They'll just keep up their goofy games of modifying and wiping people's posts and comments without the person knowing it unless they go in private browsing mode. There's no difference.
"Hot Topic is a contrived identification with geek subcultures to manufacture a free software identity and make millions.
The 8 dollars you paid for the World of Warcraft poster would be better used to help the EFF. DIY 3D printing is geek, developing your own app is geek, Dennis Ritchie was geek.
But when a crass corporate vulture feeds on mass-consumer culture, then spending Mommy's money Is Not Geek!"
If Google wants to force full names, they should start by changing LadyGagaVEVO to StefaniGermanottoVEVO, KatyPerryVEVO to KatyHudsonVEVO, and SnoopDoggVEVO to CalvinBroadusVEVO before bullying the rest of us.
One of the most disturbing things about HTML5 is the "living standard" idea. "Living standard" is the same mentality as the DVD-CCA and Region Coding.
There is no way we can trust corporations like Microsoft to act in the interest of "compatibility" for hundreds of years! They already proved themselves crooked after HTML5 - the DRM proposal was an attempt to hard-code DRM into every HTML page on the Internet! Also note the "rating" meta tag, which is forced to use the proprietary RTA(R) system rather than self-rating by webmasters. If I self-rate my site "general" or "14 years", will I be put on a blacklist just because of a pre-HTML5 industry-decided "relic"?
Why doesn't anyone protest this trust? While fixed standards may be corrupted by Hollywood and special interests, they (like other fixed standards) are optional to use, without subjecting Web sites to the mercy of a trust?
I for one am glad there will continue to be reliable fixed standards, protecting the Internet from the long-term will of Big Government and Big Business.
Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ...
How much more "American" do you want it to be?
The only thing I'd wish for: keep it there (together with the ex-Ozzie Murdoch) and don't let it outside... but that's not going to happen, is it now?
Sorry, thought News Corp. was an Australian company.
After looking things up:
MPAA: Disney, Viacom, Sony*, News Corp, Vivendi**, Warner (4/6 American companies) RIAA: Vivendi**, Sony*, EMI**, Warner (1/4 American companies)
It's not about copyright term length. It's about increasing the profits of the failing companies behind him, no matter how much any individual, or any other business in the country, has to suffer in any way.
It should also be noted that only one of the Hollywood companies is an American company, all the rest (BMG, News Corp, Sony, etc.) are foreign companies.
I wonder how this would fit in with corporate customers of the participating ISPs and the loss of business hours that could occur, since even if nobody is falsely accused by mistake, a lot of these copyright issues are subjective and are subject to the judicial system.
Could the participating ISPs be held liable if a company's business is disrupted through no fault of their own (or if the company has a case and is willing to take the issue to court)?
The document is loaded with contradictions and seems to call for more Internet regulation, according to their "7 questions" list.
#1 Is this a core function of the federal government? #2 Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties? #3 Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights? #4 Does it protect property rights? #5 Does it protect individual rights? #6 If the federal government does not do this, will others? #7 Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends? #8 Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
In addition, he seems to be hinting at trying to ban voluntary use of copyleft, permissive licensing, and banning public domain status as much as he possibly can. He is calling voluntary contracts like GPL and CC "collectivism" which according to every libertarian figure is the exactopposite of collectivism.
Why regulate the Internet at all? That should be the only question: #1 Will it regulate the Internet?
I am extremely disappointed in the Pauls for having abandoning libertarianism in favor of statist regulation.
Recently I saw a TV ad for Internet Explorer. I thought it was kinda strange that Microsoft (or any company) would have to spend that kind of money to promote something that's free and already included on your target market's computer.
With all this "computers in the third world" stuff (e.g. One Laptop per Child) we are forgetting something very important - that when people in the third world access the Internet, they will be exposed to advertisements and/or information about products they want, but won't be able to afford any of it, and they will get very sad. Perhaps we should concentrate on food and money instead - they will be much happier than they would be with computers.
Not a tech one, but very similar to the one you just described: There is a company called "World Reserve Monetary Exchange" which advertises in major newspapers like USA Today. They trick you into buying normal, non-collector-quality presidential dollar coins, which you can get at the bank, for ridiculous prices. For a while, they were offering "free" presidential dollars, where they were only "free" if you bought the expensive case, and they wouldn't give you the coins without the case. Recently they've been marketing back-dated state quarters, which they sell in rolls (these rolls, you can say, are "proprietary", since they're not normal bank coin rolls), also at ridiculous prices. They market them as "These coins are so valuable, and they stopped making them, so buy some now!" except that they are the same state quarters that circulate in our pockets every day, NOT proof or otherwise collector-oriented coins. Yep, there's a sucker born every minute...
When the Iranians talk of "death" it's not the same "death" here in America. I had family members there before the hostage crisis. Here's one punishment: for adulterers, they nail your b***s to a plank. So if I were there, I wouldn't blog at all!
Everyone can take this oath, but who decides how genuine the research is? Will it be a conservative or a liberal judge? Will some radical new discovery come along and face the same problems the Enlightenment scientists did at the hands of the Church? With medicine, people visibly and immediately get sick and die. Research can be bended into anything, whether conservative or liberal, pro-biology or pro-feminism, pro-evolution or pro-creation, etc.
Microsoft may not make the greatest of products, but they are damn good at business skills.
1. Bill Gates bought QDOS from that guy without telling him what they were going to use it for.
2. Bill Gates worked at Apple for a while and got ideas for their own Windows.
3. Microsoft secured their position by including Internet Explorer with Win95, which brought the Internet to non-geeks of all ages everywhere. They also got their OS into the schools and libraries, for charity slash advertising purposes.
4. Obviously, they're making lots of deals with nasty MPAA mobsters for DRM purposes.
Microsoft was never about good software - it was about their business skills. They have mostly cleaned up their act in terms of quality, but only when complaints were growing and Linux was starting to take off in business.
It was never considered a God-given property right until recently - it was always a government grant "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It was always "limited", too, meaning 14 years or so, not 80 years past the author's death and repeatedly extended to get around the limits of the Constitution.
It amazes me how conservatives (even the anti-Bush paleoist ones) support intellectual "property" and claim to be in line with the Founding Fathers at the same time.
"Did you know that all linus users are long-hairs?"
"I dont really look like Bill Gates naturally but Im trying my best. I got the same hair cut as Bill Gateses hair cut and I kind of try to walk like he does and talk like he does but Im afraid Im just not very good at it no one would mistake me for him Im not as smart or as powerful but I sure wish Bill would be my personal buddy BILL IF YOUR READING THIS COME OVER AND WELL PLAY SOME SPACE CADET!"
Do you think the Microsoft-dependent economy can handle subscription services? Between this and Windows 7, if every person has to pay mandatory fees to use their own computer(s), we'd see one computer per household, and much less computers in the workplace. Getting crucial things done would be much more difficult, including everything from home shopping and banking to doing your job at businesses of all sizes.
"Linux on the desktop" will never happen. It's not about how easy or hard Linux is for the average Joe. It's because ten years ago, it was marketed in regular bookstores when it was even less stable, less compatible, and less mature.
And Mac still refuses to lower their prices. If Mac ditched the "cult following" elitist mentality and lowered their prices to compete with Dell et al., Windows would be DEAD.
If you think the economy/stock market/gas prices/gold/oil/inflation/unemployment is bad NOW, wait two years when this stuff goes into effect. It will be WAY worse!
I spent 4 1/2 years getting a college degree. I put up with so much aggravation from professors I disagreed with politically and morally. Plus, I'm not a drinking/drugs/partying kind of guy, and the immoral and smutty climate of the school got me angry too. Just before I graduated, I bought some books and studied for the CompTIA A+ certification. Not only has it helped me in the business world, but the two or so months I worked on it gave me TONS MORE USEFUL INFORMATION than my ENTIRE 4 1/2 YEARS OF COLLEGE. I hope this helps with your question.
Slashdot Mirror
The world would be a better place if Comcast didn't exist.
They'll just keep up their goofy games of modifying and wiping people's posts and comments without the person knowing it unless they go in private browsing mode. There's no difference.
Anyone remember the Internet video meme "Hot Topic Is Not Punk Rock"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Hot Topic is a contrived identification with geek subcultures to manufacture a free software identity and make millions.
The 8 dollars you paid for the World of Warcraft poster would be better used to help the EFF.
DIY 3D printing is geek, developing your own app is geek, Dennis Ritchie was geek.
But when a crass corporate vulture feeds on mass-consumer culture, then spending Mommy's money Is Not Geek!"
Could the tags instead be used for scammy redirect tricks (like "Open"DNS "search results")?
If Google wants to force full names, they should start by changing LadyGagaVEVO to StefaniGermanottoVEVO, KatyPerryVEVO to KatyHudsonVEVO, and SnoopDoggVEVO to CalvinBroadusVEVO before bullying the rest of us.
One of the most disturbing things about HTML5 is the "living standard" idea. "Living standard" is the same mentality as the DVD-CCA and Region Coding.
There is no way we can trust corporations like Microsoft to act in the interest of "compatibility" for hundreds of years! They already proved themselves crooked after HTML5 - the DRM proposal was an attempt to hard-code DRM into every HTML page on the Internet!
Also note the "rating" meta tag, which is forced to use the proprietary RTA(R) system rather than self-rating by webmasters. If I self-rate my site "general" or "14 years", will I be put on a blacklist just because of a pre-HTML5 industry-decided "relic"?
Why doesn't anyone protest this trust? While fixed standards may be corrupted by Hollywood and special interests, they (like other fixed standards) are optional to use, without subjecting Web sites to the mercy of a trust?
I for one am glad there will continue to be reliable fixed standards, protecting the Internet from the long-term will of Big Government and Big Business.
How is News Corp. a foreign company?
Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ ...
How much more "American" do you want it to be?
The only thing I'd wish for: keep it there (together with the ex-Ozzie Murdoch) and don't let it outside... but that's not going to happen, is it now?
Sorry, thought News Corp. was an Australian company.
After looking things up:
MPAA: Disney, Viacom, Sony*, News Corp, Vivendi**, Warner (4/6 American companies)
RIAA: Vivendi**, Sony*, EMI**, Warner (1/4 American companies)
*Japan
**Europe
Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?
"Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?"
It's not about copyright term length. It's about increasing the profits of the failing companies behind him, no matter how much any individual, or any other business in the country, has to suffer in any way.
It should also be noted that only one of the Hollywood companies is an American company, all the rest (BMG, News Corp, Sony, etc.) are foreign companies.
I wonder how this would fit in with corporate customers of the participating ISPs and the loss of business hours that could occur, since even if nobody is falsely accused by mistake, a lot of these copyright issues are subjective and are subject to the judicial system.
Could the participating ISPs be held liable if a company's business is disrupted through no fault of their own (or if the company has a case and is willing to take the issue to court)?
The document is loaded with contradictions and seems to call for more Internet regulation, according to their "7 questions" list.
#1 Is this a core function of the federal government?
#2 Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
#3 Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?
#4 Does it protect property rights?
#5 Does it protect individual rights?
#6 If the federal government does not do this, will others?
#7 Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?
#8 Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
In addition, he seems to be hinting at trying to ban voluntary use of copyleft, permissive licensing, and banning public domain status as much as he possibly can. He is calling voluntary contracts like GPL and CC "collectivism" which according to every libertarian figure is the exactopposite of collectivism.
Why regulate the Internet at all?
That should be the only question:
#1 Will it regulate the Internet?
I am extremely disappointed in the Pauls for having abandoning libertarianism in favor of statist regulation.
Recently I saw a TV ad for Internet Explorer. I thought it was kinda strange that Microsoft (or any company) would have to spend that kind of money to promote something that's free and already included on your target market's computer.
Anyone here think this could be the next ShamWow?
"In 1951, A.C. Gilbert introduced his U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, a radioactive learning set we can only assume was fun for the whole math club."
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/12/gilbert_u238_atomic_energy_lab.php
With all this "computers in the third world" stuff (e.g. One Laptop per Child) we are forgetting something very important - that when people in the third world access the Internet, they will be exposed to advertisements and/or information about products they want, but won't be able to afford any of it, and they will get very sad.
Perhaps we should concentrate on food and money instead - they will be much happier than they would be with computers.
Not a tech one, but very similar to the one you just described: There is a company called "World Reserve Monetary Exchange" which advertises in major newspapers like USA Today. They trick you into buying normal, non-collector-quality presidential dollar coins, which you can get at the bank, for ridiculous prices.
For a while, they were offering "free" presidential dollars, where they were only "free" if you bought the expensive case, and they wouldn't give you the coins without the case.
Recently they've been marketing back-dated state quarters, which they sell in rolls (these rolls, you can say, are "proprietary", since they're not normal bank coin rolls), also at ridiculous prices. They market them as "These coins are so valuable, and they stopped making them, so buy some now!" except that they are the same state quarters that circulate in our pockets every day, NOT proof or otherwise collector-oriented coins.
Yep, there's a sucker born every minute...
When the Iranians talk of "death" it's not the same "death" here in America. I had family members there before the hostage crisis. Here's one punishment: for adulterers, they nail your b***s to a plank. So if I were there, I wouldn't blog at all!
...a blue pillow with fake STOP messages on it.
Everyone can take this oath, but who decides how genuine the research is? Will it be a conservative or a liberal judge? Will some radical new discovery come along and face the same problems the Enlightenment scientists did at the hands of the Church? With medicine, people visibly and immediately get sick and die. Research can be bended into anything, whether conservative or liberal, pro-biology or pro-feminism, pro-evolution or pro-creation, etc.
.yourmom :)
Microsoft may not make the greatest of products, but they are damn good at business skills.
1. Bill Gates bought QDOS from that guy without telling him what they were going to use it for.
2. Bill Gates worked at Apple for a while and got ideas for their own Windows.
3. Microsoft secured their position by including Internet Explorer with Win95, which brought the Internet to non-geeks of all ages everywhere. They also got their OS into the schools and libraries, for charity slash advertising purposes.
4. Obviously, they're making lots of deals with nasty MPAA mobsters for DRM purposes.
Microsoft was never about good software - it was about their business skills. They have mostly cleaned up their act in terms of quality, but only when complaints were growing and Linux was starting to take off in business.
At least his name isn't Mike Hunt.
It was never considered a God-given property right until recently - it was always a government grant "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It was always "limited", too, meaning 14 years or so, not 80 years past the author's death and repeatedly extended to get around the limits of the Constitution.
It amazes me how conservatives (even the anti-Bush paleoist ones) support intellectual "property" and claim to be in line with the Founding Fathers at the same time.
"Did you know that all linus users are long-hairs?"
"I dont really look like Bill Gates naturally but Im trying my best. I got the same hair cut as Bill Gateses hair cut and I kind of try to walk like he does and talk like he does but Im afraid Im just not very good at it no one would mistake me for him Im not as smart or as powerful but I sure wish Bill would be my personal buddy BILL IF YOUR READING THIS COME OVER AND WELL PLAY SOME SPACE CADET!"
http://geraldholmes.freeyellow.com/
lol
Do you think the Microsoft-dependent economy can handle subscription services? Between this and Windows 7, if every person has to pay mandatory fees to use their own computer(s), we'd see one computer per household, and much less computers in the workplace. Getting crucial things done would be much more difficult, including everything from home shopping and banking to doing your job at businesses of all sizes.
"Linux on the desktop" will never happen. It's not about how easy or hard Linux is for the average Joe. It's because ten years ago, it was marketed in regular bookstores when it was even less stable, less compatible, and less mature.
And Mac still refuses to lower their prices. If Mac ditched the "cult following" elitist mentality and lowered their prices to compete with Dell et al., Windows would be DEAD.
If you think the economy/stock market/gas prices/gold/oil/inflation/unemployment is bad NOW, wait two years when this stuff goes into effect. It will be WAY worse!
I spent 4 1/2 years getting a college degree. I put up with so much aggravation from professors I disagreed with politically and morally. Plus, I'm not a drinking/drugs/partying kind of guy, and the immoral and smutty climate of the school got me angry too. Just before I graduated, I bought some books and studied for the CompTIA A+ certification. Not only has it helped me in the business world, but the two or so months I worked on it gave me TONS MORE USEFUL INFORMATION than my ENTIRE 4 1/2 YEARS OF COLLEGE. I hope this helps with your question.