Think about it. The Republican party wants you to do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not "immoral". The Democrats want you to be able to do whatever you want, except use your money for what you feel is right. The Libertarians want to take the Government off your back socially and fiscally.
And by extension, what you're saying is that the Libertarian solution is to not pay for internet access, and give the citizens a tax break in exchange for that money that is no longer being spent. Then, the citizens need to organize and figure out how to fund their own libraries' internet access, right?
Makes sense to me, but I know it'd aggravate some people who live in poor areas that can't afford to equip their libraries with computers. What's the Libertarian solution there?
Oh, wait, I know. You're going to say that the Libertarians would still have the internet access program, but they wouldn't place any filter restrictions on it. So that's the Democrat plan. So how is the Libertarian platform better again? Could you explain that?
let cybercafes handle easy community net access...
One problem there - cybercafes aren't free. Libraries are. The whole issue is about funding for poor libraries that couldn't otherwise afford to give away free internet access. Unless, of course, you're saying only rich kids could have internet access - but I know that's not what you meant.
The E-Rate plan is legislation. The filtering stipulations on those funds are legislation. The filtering is an abridgement of speech. Legislation, once signed, is Law. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you get?
If you consider a budget as legislation, then yes. However, every year a new budget is passed. None of the restrictions contained therein are binding permanent contracts. They're redone every year. IMHO, legislation is permanent, binding things that don't go away each year.
The e-rate discounts make the biggest difference on bandwidth, not hardware. They're assuming you won't get multiple bandwidth providers. (And who would?) Either you use the e-rate program, or you don't. If local citizens donate computer hardware but you're still using e-rate bandwidth, then yes, you have to submit to censorship/filtering.
If the government requires censorship before they distribute funds, that's government sponsored censorship. That, by itself, is against your argument and against the First Amendment.
That's government sponsored censorship in libraries, absolutely. But it's not the regulation of internet access. Libraries are still free to fund their own internet access. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that the government is not regulating internet access in libraries. It's just giving it away for free in censored form. Would you rather they took away the offer altogether, and forced all libraries to pay for their own internet access?
Frankly, if the library my kid frequented had the choice between censored internet access and none at all, you know which one I'd pick? Something is better than nothing.
Here's a good opportunity for geeks to put up or shut up. If you want poor areas to have Internet access in libraries, but you don't want stupid government censorship, raise the money yourself and give it to these schools! It's not like charity _has_ to come from the federal government...
Please, somebody, anybody, mod this up. This guy is right on target. This is the problem with this whole debate - we, as geeks, come off sounding like a bunch of whiners because we want library computers to have pr0n access for free. If you feel strongly about the issue, get out and do something about it. Don't sit here and e-mail your Congressperson - get out and do public service work.
Consdering that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate libraries and schools in the first place, why is it supprising that they are regulating it in an unconstitutional way?
They're not regulating schools or libraries. They're offering funding to libraries for internet access if they install filters. That's all. They're not saying the libraries can't spend their own money (or the community's money, however you want to look at it) and install pr0n-laden computers accessible to minors.
This is no different than Congress saying, "Ok, Texas, you can have half-a-billion bucks for highway renovations this year, but you have to use it on interstates, and you have to restrict the speed on those interstates to 65 mph." Get it? They're enforcing arbitrary rules for our own safety (they think) as a condition of receiving the money.
Now, if Texas had a ton of money, they could maintain their own highways and ignore the speed limit. In fact, Montana did just this for a while. However, most states find it easier to accept the burdens in exchange for the bucks. It's not an additional regulation - the states have to choose to take the money.
Thankfully, internet access costs a lot less than highways. You can organize fund-raising drives for your local library to get filter-free internet access, and your library would actually thank you for it. So you ARE doing this, right? Or are you just sitting around whining?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Well, it was a nice thought...
Re-read that, and re-read the article. Congress isn't saying you're not free to browse whatever you want. All they're saying is that they will offer funds to libraries if the libraries censor the internet. You're still perfectly free to enjoy pr0n in your home. Even further, you're even perfectly free to donate to your local library to install a pr0n-loaded computer accessible to minors. There's nothing whatsoever that's being made illegal here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for this particular budget restriction. However, it has nothing to do with free speech. Congress can dole out our tax dollars in any way, shape, or form it wants to, and the only thing we can do about it is to write our Congressperson.
If all of the cost and security questions surrounding internet-based voting suddenly went away (i.e., it was cheaper and just as secure as, well, butterfly ballots), what would be the next obstacle to overcome? Do you think politicians would really be open to making voting easier, or would this get the same lip service as campaign finance reform?
Bangor is no milestone by which to judge America, not by any means. Part of the beauty of America's melting pot is that wherever you go in America, the people are as different as the scenery. Here in Texas, where it's just as hot as Maine is dreary, the nightlife and culture is as thick as the humidity. Over in Miami, it's another scene altogether, with fiery Cuban clubs being a real night out. And over in LA, the Asian scene is amazing.
In Bangor, frankly, it's a bunch of white retirees. You're looking at the original immigrants there, and they haven't gotten any livelier in the last two hundred years.
Yeah, well, Franklin is also credited with saying that "A penny saved is a penny earned," and it isn't like companies have been paying attention to that one either. Somehow I doubt the fact that one of the founding fathers liked Open Source is going to jump-start any patent debates. My boss is more likely to say, "Well, the guy also flew kites during thunderstorms."
If you ever want to REALLY/. a web site with hits, post a story that says "the girl in the picture looks kinda stoned." Immediately all of us went clicking like mad for that link, hoping to see a stoned chick. Hahaha.
Their site is Slashdotted right now, and Mir isn't even falling yet! They're not even delivering serious video bandwidth, and they're already crippled. Methinks I'll wait a couple of days after the Mir flameout before I try to pull up this site again.
Then again, maybe this is their devious way of testing whether their server equipment is up to delivering the Mir reentry video. Note to Navisite: beef it up, baby.
I'm glad the Slashdot guys had the resources of Andover at their disposal, as long as those resources helped out. One of the benefits of being part of a big company is that they've usually got some capital they can burn if you get attacked by lawyers.
On the flip side, being part of a big company means you can't always take a stand. Your parent company also has more resources to lose, and thus sometimes you have to buckle under.
We'll never know if the old Slashdot would have fought off the religion-for-profit crowd, and some people on here are going to say Andover had a negative effect. Let's not turn this into a flame war - at least, not flame Andover, because we'll never know whether they had a positive effect or not.
That was the general idea behind free ISPs, actually, and your price was right on target. For the equivalent of $19.99 per month, you lost all privacy of internet surfing. The company knew where you went, what you bought, who you e-mailed, you name it. You weren't alone in being willing to sell out.
Me, I was holding out for $40, the free DSL, but when it finally became available in my area, I'd wised up.
Imagine, the honesty in society. You can check up on prospective dates. Crime is incredibally low in this environment.
That giant scream you just heard was the collective noise of every woman who's ever been stalked. If we could all suddenly get an unlimited amount of data on anyone we chose, Natalie Portman's every move would be stalked by thousands of drooling trolls. Do you see that as a good thing? A reduction in crime? Me, I don't.
I wonder what would happen if we started telling these CEO's details about their medical history, or their web visits, how long they would resist privacy legislation....
I bet they wouldn't resist it at all - not because they don't mind the privacy intrusion (they would) but because the money they stand to make is so much greater than the money you or I stand to make.
For example, if I was a multimilliondollar CEO, I'd be perfectly fine with the fact that I lived a public life under public scrutiny. That's one of the drawbacks that comes with making the big bucks. However, I don't make six figures, and I'm certainly not a public figure, so I don't accept a lack of privacy as part of my job duties.
I'm not saying Princess Di deserved to get followed by papar^M^M^M^Mpappar^M^M^M photographers, but in this particular case, I'm sure these guys are all expecting someone to violate their privacy sooner or later. Bill Gates got one of his credit card numbers stolen a while back, and you didn't hear him whining about personal privacy. Stuff happens.
By inference, you can read between the lines and surmise that the money to be made off personal privacy is simply too lucrative to ignore. When companies like boo.com go out of business, the customer list is just one of the assets that creditors drool over.
I don't hear anyone warring over Norton File Manager anymore and how it can't be purchased because Win 9x/NT/2k comes with one, so that horse is dead and beaten and has long since mouldered away.
There's a few of us die-hards left that have taken up the use of Windows Commander. It's a really spiffy Norton Commander clone that has a lot of addons, like FTP and serial file transfer. Everybody that I've shown it to has hated it at first, but after watching me use it for five minutes, has been converted. It's the bomb.
Of course, I know it'll never take over any serious market hold, but I don't care. I use it because it's simultaneously more powerful and yet more easy to use than Windows Explorer.
But what are the other advantages? Reading the site it looks roughly comparable to a Palm V and costs as much as a Palm VIIx, but without the built in wireless. I suppose the new form factor is more convenient, but for the same price I'd rather have the Palm VIIx's wireless internet.
It's expandable via the Springboard slot: there are MP3 modules, GPS modules, camera modules, and even an awesome cell phone module. (You plug it in the back of your Handspring, and presto, your Handspring microphone & display function as a complete cell phone, plus the speaker in the module.)
So, you not only get the wireless internet, but you can actually talk to people. This thing is the bomb. I've wanted one since I saw it in action at Comdex. I swear it had nothing to do with the hot chick handing out brochures, either.
You know... in the time you spent typing this post, you could have simply clicked on the link and learned for yourself what Nautilus is.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to post the full software description, and he informs others and avoids/.'ing the site.
The problem at hand isn't that I'm lazy, it's that I want to avoid slashdotting sites that don't need to be hit. A simple line telling us what Nautilus is would save that poor web site from thousands of unnecessary hits. I don't need a file manager today, so I don't need to click that link. If I ever had a site featured on a Slashdot story, I would certainly hope someone would extend me the same courtesy.
Springboards I & II, which are aparrently incompatible
Your spelling ability is surpassed only by your comprehension, Cap'n. If you go through their site, you'll notice that there's an extension module that goes on the back, so you can use either the small Springboard modules or the big ones.
I say this over and over, but when we're playing Freshmeat, could we at least get a single line explaining what the software does?
Really, folks, I'm not trolling. I just don't have the time to stay up on this stuff, and it would help immensely if I knew what it was. I know, some kharma whore is going to come on after me and reply with a ten line description, complete with the author's birthdate, but all we really need is a single quick line in the news headline.
If it's not a distro, it needs an explanation. (And even some distros need a note!!)
basically it's an air compressed car that goes at about 60mph top speed that can go for about 120 miles between charges. To charge it you basically plug it in an electrical outlet, and the compressor compresses the air to fill the tank.
No air conditioning, no heater!?!?? I'll give you a hint as to why it doesn't sell more: it gets hot down here in Texas, and it gets cold up there in Michigan. Any questions?
Concept should go one more step further. It allow you to buy a Pre Paid card. And shop with that I believe that will be a alot more convient than the throw away numbers.
They're way ahead of you, pal. Go to cobaltcard.com, something AmEx has had out for more than a year.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it. The Republican party wants you to do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not "immoral". The Democrats want you to be able to do whatever you want, except use your money for what you feel is right. The Libertarians want to take the Government off your back socially and fiscally.
And by extension, what you're saying is that the Libertarian solution is to not pay for internet access, and give the citizens a tax break in exchange for that money that is no longer being spent. Then, the citizens need to organize and figure out how to fund their own libraries' internet access, right?
Makes sense to me, but I know it'd aggravate some people who live in poor areas that can't afford to equip their libraries with computers. What's the Libertarian solution there?
Oh, wait, I know. You're going to say that the Libertarians would still have the internet access program, but they wouldn't place any filter restrictions on it. So that's the Democrat plan. So how is the Libertarian platform better again? Could you explain that?
let cybercafes handle easy community net access...
One problem there - cybercafes aren't free. Libraries are. The whole issue is about funding for poor libraries that couldn't otherwise afford to give away free internet access. Unless, of course, you're saying only rich kids could have internet access - but I know that's not what you meant.
The E-Rate plan is legislation. The filtering stipulations on those funds are legislation. The filtering is an abridgement of speech. Legislation, once signed, is Law. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you get?
If you consider a budget as legislation, then yes. However, every year a new budget is passed. None of the restrictions contained therein are binding permanent contracts. They're redone every year. IMHO, legislation is permanent, binding things that don't go away each year.
The e-rate discounts make the biggest difference on bandwidth, not hardware. They're assuming you won't get multiple bandwidth providers. (And who would?) Either you use the e-rate program, or you don't. If local citizens donate computer hardware but you're still using e-rate bandwidth, then yes, you have to submit to censorship/filtering.
If the government requires censorship before they distribute funds, that's government sponsored censorship. That, by itself, is against your argument and against the First Amendment.
That's government sponsored censorship in libraries, absolutely. But it's not the regulation of internet access. Libraries are still free to fund their own internet access. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that the government is not regulating internet access in libraries. It's just giving it away for free in censored form. Would you rather they took away the offer altogether, and forced all libraries to pay for their own internet access?
Frankly, if the library my kid frequented had the choice between censored internet access and none at all, you know which one I'd pick? Something is better than nothing.
Here's a good opportunity for geeks to put up or shut up. If you want poor areas to have Internet access in libraries, but you don't want stupid government censorship, raise the money yourself and give it to these schools! It's not like charity _has_ to come from the federal government...
Please, somebody, anybody, mod this up. This guy is right on target. This is the problem with this whole debate - we, as geeks, come off sounding like a bunch of whiners because we want library computers to have pr0n access for free. If you feel strongly about the issue, get out and do something about it. Don't sit here and e-mail your Congressperson - get out and do public service work.
Consdering that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate libraries and schools in the first place, why is it supprising that they are regulating it in an unconstitutional way?
They're not regulating schools or libraries. They're offering funding to libraries for internet access if they install filters. That's all. They're not saying the libraries can't spend their own money (or the community's money, however you want to look at it) and install pr0n-laden computers accessible to minors.
This is no different than Congress saying, "Ok, Texas, you can have half-a-billion bucks for highway renovations this year, but you have to use it on interstates, and you have to restrict the speed on those interstates to 65 mph." Get it? They're enforcing arbitrary rules for our own safety (they think) as a condition of receiving the money.
Now, if Texas had a ton of money, they could maintain their own highways and ignore the speed limit. In fact, Montana did just this for a while. However, most states find it easier to accept the burdens in exchange for the bucks. It's not an additional regulation - the states have to choose to take the money.
Thankfully, internet access costs a lot less than highways. You can organize fund-raising drives for your local library to get filter-free internet access, and your library would actually thank you for it. So you ARE doing this, right? Or are you just sitting around whining?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Well, it was a nice thought...
Re-read that, and re-read the article. Congress isn't saying you're not free to browse whatever you want. All they're saying is that they will offer funds to libraries if the libraries censor the internet. You're still perfectly free to enjoy pr0n in your home. Even further, you're even perfectly free to donate to your local library to install a pr0n-loaded computer accessible to minors. There's nothing whatsoever that's being made illegal here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for this particular budget restriction. However, it has nothing to do with free speech. Congress can dole out our tax dollars in any way, shape, or form it wants to, and the only thing we can do about it is to write our Congressperson.
If all of the cost and security questions surrounding internet-based voting suddenly went away (i.e., it was cheaper and just as secure as, well, butterfly ballots), what would be the next obstacle to overcome? Do you think politicians would really be open to making voting easier, or would this get the same lip service as campaign finance reform?
Thanks!
Brent Ozar
Bangor is no milestone by which to judge America, not by any means. Part of the beauty of America's melting pot is that wherever you go in America, the people are as different as the scenery. Here in Texas, where it's just as hot as Maine is dreary, the nightlife and culture is as thick as the humidity. Over in Miami, it's another scene altogether, with fiery Cuban clubs being a real night out. And over in LA, the Asian scene is amazing.
In Bangor, frankly, it's a bunch of white retirees. You're looking at the original immigrants there, and they haven't gotten any livelier in the last two hundred years.
Yeah, well, Franklin is also credited with saying that "A penny saved is a penny earned," and it isn't like companies have been paying attention to that one either. Somehow I doubt the fact that one of the founding fathers liked Open Source is going to jump-start any patent debates. My boss is more likely to say, "Well, the guy also flew kites during thunderstorms."
If you ever want to REALLY /. a web site with hits, post a story that says "the girl in the picture looks kinda stoned." Immediately all of us went clicking like mad for that link, hoping to see a stoned chick. Hahaha.
Their site is Slashdotted right now, and Mir isn't even falling yet! They're not even delivering serious video bandwidth, and they're already crippled. Methinks I'll wait a couple of days after the Mir flameout before I try to pull up this site again.
Then again, maybe this is their devious way of testing whether their server equipment is up to delivering the Mir reentry video. Note to Navisite: beef it up, baby.
I'm glad the Slashdot guys had the resources of Andover at their disposal, as long as those resources helped out. One of the benefits of being part of a big company is that they've usually got some capital they can burn if you get attacked by lawyers.
On the flip side, being part of a big company means you can't always take a stand. Your parent company also has more resources to lose, and thus sometimes you have to buckle under.
We'll never know if the old Slashdot would have fought off the religion-for-profit crowd, and some people on here are going to say Andover had a negative effect. Let's not turn this into a flame war - at least, not flame Andover, because we'll never know whether they had a positive effect or not.
That was the general idea behind free ISPs, actually, and your price was right on target. For the equivalent of $19.99 per month, you lost all privacy of internet surfing. The company knew where you went, what you bought, who you e-mailed, you name it. You weren't alone in being willing to sell out.
Me, I was holding out for $40, the free DSL, but when it finally became available in my area, I'd wised up.
Imagine, the honesty in society. You can check up on prospective dates. Crime is incredibally low in this environment.
That giant scream you just heard was the collective noise of every woman who's ever been stalked. If we could all suddenly get an unlimited amount of data on anyone we chose, Natalie Portman's every move would be stalked by thousands of drooling trolls. Do you see that as a good thing? A reduction in crime? Me, I don't.
I wonder what would happen if we started telling these CEO's details about their medical history, or their web visits, how long they would resist privacy legislation....
I bet they wouldn't resist it at all - not because they don't mind the privacy intrusion (they would) but because the money they stand to make is so much greater than the money you or I stand to make.
For example, if I was a multimilliondollar CEO, I'd be perfectly fine with the fact that I lived a public life under public scrutiny. That's one of the drawbacks that comes with making the big bucks. However, I don't make six figures, and I'm certainly not a public figure, so I don't accept a lack of privacy as part of my job duties.
I'm not saying Princess Di deserved to get followed by papar^M^M^M^Mpappar^M^M^M photographers, but in this particular case, I'm sure these guys are all expecting someone to violate their privacy sooner or later. Bill Gates got one of his credit card numbers stolen a while back, and you didn't hear him whining about personal privacy. Stuff happens.
By inference, you can read between the lines and surmise that the money to be made off personal privacy is simply too lucrative to ignore. When companies like boo.com go out of business, the customer list is just one of the assets that creditors drool over.
I don't hear anyone warring over Norton File Manager anymore and how it can't be purchased because Win 9x/NT/2k comes with one, so that horse is dead and beaten and has long since mouldered away.
There's a few of us die-hards left that have taken up the use of Windows Commander. It's a really spiffy Norton Commander clone that has a lot of addons, like FTP and serial file transfer. Everybody that I've shown it to has hated it at first, but after watching me use it for five minutes, has been converted. It's the bomb.
Of course, I know it'll never take over any serious market hold, but I don't care. I use it because it's simultaneously more powerful and yet more easy to use than Windows Explorer.
But what are the other advantages? Reading the site it looks roughly comparable to a Palm V and costs as much as a Palm VIIx, but without the built in wireless. I suppose the new form factor is more convenient, but for the same price I'd rather have the Palm VIIx's wireless internet.
It's expandable via the Springboard slot: there are MP3 modules, GPS modules, camera modules, and even an awesome cell phone module. (You plug it in the back of your Handspring, and presto, your Handspring microphone & display function as a complete cell phone, plus the speaker in the module.)
So, you not only get the wireless internet, but you can actually talk to people. This thing is the bomb. I've wanted one since I saw it in action at Comdex. I swear it had nothing to do with the hot chick handing out brochures, either.
You know... in the time you spent typing this post, you could have simply clicked on the link and learned for yourself what Nautilus is.
/.'ing the site.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to post the full software description, and he informs others and avoids
The problem at hand isn't that I'm lazy, it's that I want to avoid slashdotting sites that don't need to be hit. A simple line telling us what Nautilus is would save that poor web site from thousands of unnecessary hits. I don't need a file manager today, so I don't need to click that link. If I ever had a site featured on a Slashdot story, I would certainly hope someone would extend me the same courtesy.
Springboards I & II, which are aparrently incompatible
Your spelling ability is surpassed only by your comprehension, Cap'n. If you go through their site, you'll notice that there's an extension module that goes on the back, so you can use either the small Springboard modules or the big ones.
I say this over and over, but when we're playing Freshmeat, could we at least get a single line explaining what the software does?
Really, folks, I'm not trolling. I just don't have the time to stay up on this stuff, and it would help immensely if I knew what it was. I know, some kharma whore is going to come on after me and reply with a ten line description, complete with the author's birthdate, but all we really need is a single quick line in the news headline.
If it's not a distro, it needs an explanation. (And even some distros need a note!!)
basically it's an air compressed car that goes at about 60mph top speed that can go for about 120 miles between charges. To charge it you basically plug it in an electrical outlet, and the compressor compresses the air to fill the tank.
No air conditioning, no heater!?!?? I'll give you a hint as to why it doesn't sell more: it gets hot down here in Texas, and it gets cold up there in Michigan. Any questions?
Concept should go one more step further. It allow you to buy a Pre Paid card. And shop with that I believe that will be a alot more convient than the throw away numbers.
They're way ahead of you, pal. Go to cobaltcard.com, something AmEx has had out for more than a year.