump ship and go with someone with less draconian measures.
Ohh, and just because the rights aren't mentioned in the TOS doesn't mean you don't have them. If you're paying for a connection, it's a connection no matter how you look at it. Blocking ports limits the connection. I'm pretty sure it's advertised as an Internet Connection account, not a web proxy or a ftp service. An Internet Connection should be open for all ports and services that anyone could think of to use on the Internet. Besides, they're basically tell you they have the power to control what programs you run on your computer. That is a terrible precedence that someone probably is going to fight about.
Ohh wait, didn't they censor a big part of the internet already in NZ? I guess they had this coming then.
The problem here isn't that it'll cost too much. The problem is false claims and not the correct math. You can't allocate a percentage of about 1/5th usage and expect every user to follow that on a always on, always ready connection. You have to figure out that at least 75% of the users will leave their computer on all the time and constantly use up the bandwidth that they're alloted.
The analogy that sharing a bill when someone orders a hell of a lot more than the rest is a bad one for this problem. It's more like everybody is a student on a university using a meal plan, and one or two of the students actually use it all up after a semester. Should they be thrown out of the meal plan? Should they have to pay more for the same meal plan? The answer is of course, no. If you want to limit this, you simply but clauses in the service contract that limits the bandwidth and or usage of the service, but don't blame me if your service isn't that popular.
Besides, lets face the facts here. Most people don't pay that much for the bandwidth, but the connection itself. If you don't use up all the bandwidth of that connection, you're practically wasting money. If it's there, let the users use it and don't complain.
If anyone hasn't noticed by now, it's a complete waste of time to read anything writen by him. I don't know why he writes for slashdot at all. Anyone who ever defends him haven't read a single peice he's writen. It's just a simple fact. Hell, monkeys with half a brain could understand this simple movie and yet he has no clue.
Anyone want to start a petition to have him perminantly censored?
I'm all for watermarking. Why?.. because it's such a stupid and silly idea. How many corporations have products such as mp3s and or divx movies which they're selling over the net?.... If you know of any, I'd like to know. What about the future though? I guess that's what this is all about, right?.. in the forseeable future, some company will be selling movies and mp3s on the web, right? Anyone who's a warez trader will know not to use any format that has stupid water markings on them, they'll just convert it to a format that's totally free with no protections at all. So who do they plan on catching?.. common joe schmoe who gave a copy of some movie he paid for to his friend? Yes, do that, throw someone who paid for something in jail. That sounds like a plan.
I'd like to see some new material played on internet radio other than the mass marketed garbage you hear on fm stations. This gives someone the perfect oppertunity to do so.
that whatever power supply they have to keep those particles stored never goes out. Because if it does, they're going to have a loud bang.
What's very interesting to me that no politician or lawyer has ever used as far as i know is that the children are the parent's (or guardian's) responsibility until their 18. Doesn't this make thier children's actions practically their actions? How come when the child does something bad the parents always claim that they had no idea that the child was contemplating some action. When a child brings guns to school and shoots everything up, the parents and the child should goto jail. The only exception i see is when the child is mentally ill, and if so they should of gotten help a while back anyways.
I concede that i was mistaken about the home recording act of 1978, i was thinking of the copyright act of 1976 i believe.
In anycase, where does property stop at?.. if you play music for a friend, does the artist control the vibrations in the air?.. this isn't a pay per listen buisness model, this is a purchase and forget buisness model. There is no money loss between the artist or the record companies, i've tried to make this clear. Distribution will only further the artist's fame and fanbase thus generating more money. It is mainly the record company's shortsightedness in that they see it as a loss, but in the long run it's a gain.
Now about this something for nothing, it's actually not that simple. It's something less for nothing. You have to pay for the media you give your friend, and if i'm not mistaken there's a fee attached to blank media that goes straight to the record companies. How is that even legal? Besides the fact i'm not talking about overinflated prices on cd (price fixing) and copy protections which don't allow you to transfer the music to different media (it's in the home recording act of 1992) where does the record company's assault on your rights stop?
Like i said, stealing is a harsh word for sharing. Music especially is kind of hard to steal. It's like taking a photograph of a painting is stealing according to your definition. It's not the same quality first of all if it's encoded into mp3s. It doesn't last as long on a cd-r. If artists and or record companies were really worried about people "stealing" their music, they wouldn't put it for sale.
About the record companies existing as they do now, it's only legal because of certain backwards laws. I agree wholeheartedly that reproducing music and or movies and selling them is wrong. Sharing stuff to other people who would never of bought it is not stealing. You're doing everyone a favor. Besides that point, if the record companies weren't worried about their existance, organizations such as the RIAA wouldn't exist to fight every legal battle there is for them. Apparently they must have their heads not screwed on tight as they go after napster and kazaa but leave their own music city morpheous alone. Explain that one.
As for leaving the US, i believe in making things right. That's why i advocate sharing. There have been more than one time that the law was wrong and changed. When you have senators saying that napster was the coolest thing i think they're even having a change of heart. If i were you though i would find a new profession.
>The USA is becoming a police state.
Wake up, rub yer eyes and smell the coffee, this is a police state. Maybe it hasn't affected you yet, but rest assured, it sure as hell will.
Taking this argument another course, maybe a sale of a cd didn't happen because someone downloaded an album off the net. The artist was robbed of his money right? I mean this argument all comes down to money. But what if the person never had an intention of buying the cd to begin with. Was there money lost? No loss means not stealing as far as i can tell.
Here's another problem i see. Many well known artists are complaining that people share their music. But when you have contracts to allow stations to play your music people can record it off the radio and listen to it for free too, right? I mean before we had mp3s, that's what people did with cassetts. Was this a big problem then? Unknown artists should be happy to have their music distributed. It's called free advertisements. More of a fan base means more money. Metallica started this way, so i'm sure there were other bands that also got it's roots from free distribution.
Another fact, and yes i do call it a fact, is that mostly all the artists aren't talking out against free distribution. Only a hand picked bunch of sellouts which were paid one way or another thought this was a bad idea and protested. Other sellouts joined the napster side. It comes down to some artists being money whores and others who are in it for the music and the fun. The only ones who are fighting this for their lives are the record companies. Their whole livelyhood is the raping of musicians and selling their music. Now the artist recieves compensation from distributed music because of the extra fan base or maybe a purchased cd down the line which would not of been purchased, but distributing music cuts the record company's profits. Should this industry really exist the way it does now? How many musicians do you hear on popular radio stations that don't have a record contract? Of course this all comes down to money as radio stations need advertisements to make money.
Of course the argument that i haven't heard is how does the internet make sharing illegal? It was designed for sharing. If a friend makes a copy of a cd he has for you, gives it to you physically, how is that any different than doing it over the internet? If the copy was for personal use only, i don't see any legal ramifications from doing that. Under the home recording act of 1978 you can do this legally. Somehow the judges and lawyers think that doing so over the internet makes it different. I disagree.
/rant
The "Net" Isn't alive. The "Net" will never be alive. There is no heart of the net, as it's constantly changing by the input of countless of people. AOL is a provider, not the heart. BBS's were not even on the net, for as the name implies (Net) they would of have to of been interconnected, and that was not usually the case. Microsofting of the net?.. care to explain that? Sure they're a huge monopoly, but i don't see any part of the "Net" carved out for them. Only some servers running their code. Opensourcing is a reasonable outcome of interconnecting everyone together. I don't believe it's motives were purely political. There have been many collaberations going on before anyone mentioned anything about gpling their stuff.
All in all, the net is just a tool. Nothing more. To try and look at it in a different light is a waste of time.
get off this planet before idiots like bush ruin the whole damn place. Who wants to come up with ideas on how to escape?
There's no such thing as bandwidth hogs. In terms of cable, each neighborhood shares a connection. Depending on how many people and how much they use it, they may up or lower the connection speed shared between people. Here is the main point. Unless you're uncapping your cable modem, which is considered to be theft of service in many places, the docsis standard for cable modems automatically will cut your bandwidth off if someone else on the same circuit requests some bandwidth to be used. So therefore you can only use as much bandwidth is available at the time. That's why cable modems only state a max speed which you can reach but does not guarantee that speed. They usually only guarantee a min speed of 28.8 modems (3k a sec) as their lowest (if everyone in your neighborhood is using the max bandwidth at the same time).
By putting that into perspective, how can someone be a bandwidth hog? Because he/she is using the service that the companies advertised? If they're competing with other companies and they advertise too low of a price, that's their own fault and they'll go out of buisness in no time. To target the users that actually use the service they're advertising and tell them they have to pay more or move out (which in many cases it's their only choice for a decent i-net connection) is extortion.
I am sick and tired of hearing the excuse "Well, they expect the average user to only use ammount X while the hog uses the connection 24/7 and uses an average of 5x that ammount" is crap. The service isn't like a cell phone plan where you pay a premium to use it during the day and less durring the night, it's a service which is like water.. 24/7 usage if you want to. Unlike water, it's a flat fee, so use it as much as you want to and you can. That's what's advertised (unless they explicitly say so).
DSL is even worse if they try to target you because unlike cable, you're guaranteed (usually) a min and max bandwidth (depending on your distance to the central office).
when the phone company wanted and did charge you for how many phone jacks you had. Cable companies wanted to charge for how many tv's you had as well. And now they want to charge for how many computers you have on the i-net connection you pay for. What a world :P
Sorry to burst your bubble, but piracy is a lot lower than you think in percentage. And sometimes, so what?.. would those people who pirate shell out money for whatever they pirated to begin with?.. Answer is simply no.
ohh, and btw, GOD didn't intend anyone to use mod chips for playing imports. You wanna play an import, buy an imported system.
if it's meant for in home use, then i see no problem. That same kid that is transmitting inside the dorm to other people in the dorm is basically sharing the dvd with all of them. Why can't he just hand over the dvd when he's done to these kids?.. what's the difference? I don't see any.
So what?.. if you want to be anonymous, just don't have a driver's license.
sucked. Too many plot holes. I felt as if the whole story was fairly easy to guess. Especially the last part.
If the aliens were able to get through the shields, then why bother implanting bombs in clones and just drop bombs into the city. The whole explination of why tests weren't done on the guy to check if he was an imposter was stupid. Their check was to drill his heart out. They could of done the test he was trying to do in the first place. Not only that, but the stupidity of some people in the movie is astounding. The major could just be will farrel doing a skit the whole time as a retard.
That being said, the idea of not expecting much from a movie is... what? Paying 8.75$ to see a movie and the cost goes to... where? Not even just the cost to see a movie but i agree that this is a movie i'm going to see a lot 10 years down the road on the sci-fi channel because of it's sci-fi cheese plot.
You'll be hearing from my lawyer!
By your way of thinking, a plastic fork can kill someone, but the chance that it can kill doesn't mean that it was intended to be used that way. Some things are just meant to be used in a certain way. A plastic fork is meant to be broken while trying to cut something :P Not to slowly sever someone's head. It does have to be taken into consideration though. Without taking it into consideration, then everything just becomes tools to be used in whichever way. And if that happens, the argument is pointless because everyone could have a different idea on how it should be used, which makes no relevance to how it is meant to be used.