Does a company like Google have to pay for bandwidth or are they just so large that they get a peering agreement? Btw, in protest of this, I think Google should start a policy of charging Bell South for their bandwidth.
I can't wait to see what happens as soon as the planned bellsouth boycott goes into full affect.. join now, block Bell South Users from all your pages, and redirect them to a message as to why. I would love to see BellSouth's call center if Google (who openly opposes this scheme) were to join in =).
Something like this certainly typifies the thinking of California (though in this case it was just Santa Monica) regarding wasting everyone's time making mazes and mazes of uneccessary regulations. In this case they basically said it is illegal to charge for something that doesn't cost you anything--which has counter examples throughout the business world.
How is paying you money for an old work an incentive for new work? The only incentive for making the new work is that you will get paid for the new work.
Lets say you have a wife who has a disability and you have a terminal disease. All you are good at is art. You want her to be taken care of even when you are gone. There, that is an incentive for you to create a work now, and even though you won't be alive to receive the benefits of it for yourself, you still get a benefit out of it: you help your wife. So it isn't incompatible with providing an incentive to create things: the incentive is still there, and it is a lower incentive if the thing can't generate money after you are dead. Can't you see that?
I suppose you would like to do away with inheritance as well and let the Government get everything you would leave your children?
The bit where someone can have an optional requirement that a function return the source code (envisioned as helping bring the spirit of the GPL to web services) is utterly useless. You can take someone's code, make changes, and make your code have that function that reveals all the source, including the changes you made, and then just pass everything through a proxy that handily passes every function call except that one. This new requirement adds no protection whatsoever, it will just be a useless burden.
"Please note the phrase "restriction against monopolies." He is refering to copyrights and patents."
I don't buy it. If that is what he was referring to then why would he say "I do not like... the omission of [some rights to serve as preventative measures]." He wasn't writing this to claim that the Constitution itself violated any of these points, just that it didn't stop the congress from in the future violating them.
Copyright is spelled out in the constitution, if he had a problem with it he wouldn't phrase it, "there is no right enumerated which prevents the government from issuing and enforcing copyright and patents," rather, his complaint would be the more immediate, "there is an explicit right (of congress) enumerated that specifically goes out of its way to allow them to do just that!"
"There is certainly no justification whatsoever for copyright protection to last beyond the creator's death." Please qualitfy this. If I copyright something today and die tomorrow, why shouldn't my estate be allowed to receive the copyright? If I had lived an extra day what would that change that my copyright should last an extra day than if I hadn't?
The way he meant it it was apparent that he was pointing out that the vast amount of firefox extensions won't be available on camino.
"More broadly, who cares what language or technology lies behind something like FlashBlock, so long as it works?"
Even more broadly (yet ironically back to the OP's intention), who (as a user) cares if a particular extension technically could be made to work if it doesn't, and won't ever, exist (I'm not talking about flashblock but just the vast majority of FF extensions).
Its a shame such capabilities (which today are extreme cheap to provide in comparison with the rest of the graphics chip) never caught on in the form of an (accepted by the public) standard. With software fallbacks of course.
Absurd. It wasn't like we had a copyright office etc. working and then the first amendment came along and we shut it down and then later big business brought it back. The copyright office was set up almost immediately after the first ammendment was written into law and none of the people who voted in the law nor the people who drafted the amendment saw any contradiction. For an amendment to repeal something that is explicitly enumerated elsewhere it has to has to explicitly do so as well. There is a difference between a constitution that says "1a)Congress may create copyrights for limited time...3b)People have the right to freedom of expression" and one that says "1a)Congress may create copyrights for limited time...3b)Section 1a is hereby repealed."
For example in the first amendment itself you have conflicting language in that you have both the establishment clause and the free exercise--the tension between the implications of the two has been well documented in supreme court decisions spanning many many years.
Unless there is specific wording saying that copyright is repealed in the amendment then that simply isn't the case. For example, the first amendment has the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." These can not both exist at the same time without some tension, but we them as checks on each other. Likewise absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist when there is copyright but they are both enumerated in the constitution, so we have to come to a compromise.
To me the coolest stuff that is becoming possible is using 3d accel for 2d. As soon as we can generate and composite 2d vector graphics on the chip quickly and in a standard way we will see things such as resolution independent desktops, etc. come full force.
I assume you don't want people stealing "your" stuff and you believe in some sort of physical property rights. Those are just as fake as intellectual property rights.
It wasn't that great. If we could create something to seek out cancer cells I doubt we would have it tag them green for easy identification in standard course grained surgery. We would just have it execute the damn thing.
So by your definition someone who recently started caring about programming after highschool can't exist? How do you ever get started? Many students majoring in CS weren't interested in it before, but that certainly doesn't mean they aren't now. Also let me add this, in Universities you have all kinds of research and ideas being passed around which are fresh. If you can't find a way to take advantage of being there in person in the presence of this generation of ideas then you aren't trying.
No. The last thing the world needs is more students who don't care about school as anything but a means to an end (namely a paycheque). Obviously you are one of those people ("The point is you get the little piece of paper that says you know it and allows you to get a job"). You can get a lot out of school or you can waste your time. If you know enough going into a class to make an A, and at the end of the class you haven't learned anything new anyway, you are living failure. It sounds to me like you wasted your time.
Wrong. If they have nothing to learn in the course, then they have no place in that course. What you are trying to say is that if the person is worth even a tiny shit, they should be able to leave highschool and take every CS test an undergraduate in CS at Standford would take and do all the projects aswell without having to learn anything new. This is laughable.
"It's nice that our tax dollars are being used for the right stuff."
Our dollars are perhaps being used for better purposes than usual (paying college buddy contractors for needless work (though actually.. don't rule that out here)), but it definitely isn't "the right stuff." Maybe I'm too much of a staunch libertarian.
Slashdot Mirror
Does a company like Google have to pay for bandwidth or are they just so large that they get a peering agreement? Btw, in protest of this, I think Google should start a policy of charging Bell South for their bandwidth.
I can't wait to see what happens as soon as the planned bellsouth boycott goes into full affect.. join now, block Bell South Users from all your pages, and redirect them to a message as to why. I would love to see BellSouth's call center if Google (who openly opposes this scheme) were to join in =).
Something like this certainly typifies the thinking of California (though in this case it was just Santa Monica) regarding wasting everyone's time making mazes and mazes of uneccessary regulations. In this case they basically said it is illegal to charge for something that doesn't cost you anything--which has counter examples throughout the business world.
I just don't see anyone implementing their vector graphics through such an interface--they just do it all in software and blit to a bitmap surface.
How is paying you money for an old work an incentive for new work? The only incentive for making the new work is that you will get paid for the new work.
Lets say you have a wife who has a disability and you have a terminal disease. All you are good at is art. You want her to be taken care of even when you are gone. There, that is an incentive for you to create a work now, and even though you won't be alive to receive the benefits of it for yourself, you still get a benefit out of it: you help your wife. So it isn't incompatible with providing an incentive to create things: the incentive is still there, and it is a lower incentive if the thing can't generate money after you are dead. Can't you see that?
I suppose you would like to do away with inheritance as well and let the Government get everything you would leave your children?
The bit where someone can have an optional requirement that a function return the source code (envisioned as helping bring the spirit of the GPL to web services) is utterly useless. You can take someone's code, make changes, and make your code have that function that reveals all the source, including the changes you made, and then just pass everything through a proxy that handily passes every function call except that one. This new requirement adds no protection whatsoever, it will just be a useless burden.
"Please note the phrase "restriction against monopolies." He is refering to copyrights and patents."
I don't buy it. If that is what he was referring to then why would he say "I do not like... the omission of [some rights to serve as preventative measures]." He wasn't writing this to claim that the Constitution itself violated any of these points, just that it didn't stop the congress from in the future violating them.
Copyright is spelled out in the constitution, if he had a problem with it he wouldn't phrase it, "there is no right enumerated which prevents the government from issuing and enforcing copyright and patents," rather, his complaint would be the more immediate, "there is an explicit right (of congress) enumerated that specifically goes out of its way to allow them to do just that!"
By whom?
"There is certainly no justification whatsoever for copyright protection to last beyond the creator's death." Please qualitfy this. If I copyright something today and die tomorrow, why shouldn't my estate be allowed to receive the copyright? If I had lived an extra day what would that change that my copyright should last an extra day than if I hadn't?
The way he meant it it was apparent that he was pointing out that the vast amount of firefox extensions won't be available on camino.
"More broadly, who cares what language or technology lies behind something like FlashBlock, so long as it works?"
Even more broadly (yet ironically back to the OP's intention), who (as a user) cares if a particular extension technically could be made to work if it doesn't, and won't ever, exist (I'm not talking about flashblock but just the vast majority of FF extensions).
That Ralph Koster quote doesn't quite cover waterslides.
Its a shame such capabilities (which today are extreme cheap to provide in comparison with the rest of the graphics chip) never caught on in the form of an (accepted by the public) standard. With software fallbacks of course.
Absurd. It wasn't like we had a copyright office etc. working and then the first amendment came along and we shut it down and then later big business brought it back. The copyright office was set up almost immediately after the first ammendment was written into law and none of the people who voted in the law nor the people who drafted the amendment saw any contradiction. For an amendment to repeal something that is explicitly enumerated elsewhere it has to has to explicitly do so as well. There is a difference between a constitution that says "1a)Congress may create copyrights for limited time...3b)People have the right to freedom of expression" and one that says "1a)Congress may create copyrights for limited time...3b)Section 1a is hereby repealed."
For example in the first amendment itself you have conflicting language in that you have both the establishment clause and the free exercise--the tension between the implications of the two has been well documented in supreme court decisions spanning many many years.
Unless there is specific wording saying that copyright is repealed in the amendment then that simply isn't the case. For example, the first amendment has the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." These can not both exist at the same time without some tension, but we them as checks on each other. Likewise absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist when there is copyright but they are both enumerated in the constitution, so we have to come to a compromise.
To me the coolest stuff that is becoming possible is using 3d accel for 2d. As soon as we can generate and composite 2d vector graphics on the chip quickly and in a standard way we will see things such as resolution independent desktops, etc. come full force.
I assume you don't want people stealing "your" stuff and you believe in some sort of physical property rights. Those are just as fake as intellectual property rights.
He means it doesn't support XUL. Though I'm sure you knew that and just wanted to be a pedant.
And when they see spam coming out of it they can trace it all back to one account and ban the whole tree.
It wasn't that great. If we could create something to seek out cancer cells I doubt we would have it tag them green for easy identification in standard course grained surgery. We would just have it execute the damn thing.
Or he had a deadbeat dad who wanted him to grow up tuff. Though I guess in that case he'd be named Sue.
So by your definition someone who recently started caring about programming after highschool can't exist? How do you ever get started? Many students majoring in CS weren't interested in it before, but that certainly doesn't mean they aren't now. Also let me add this, in Universities you have all kinds of research and ideas being passed around which are fresh. If you can't find a way to take advantage of being there in person in the presence of this generation of ideas then you aren't trying.
Insightful? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the glaring logical fallacy in the parent post.
No. The last thing the world needs is more students who don't care about school as anything but a means to an end (namely a paycheque). Obviously you are one of those people ("The point is you get the little piece of paper that says you know it and allows you to get a job"). You can get a lot out of school or you can waste your time. If you know enough going into a class to make an A, and at the end of the class you haven't learned anything new anyway, you are living failure. It sounds to me like you wasted your time.
Wrong. If they have nothing to learn in the course, then they have no place in that course. What you are trying to say is that if the person is worth even a tiny shit, they should be able to leave highschool and take every CS test an undergraduate in CS at Standford would take and do all the projects aswell without having to learn anything new. This is laughable.
"It's nice that our tax dollars are being used for the right stuff."
Our dollars are perhaps being used for better purposes than usual (paying college buddy contractors for needless work (though actually.. don't rule that out here)), but it definitely isn't "the right stuff." Maybe I'm too much of a staunch libertarian.