There isnt? What makes "real estate" on the internet backbone any different than "real estate" on a public highway? Paying for the use of land has been around for centuries because mankind has always had land and had a use for it. The internet is new, and it isnt hard to see that there will be new things to pay for as the internet matures.
Buying a high speed connection is similar to paying a government taxes to live within their country. Paying Telcos for a better "location" on the internet is then similar to paying the same government to operate a business within their country.
The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates
While in general I disagree with the Telcos on this situation, I do not think that this is a fair comparison. This isnt like charging people more for driving different cars on the highway. These price increases are for businesses, not consumers.
This is more like having to pay more to have your business store front on a busy part of a highway. To do that, you have to pay more. The highway access is free, but putting up a business on a busy part of it is not. Why should it be different for internet companys?
I am most playing devil's advocate here. I do not like this either, but I cannot really find a reason why the Telcos are doing anything wrong.
I wonder if this may finally end up helping retail stores compete with online stores. Online stores do not have to pay for rent on a main highway, or sales tax in most cases. They get product placement for free (almost), while actual retail stores have to pay to have their store location in a busily trafficked area.
I am the president of a very small internet based company, but while I know something like this will hurt my company I can see why it is a legitimate problem that probably should be fixed. This seams to me that it is the internet's version of "buying real estate". Ma-and-Pa stores already have to do it, why not internet companies?
You make it sound like it is impossible to run a small business in a small town, but I can walk down Main street in the small town I live in right now and find dozens of businesses that are making it. They survive with low prices, and must be paying their employees fairly good because they do not have very high turnover rates.
It is still much cheaper to live in rural communities than in urban areas, even with recent tax increases. I cannot believe that you are talking about people not having enough money because of taxes, and then also say that minimum wage is too high? In Illinois it is $6.50 an hour, that is only about $13500 a year! How can you possibly say that is alot of money? A one bedroom apartment with utilities can cost almost half that even in rural areas, how poor do you want your workers to be?
Your post mostly sounds like an upper middle class business owner complaining that he can no longer exploit Small Town America. Just because you cannot have as high of profit margins that you have in the past, you complain that it is society's fault; or maybe the government's. If you were the most successful ma-and-pa store in your entire town, you were never in any financial constraints.
The article was not talking about small town retail stores. It was specifically referring to internet businesses bringing jobs to small towns because they do not need to be located in big cities. You say that these articles drive you crazy, but your entire response has nothing to do with the article.
While I see that I made a mistake regarding how many kids there were in the family, that doesnt change anything in my post. While 3 kids is not as irresponsible as 6 kids, it is definetly not responsible to have 3 kids when you are in such poverty.
First off, use protection (it is incredibly cheap if not free in some cases). Second, you can have an abortion. It probably isnt cheap, but I bet it is alot less expensive than raising a child until they are 18. If you are against abortion, you can put a baby up for adoption. A baby will be adopted incredibly easily, it is 2/3 year olds that are tough. That goes for your oldest sister too, not just your parents.
And if your father was actually disabled, then you would have been recieving money from the government. One of my uncles and a friend's dad were both disabled in Vietnam (though they could still hold a job), and they got some disability payments. Average disability payments are about $8k a year. If you are 100% disabled (meaning you cannot hold a job), it is about $26,000 a year.
The problem with your response to my post is that it strayed too far from my argument on my comment's parent post.
My post did not stray any further from your post than you did from the GP post. All he implied was that people below the poverty line still have opportunites that people in most of the world would kill for. He just said that "poor" people still usually have cars and TVs and medical care. He never said that being poor was easy. The point of the GP post that you first responded to was that we throw around the term "poverty" far too freely.
The entire point of all of these posts is in response to the GGP post, which stated that technology takes jobs away from the poor and gives them to the educated. I agree that this is true, but my post was in response to my belief that this is not a bad thing. It is not the job of society to help the "poverty" stricken any more than we already do. Life is still not that bad for the "poor", and most of the time it is their own fault that they are "poor" in the first place.
I still do not see why my post was irrelevant. I agree that I did not argue against you, I merely added insight. I think that makes it a valid post.
Key words that make your post easily ignorable: lazy, blame, nothing
Why do these words make it ignorable? I think I gave very valid reasons why I believe that your parents were probably lazy, that they were the only ones to blame, and that society had nothing to do with your situation.
Wow, I have to say that I do not understand what you mean by your post. Many of the words you choose to use have so many connotations that I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate.
First you seam to agree with me, but that may just be sarcasm that is hard to pick up on with your short post. Your comment about my post being a "testimonial" shows that you may think I am just trying to affirm my own beliefs regardless of what the GP posted.
Then you talk about "the demand for mathematical and statistical skills." I dont see what that had to do with either my post or the GP, other than maybe the fact that I used math to figure out how little his parents must have earned.
Lastly you refer to me as speaking from a "pulpit", which means you probably think I am just lecturing. That may be true, but I do not think that means my point is not valid.
Do you have any further insight as to what your post meant?
If they are in a competitive market, they will go down. I am a software programmer, and I put people out of work all the time by making their jobs useless. But it always either frees a company to hire engineers/salesmen/etc. or lower prices. So the net effect on society and unemployment is nothing.
First off, the company wouldnt take the time to use the RFID equipment if it wasnt cheaper. You are trading away some customer service, so they wouldnt do it unless the savings were significant.
And second, what makes the unskilled cashier's job more important than the engineer's job? Since the engineer is more educated and skilled, I would say his job is far more important than the unskilled laborer's job.
I am sorry that your child life was so horrible, but there is no way that it was society's fault that you had it so bad. In your case it is very obvious that it was your parent's fault. Families like these are a drain on our society, and I do not think it is the job of the government to help them out.
First off, 6 KIDS !?!?!?! Stop having kids damn it. If you can barely feed yourselves then do not have kids. I can understand having a couple of "mistakes", but 6 kids? That is both irresponsible and reckless. Instead of trying help their children have better lives, they kept popping out more kids so that you all could have as few opportunities as possible. Maybe some of you turned out fine, but that would be nothing but luck and statistical anomolies.
And a total income of $14000? One parent working full time at $6.75 an hour makes $14k a year. I started working at the age of 15 at a fast food place making $5.75 in 1995. Any adult that cannot make more than $6.75 an hour is incompetent. I worked in fast food for about 5 years total in my life, and knew many adults still stuck in basically minimum wage jobs. Every last one of them were in such positions because they were incapable of actually being useful citizens and holding a decent job.
Any family making $14k a year total is lazy. You cannot blame society or technology because 2 people are irresponsible and lazy.
And before you start calling me some spoiled rich kid, my dad was a small farmer and we did not have much money until I was a teenager. My mother is intelligent, but my father isnt exactly a smart guy (he never got past arithmetic in high school). But my dad was a very hard worker and at least made more than enough to provide for us, even though he didnt own the land he worked on.
I am sure there were factors that would have made it very difficult for your parents to become middle class. But there was nothing keeping them that poor other than themselves.
It is children like you that force companies to be so discreet about their data collection. Instead of realising all of the benefits, you would rather corporations just guess what their customers want instead of being responsive of their needs.
And trust me, most users do not even know what they want, so it is necessary to gather information in ways other than just asking.
I work at a small computer software company, and we do everything in our power to collect as much information about our customers as possible. Every time they log onto the software it checks for updates, which also allows us to track how much and when they use it.
Since the software is largely used during recreational time, this lets us know the best time of day to reach this customer if we have to call them. Our latest marketing push was the most successful we ever had because we had detailed information about the habits of our customers. We know what they usually buy, at what time of the day they like to do their shopping, and when are they most likely to be home and able to answer a call.
What does this allow us to do? It allows us to offer the best service possible to our customer. And of course, that also helps our bottom line so that we make more money. Anyone who is so anal retentive that they care if someone knows what brand of peanut butter they like is being childish. The information age helps everyone, businesses and consumers. You have to take the good with the bad, but in this case the Pros greatly outweigh the Cons.
Are you basing this on actual information, or are you making this up like every other conspiracy nut? For all you and I know the "black budget" could have more oversight than your average military budget.
It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.
That's not a valid reason. Follow that path far enough and the government can keep you deliberately uneducated to prevent civil disorder. A government that does this is evil.
Of course if you follow any path far enough it can be taken advantage of. Any time you give any power to anyone they have the ability to abuse it. Instead of refusing to give power to those who need it, it is better to find the best checks and balances possible to that power. Such as constantly fighting political parties, three branches of government, bipartisan select committees, etc.
It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation.
That's semi-valid, though in most cases it would be preferable for the government to release any information that only fell into this category couched in phrasing that makes it clear that the information is not reliable or incomplete.
Even though I am a programmer by profession, I have had to do sales and marketing through my various jobs (expecially when in a small company). I dont care how you tell people something, they will misconstrue it to some extent. You can tell someone that your information is not reliable, but most people will not comprehend that.
I sent out a mass email to 5000 customers once to sell pre-orders to a software upgrade, and made sure to make it as clear as possible that it was a preorder. Sure enough we got dozens of calls within days from people wondering why they couldnt download it after they just bought it online.
It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.
That's valid, though a well designed government should require that such information be reviewed regularly, so that it can be released as soon as it is stale.
If the information is "stale", then there is no reason to disclose any information because it is already readably available. If there are still any questions that would have to be made clear to the public, then there must still be some secrets that have not fully leaked. I agree that such information must be reviewed regularly, but I doubt that the general public is good at determining when that info has become "stale". How about we leave that up to our elected officials.
Well, since only the top tax bracket pays even 35% taxes, I wouldnt have to give you that much because I am not rich.
And it is okay if you dont tell me where you spend every penny, but I better be able to see something for my money; such as:
Having roads Having police Having the ability to go to work without worrying about being blown up by a land mine. Having an economy good enough so I dont have to be a farmer. Having a job market good enough that virtually any competent worker can easily find a job. etc.
As far as the government is concerned now, the more attention that Area 51 gets the better. Just like a magician they are going to keep people and governments looking there instead of where most of the real research is being done. With all of the billions of dollars our government has at their disposal I would hope they are better at hiding information from me (and people like me) than they are doing with Area 51.
Not every elected official needs to know everything. Loose lips sink ships. When something is deemed to be classified, then even within the government it should be kept as secretive as possible. Anyone without a need to know does not need to know.
You have committees and such to deal with these matters, it is infeasible for every member of the Congress to sign off on every classified matter.
Gee, seems like I'm locked in to the Windows platform with.Net.
But you do not have to develop for.Net on the Windows platform. You can program in Windows without.Net. If you are developing in.Net then it is for a reason; in my case it is because it is the best decision. For most people it is because they will be more productive, and really that is almost the only reason there is to pick a language/platform/methodology.
So if.Net is better than anything Linux has to offer, then you are only locked in to the Windows platform because it has the best tools. That isnt being "locked in", that is a choice.
I do not see why people always assume that governments should not keep secrets from its citizens. Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.
There are numerous reasons why the general public has to be kept in the dark about certain issues. It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder. It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation. It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.
While any powerful organization has the ability to abuse power, people have to understand that they cannot know everything. There is a reason why information about Area 51 has been kept secretive. It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that. I for one will just sit back and be comforted that if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them too. If I wanted to know more I would join the Air Force and try to get into intelligence, and maybe excel enough to get clearance to these secret government projects.
It may help people get out of.Net related lock-in, but in general it should not be built upon.
What is this.Net related lock-in that you are speaking of? In my opinion.Net is one of the best things that Microsoft has ever done. Developing has never been as easy and feature rich as it is under the.Net platform. My development time since switching to.Net is on another level than it was before; I almost cannot imagine going back..Net is one thing that Linux should definetly embrace, I havent found a problem or flaw with using the.Net framework yet (not including bugs, all software has bugs).
I know that you are only kidding, but that would be a rediculous thing to use as a monitor. It says that it has 62208000 electron emitters (1 for each color for each pixel). That means 2073600 pixels for an RGB monitor. On a widescreen monitor, that is roughly an 1800x1150 resolution. That is worse than a 24" widescreen.
Clearly this is for television, and wouldnt want to be used as a monitor by even the most excessive geek. Multiple 30" displays would be much better.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
And the greatest trick that the church ever pulled was convincing the world that the devil (and his jealous / vengeful counterpart in heaven) does exist.
it's trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
I disagree, I believe that a problem does exist. If I create something that is useful or desired by other people then I should be able to receive compensation for it. If someone can legally take something that I created and recreate it without my permission, then I can possibly lose a livelihood because of it.
This is expecially true if it is stolen by someone with far more capital to market my idea. I am a software programmer, and everything I have ever created can be easily copied by right clicking on an icon. Does that mean that I should not be paid for my work?
Slashdot Mirror
Because there is no real estate here
There isnt? What makes "real estate" on the internet backbone any different than "real estate" on a public highway? Paying for the use of land has been around for centuries because mankind has always had land and had a use for it. The internet is new, and it isnt hard to see that there will be new things to pay for as the internet matures.
Buying a high speed connection is similar to paying a government taxes to live within their country. Paying Telcos for a better "location" on the internet is then similar to paying the same government to operate a business within their country.
--
The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates
While in general I disagree with the Telcos on this situation, I do not think that this is a fair comparison. This isnt like charging people more for driving different cars on the highway. These price increases are for businesses, not consumers.
This is more like having to pay more to have your business store front on a busy part of a highway. To do that, you have to pay more. The highway access is free, but putting up a business on a busy part of it is not. Why should it be different for internet companys?
I am most playing devil's advocate here. I do not like this either, but I cannot really find a reason why the Telcos are doing anything wrong.
I wonder if this may finally end up helping retail stores compete with online stores. Online stores do not have to pay for rent on a main highway, or sales tax in most cases. They get product placement for free (almost), while actual retail stores have to pay to have their store location in a busily trafficked area.
I am the president of a very small internet based company, but while I know something like this will hurt my company I can see why it is a legitimate problem that probably should be fixed. This seams to me that it is the internet's version of "buying real estate". Ma-and-Pa stores already have to do it, why not internet companies?
--
You know what their turn over rates are because you keep going in them and seeing the same employees for years.
You make it sound like it is impossible to run a small business in a small town, but I can walk down Main street in the small town I live in right now and find dozens of businesses that are making it. They survive with low prices, and must be paying their employees fairly good because they do not have very high turnover rates.
It is still much cheaper to live in rural communities than in urban areas, even with recent tax increases. I cannot believe that you are talking about people not having enough money because of taxes, and then also say that minimum wage is too high? In Illinois it is $6.50 an hour, that is only about $13500 a year! How can you possibly say that is alot of money? A one bedroom apartment with utilities can cost almost half that even in rural areas, how poor do you want your workers to be?
Your post mostly sounds like an upper middle class business owner complaining that he can no longer exploit Small Town America. Just because you cannot have as high of profit margins that you have in the past, you complain that it is society's fault; or maybe the government's. If you were the most successful ma-and-pa store in your entire town, you were never in any financial constraints.
The article was not talking about small town retail stores. It was specifically referring to internet businesses bringing jobs to small towns because they do not need to be located in big cities. You say that these articles drive you crazy, but your entire response has nothing to do with the article.
While I see that I made a mistake regarding how many kids there were in the family, that doesnt change anything in my post. While 3 kids is not as irresponsible as 6 kids, it is definetly not responsible to have 3 kids when you are in such poverty.
First off, use protection (it is incredibly cheap if not free in some cases). Second, you can have an abortion. It probably isnt cheap, but I bet it is alot less expensive than raising a child until they are 18. If you are against abortion, you can put a baby up for adoption. A baby will be adopted incredibly easily, it is 2/3 year olds that are tough. That goes for your oldest sister too, not just your parents.
And if your father was actually disabled, then you would have been recieving money from the government. One of my uncles and a friend's dad were both disabled in Vietnam (though they could still hold a job), and they got some disability payments. Average disability payments are about $8k a year. If you are 100% disabled (meaning you cannot hold a job), it is about $26,000 a year.
The problem with your response to my post is that it strayed too far from my argument on my comment's parent post.
My post did not stray any further from your post than you did from the GP post. All he implied was that people below the poverty line still have opportunites that people in most of the world would kill for. He just said that "poor" people still usually have cars and TVs and medical care. He never said that being poor was easy. The point of the GP post that you first responded to was that we throw around the term "poverty" far too freely.
The entire point of all of these posts is in response to the GGP post, which stated that technology takes jobs away from the poor and gives them to the educated. I agree that this is true, but my post was in response to my belief that this is not a bad thing. It is not the job of society to help the "poverty" stricken any more than we already do. Life is still not that bad for the "poor", and most of the time it is their own fault that they are "poor" in the first place.
I still do not see why my post was irrelevant. I agree that I did not argue against you, I merely added insight. I think that makes it a valid post.
Key words that make your post easily ignorable: lazy, blame, nothing
Why do these words make it ignorable? I think I gave very valid reasons why I believe that your parents were probably lazy, that they were the only ones to blame, and that society had nothing to do with your situation.
So why again why my post not useful?
--
Wow, I have to say that I do not understand what you mean by your post. Many of the words you choose to use have so many connotations that I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate.
First you seam to agree with me, but that may just be sarcasm that is hard to pick up on with your short post. Your comment about my post being a "testimonial" shows that you may think I am just trying to affirm my own beliefs regardless of what the GP posted.
Then you talk about "the demand for mathematical and statistical skills." I dont see what that had to do with either my post or the GP, other than maybe the fact that I used math to figure out how little his parents must have earned.
Lastly you refer to me as speaking from a "pulpit", which means you probably think I am just lecturing. That may be true, but I do not think that means my point is not valid.
Do you have any further insight as to what your post meant?
--
If they are in a competitive market, they will go down. I am a software programmer, and I put people out of work all the time by making their jobs useless. But it always either frees a company to hire engineers/salesmen/etc. or lower prices. So the net effect on society and unemployment is nothing.
First off, the company wouldnt take the time to use the RFID equipment if it wasnt cheaper. You are trading away some customer service, so they wouldnt do it unless the savings were significant.
And second, what makes the unskilled cashier's job more important than the engineer's job? Since the engineer is more educated and skilled, I would say his job is far more important than the unskilled laborer's job.
I am sorry that your child life was so horrible, but there is no way that it was society's fault that you had it so bad. In your case it is very obvious that it was your parent's fault. Families like these are a drain on our society, and I do not think it is the job of the government to help them out.
First off, 6 KIDS !?!?!?! Stop having kids damn it. If you can barely feed yourselves then do not have kids. I can understand having a couple of "mistakes", but 6 kids? That is both irresponsible and reckless. Instead of trying help their children have better lives, they kept popping out more kids so that you all could have as few opportunities as possible. Maybe some of you turned out fine, but that would be nothing but luck and statistical anomolies.
And a total income of $14000? One parent working full time at $6.75 an hour makes $14k a year. I started working at the age of 15 at a fast food place making $5.75 in 1995. Any adult that cannot make more than $6.75 an hour is incompetent. I worked in fast food for about 5 years total in my life, and knew many adults still stuck in basically minimum wage jobs. Every last one of them were in such positions because they were incapable of actually being useful citizens and holding a decent job.
Any family making $14k a year total is lazy. You cannot blame society or technology because 2 people are irresponsible and lazy.
And before you start calling me some spoiled rich kid, my dad was a small farmer and we did not have much money until I was a teenager. My mother is intelligent, but my father isnt exactly a smart guy (he never got past arithmetic in high school). But my dad was a very hard worker and at least made more than enough to provide for us, even though he didnt own the land he worked on.
I am sure there were factors that would have made it very difficult for your parents to become middle class. But there was nothing keeping them that poor other than themselves.
It is children like you that force companies to be so discreet about their data collection. Instead of realising all of the benefits, you would rather corporations just guess what their customers want instead of being responsive of their needs.
And trust me, most users do not even know what they want, so it is necessary to gather information in ways other than just asking.
I work at a small computer software company, and we do everything in our power to collect as much information about our customers as possible. Every time they log onto the software it checks for updates, which also allows us to track how much and when they use it.
Since the software is largely used during recreational time, this lets us know the best time of day to reach this customer if we have to call them. Our latest marketing push was the most successful we ever had because we had detailed information about the habits of our customers. We know what they usually buy, at what time of the day they like to do their shopping, and when are they most likely to be home and able to answer a call.
What does this allow us to do? It allows us to offer the best service possible to our customer. And of course, that also helps our bottom line so that we make more money. Anyone who is so anal retentive that they care if someone knows what brand of peanut butter they like is being childish. The information age helps everyone, businesses and consumers. You have to take the good with the bad, but in this case the Pros greatly outweigh the Cons.
The "black budget" gets very little oversight.
Are you basing this on actual information, or are you making this up like every other conspiracy nut? For all you and I know the "black budget" could have more oversight than your average military budget.
--
It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.
That's not a valid reason. Follow that path far enough and the government can keep you deliberately uneducated to prevent civil disorder. A government that does this is evil.
Of course if you follow any path far enough it can be taken advantage of. Any time you give any power to anyone they have the ability to abuse it. Instead of refusing to give power to those who need it, it is better to find the best checks and balances possible to that power. Such as constantly fighting political parties, three branches of government, bipartisan select committees, etc.
It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation.
That's semi-valid, though in most cases it would be preferable for the government to release any information that only fell into this category couched in phrasing that makes it clear that the information is not reliable or incomplete.
Even though I am a programmer by profession, I have had to do sales and marketing through my various jobs (expecially when in a small company). I dont care how you tell people something, they will misconstrue it to some extent. You can tell someone that your information is not reliable, but most people will not comprehend that.
I sent out a mass email to 5000 customers once to sell pre-orders to a software upgrade, and made sure to make it as clear as possible that it was a preorder. Sure enough we got dozens of calls within days from people wondering why they couldnt download it after they just bought it online.
It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.
That's valid, though a well designed government should require that such information be reviewed regularly, so that it can be released as soon as it is stale.
If the information is "stale", then there is no reason to disclose any information because it is already readably available. If there are still any questions that would have to be made clear to the public, then there must still be some secrets that have not fully leaked. I agree that such information must be reviewed regularly, but I doubt that the general public is good at determining when that info has become "stale". How about we leave that up to our elected officials.
Well, since only the top tax bracket pays even 35% taxes, I wouldnt have to give you that much because I am not rich.
And it is okay if you dont tell me where you spend every penny, but I better be able to see something for my money; such as:
Having roads
Having police
Having the ability to go to work without worrying about being blown up by a land mine.
Having an economy good enough so I dont have to be a farmer.
Having a job market good enough that virtually any competent worker can easily find a job.
etc.
Yeah, I hope no one will figure out that I am a government secret agent trying to spread disinformation.
Oh wait, I cant type this here, it will blow my cover. I have to make sure to close this before I accidentally hit submit.
As far as the government is concerned now, the more attention that Area 51 gets the better. Just like a magician they are going to keep people and governments looking there instead of where most of the real research is being done. With all of the billions of dollars our government has at their disposal I would hope they are better at hiding information from me (and people like me) than they are doing with Area 51.
--
Not every elected official needs to know everything. Loose lips sink ships. When something is deemed to be classified, then even within the government it should be kept as secretive as possible. Anyone without a need to know does not need to know.
You have committees and such to deal with these matters, it is infeasible for every member of the Congress to sign off on every classified matter.
Gee, seems like I'm locked in to the Windows platform with .Net.
.Net on the Windows platform. You can program in Windows without .Net. If you are developing in .Net then it is for a reason; in my case it is because it is the best decision. For most people it is because they will be more productive, and really that is almost the only reason there is to pick a language/platform/methodology.
.Net is better than anything Linux has to offer, then you are only locked in to the Windows platform because it has the best tools. That isnt being "locked in", that is a choice.
But you do not have to develop for
So if
--
I do not see why people always assume that governments should not keep secrets from its citizens. Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.
There are numerous reasons why the general public has to be kept in the dark about certain issues. It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder. It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation. It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.
While any powerful organization has the ability to abuse power, people have to understand that they cannot know everything. There is a reason why information about Area 51 has been kept secretive. It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that. I for one will just sit back and be comforted that if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them too. If I wanted to know more I would join the Air Force and try to get into intelligence, and maybe excel enough to get clearance to these secret government projects.
--
It may help people get out of .Net related lock-in, but in general it should not be built upon.
.Net related lock-in that you are speaking of? In my opinion .Net is one of the best things that Microsoft has ever done. Developing has never been as easy and feature rich as it is under the .Net platform. My development time since switching to .Net is on another level than it was before; I almost cannot imagine going back. .Net is one thing that Linux should definetly embrace, I havent found a problem or flaw with using the .Net framework yet (not including bugs, all software has bugs).
What is this
--
I know that you are only kidding, but that would be a rediculous thing to use as a monitor. It says that it has 62208000 electron emitters (1 for each color for each pixel). That means 2073600 pixels for an RGB monitor. On a widescreen monitor, that is roughly an 1800x1150 resolution. That is worse than a 24" widescreen.
Clearly this is for television, and wouldnt want to be used as a monitor by even the most excessive geek. Multiple 30" displays would be much better.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
And the greatest trick that the church ever pulled was convincing the world that the devil (and his jealous / vengeful counterpart in heaven) does exist.
it's trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
I disagree, I believe that a problem does exist. If I create something that is useful or desired by other people then I should be able to receive compensation for it. If someone can legally take something that I created and recreate it without my permission, then I can possibly lose a livelihood because of it.
This is expecially true if it is stolen by someone with far more capital to market my idea. I am a software programmer, and everything I have ever created can be easily copied by right clicking on an icon. Does that mean that I should not be paid for my work?