You do have a say when it comes to $BIGCORP by use of your wallet. You stop being their customer. You don't have that choice when it comes to government.
I have yet to hear how government is supposed to be less biased and corrupt than corporations. Governments are more corrupt. Lobby groups and political parties would find ways to limit all kinds of traffic they didn't like. With a corporation, customer dissatisfaction prevents that abuse because the corporation must continue making money by keeping customers happy.
Yes, it is naive to assume there's a better option for an ISP, or even an option at all.
I find the actions you described to be fairly disgusting, but the argument you seem to be making is that because some sick shits abused the information, nobody should have been allowed to disseminate the information.
If the information harms an individual or violates their rights, then that is exactly what I'm arguing.
If you don't like what $BIGCORP is doing, you're free to stop being a customer of $BIGCORP. $BIGCORP is allowed to do what it wants with the product or service it's putting out.
You don't get a choice with $$BIGGOV'T$$
The idea that the government should be allowed to dictate how a business regulates its service traffic is completely insane and naive. It would lead to an even more biased, controlled internet than today. Unless you think China runs a fantastic internet service.
You are required by law to be fucked up the ass, or we'll throw you in jail. $BIGCORP has lobbied us to limit your torrent traffic, and $CORRUPTPOLITICIAN wants us to "regulate" your visits to undesirable, unfair websites. Unlike $BIGCORP, you can't replace us, but somehow, we're better to have than $BIGCORP.
Since you've signaled that you don't believe a company is allowed to have control over its own product services for some reason, we've gone ahead and instituted control of all other areas of life. No need to reply, and no choices to be made--we've already signed the legislation.
Don't worry. We won't monitor your internet traffic for nefarious reasons. Heh.
What the hell? Handing control of the internet back to the government would be the end of the internet. This is a good thing. I'll never understand the argument that the government is somehow less biased and corrupt than corporations, and most importantly, ISPs are selling a service and can regulate it as much as they want. Don't like it? Don't use it. The internet isn't a right.
Sysadmins have the right to regulate network traffic. Bribed, corrupt politicians shouldn't be involved. People who want "net neutrality" want the government watching and regulating internet traffic. Think how insane that scenario is.
Don't worry, I'm sure anti-war protesters will be all over Obama for this, not to mention his track record for higher troop deaths than under Bush and his campaign lies about pulling out all the troops and bringing them home.
Oh, wait, no, nobody will say anything even though they were very vocal when Bush was president, because Obama is a Democrat.
The pictures ended up on sites like 4chan, and idiots even found the email addresses of the family and sent trick emails containing the images. They also made harassing prank calls. So the difference in this case is that the officers who distributed the photos directly caused pain and suffering to the family by leaking the pictures to the rest of the world. There are some very cruel people out there who think being callous makes them funny.
They bought a processor design house so they can continue designing custom solutions for their mobile devices. How does one go from that to "Apple is just as dangerous as Microsoft?" Because they bought a chip company to meet their needs?
Then you end it with a tired comment about Kool-Aid drinkers, which reveals the troll.
It's useless. Most Slashdotters have their heads so far up Google's ass, nothing you say will reach their ears. This is a company that indexes everything forever, including your email and IM conversations. It gets praised as some "open source company" when its main product--its search engine and advertising platform--is as closed as Windows. It only uses open source products to get people onto its proprietary advertising platform.
Then why haven't I needed such program with Symbian (apart from the early 2000 phones) nor Windows Mobile?
Because you're like everyone else in the market in that you don't use the failure that is Windows Mobile.
I have a better question. Why are you trolling every Apple article, and why are you pretending Microsoft isn't following Apple's single-tasking, strictly-controlled design with the new Windows 7 Mobile? There must be a reason Microsoft would also go with that design. I know the answer, but can you tell me what it is?
Oh it seems Apple finally got to 90's computing. Didn't all the Apple fanboys say that not having multitasking to eat out battery life was better?
It did save battery life. Microsoft isn't allowing multitasking in Windows 7 Mobile either for the same reasons Apple didn't allow it. If this rumor true, it's a new system design with a new chip that must improve battery life enough to allow for more (likely strictly controlled) multitasking. If the new iPhone OS allows for multitasking, undoubtedly the iPad would see its OS upgraded as well. It's common sense.
Your post is an awful troll. You tried way too hard and weren't subtle enough. I suggest spending more time in your cave, hating all happiness in the world.
Apple went through over a decade of being told it was dying. I think it's earned some arrogance to come this far in spite of naysayers who were still active as recently as five years ago.
I will never understand the bizarre and creepy attacks that the freetards throw at Miguel because he clones a Microsoft technology. Nobody does this to the Wine developers.
Your beloved "free software" that barely anyone uses on the desktop isn't "endangered." Stop being a drama queen.
The opposition isn't "bizarre." Government-run healthcare costs money, creates bureaucracy, and requires cuts in Medicare. The nation is too large to centralize something like healthcare. People on Slashdot often mock the experience of working in companies with a lot of bloat and middle-management. Well, governments are the ultimate example of that. People are also opposed to the backroom deals that were made to secure votes for the bill.
Besides that, I'm not sure why the submitter thinks today is "end of a very long road." Democrats have been saying they were close to passing this for the last nine months. It's just posturing. Apparently, they're still six votes short, and the public disapproval over both the legislation and the unconstitutional methods used to force it on everyone means I highly doubt it will ever pass.
Doing this huge, expensive overhaul in the middle of an economic recession always seemed totally nuts to me. If they had passed small, modular pieces over time, it would have been more accepted and probably less bloated as well. However, Nancy Pelosi seems to have forgotten that we live in a democracy and that what the public wants should matter. She thinks the ends justify the means.
I'll be defiantly voting Republican in the fall. Watching Democrats become enormous hypocrites, from Obama's constant broken campaign promises to reporting citizens to "flag@whitehouse.gov" to guys like Democrat Harry Reid getting away with his "negro dialect" comment despite what happened to Republican Trent Lott before him, has made me realize they are arrogant and out of touch. The nation was founded on the idea of separate states united under a limited government infrastructure, not some all-powerful, centralized entity.
You can't be serious. The unconstitutional attempts Congress is making to force legislation down the throats of a public that doesn't want it is near-suicidal. Somehow, it's the Republicans who don't want bi-partisanship? How biased could you possibly be?
The fact that, in addition to "sitting pretty with socialized medicine," you'd also face Medicare cuts and a trillion dollar bill for 10 years is one of the reasons Republicans and the public don't want this. On top of a skyrocketing deficit that won't stop climbing, desperate attempts to pin this on Republicans only serve to drive independents away even more.
For crying out loud, Pelosi is now considering passing legislation without having anyone vote on it. I can't help thinking you'd be absolutely livid if Republicans were pulling that kind of bullshit.
Maybe if Obama wasn't spending trillions on failed stimulus programs in the middle of a recession, we'd have enough to go to the moon. Even India is heading there.
You people who try to portray it as nothing more than "sending tourists to a dry barren rock" are idiots. The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today, including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts. It's not just about flying to moon. Think a little.
The Democrats here are just being very defensive because of the doomed fate of their Congress later this year. Any criticism of Obama is always followed with an illogical statement followed by bashing Bush ("I'd rather have healthcare than go to the moon! Blame Bush for spending our money in Iraq!" Ignoring the fact that Obama's healthcare will cost over a trillion dollars for the next decade).
The sad truth is that this administration's obsession with government expansion and spending in the middle of a recession is bankrupting us and weakening us as a superpower in the world. We can't even afford to do space travel, which was once a proud mark on American history. To dismiss it is to dismiss the future of science.
Slashdot Mirror
You do have a say when it comes to $BIGCORP by use of your wallet. You stop being their customer. You don't have that choice when it comes to government.
I have yet to hear how government is supposed to be less biased and corrupt than corporations. Governments are more corrupt. Lobby groups and political parties would find ways to limit all kinds of traffic they didn't like. With a corporation, customer dissatisfaction prevents that abuse because the corporation must continue making money by keeping customers happy.
Internet service isn't a right. It's a privilege.
If the information harms an individual or violates their rights, then that is exactly what I'm arguing.
Couldn't sit through the annoying voice and lame for longer than 30 seconds. Confused Matthew's reviews of the prequels were shorter and funnier.
If you don't like what $BIGCORP is doing, you're free to stop being a customer of $BIGCORP. $BIGCORP is allowed to do what it wants with the product or service it's putting out.
You don't get a choice with $$BIGGOV'T$$
The idea that the government should be allowed to dictate how a business regulates its service traffic is completely insane and naive. It would lead to an even more biased, controlled internet than today. Unless you think China runs a fantastic internet service.
Hi, I'm $BIGGOV!
You are required by law to be fucked up the ass, or we'll throw you in jail. $BIGCORP has lobbied us to limit your torrent traffic, and $CORRUPTPOLITICIAN wants us to "regulate" your visits to undesirable, unfair websites. Unlike $BIGCORP, you can't replace us, but somehow, we're better to have than $BIGCORP.
Since you've signaled that you don't believe a company is allowed to have control over its own product services for some reason, we've gone ahead and instituted control of all other areas of life. No need to reply, and no choices to be made--we've already signed the legislation.
Don't worry. We won't monitor your internet traffic for nefarious reasons. Heh.
Your ever-watchful Big Brother,
$BIGGOV
What the hell? Handing control of the internet back to the government would be the end of the internet. This is a good thing. I'll never understand the argument that the government is somehow less biased and corrupt than corporations, and most importantly, ISPs are selling a service and can regulate it as much as they want. Don't like it? Don't use it. The internet isn't a right.
Sysadmins have the right to regulate network traffic. Bribed, corrupt politicians shouldn't be involved. People who want "net neutrality" want the government watching and regulating internet traffic. Think how insane that scenario is.
Don't worry, I'm sure anti-war protesters will be all over Obama for this, not to mention his track record for higher troop deaths than under Bush and his campaign lies about pulling out all the troops and bringing them home.
Oh, wait, no, nobody will say anything even though they were very vocal when Bush was president, because Obama is a Democrat.
The pictures ended up on sites like 4chan, and idiots even found the email addresses of the family and sent trick emails containing the images. They also made harassing prank calls. So the difference in this case is that the officers who distributed the photos directly caused pain and suffering to the family by leaking the pictures to the rest of the world. There are some very cruel people out there who think being callous makes them funny.
What the fuck?
They bought a processor design house so they can continue designing custom solutions for their mobile devices. How does one go from that to "Apple is just as dangerous as Microsoft?" Because they bought a chip company to meet their needs?
Then you end it with a tired comment about Kool-Aid drinkers, which reveals the troll.
So you spread them for Adobe Flash instead?
God, I love when Apple-haters get upset. Any piece of positive press coverage sends their reptilian brains into a frenzy.
It's useless. Most Slashdotters have their heads so far up Google's ass, nothing you say will reach their ears. This is a company that indexes everything forever, including your email and IM conversations. It gets praised as some "open source company" when its main product--its search engine and advertising platform--is as closed as Windows. It only uses open source products to get people onto its proprietary advertising platform.
"99% of people"
I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.
Because you're like everyone else in the market in that you don't use the failure that is Windows Mobile.
I have a better question. Why are you trolling every Apple article, and why are you pretending Microsoft isn't following Apple's single-tasking, strictly-controlled design with the new Windows 7 Mobile? There must be a reason Microsoft would also go with that design. I know the answer, but can you tell me what it is?
See you in line for an iPhone.
Yes, let's pretend apps don't save their state when closed. Really lame troll.
It did save battery life. Microsoft isn't allowing multitasking in Windows 7 Mobile either for the same reasons Apple didn't allow it. If this rumor true, it's a new system design with a new chip that must improve battery life enough to allow for more (likely strictly controlled) multitasking. If the new iPhone OS allows for multitasking, undoubtedly the iPad would see its OS upgraded as well. It's common sense.
Your post is an awful troll. You tried way too hard and weren't subtle enough. I suggest spending more time in your cave, hating all happiness in the world.
Apple went through over a decade of being told it was dying. I think it's earned some arrogance to come this far in spite of naysayers who were still active as recently as five years ago.
I will never understand the bizarre and creepy attacks that the freetards throw at Miguel because he clones a Microsoft technology. Nobody does this to the Wine developers.
Your beloved "free software" that barely anyone uses on the desktop isn't "endangered." Stop being a drama queen.
I forgot, pirating content is okay on Slashdot.
Unless it's GPL code. Then, it suddenly becomes "stolen" code and the "thieves" must be punished.
The opposition isn't "bizarre." Government-run healthcare costs money, creates bureaucracy, and requires cuts in Medicare. The nation is too large to centralize something like healthcare. People on Slashdot often mock the experience of working in companies with a lot of bloat and middle-management. Well, governments are the ultimate example of that. People are also opposed to the backroom deals that were made to secure votes for the bill.
Besides that, I'm not sure why the submitter thinks today is "end of a very long road." Democrats have been saying they were close to passing this for the last nine months. It's just posturing. Apparently, they're still six votes short, and the public disapproval over both the legislation and the unconstitutional methods used to force it on everyone means I highly doubt it will ever pass.
Doing this huge, expensive overhaul in the middle of an economic recession always seemed totally nuts to me. If they had passed small, modular pieces over time, it would have been more accepted and probably less bloated as well. However, Nancy Pelosi seems to have forgotten that we live in a democracy and that what the public wants should matter. She thinks the ends justify the means.
I'll be defiantly voting Republican in the fall. Watching Democrats become enormous hypocrites, from Obama's constant broken campaign promises to reporting citizens to "flag@whitehouse.gov" to guys like Democrat Harry Reid getting away with his "negro dialect" comment despite what happened to Republican Trent Lott before him, has made me realize they are arrogant and out of touch. The nation was founded on the idea of separate states united under a limited government infrastructure, not some all-powerful, centralized entity.
You can't be serious. The unconstitutional attempts Congress is making to force legislation down the throats of a public that doesn't want it is near-suicidal. Somehow, it's the Republicans who don't want bi-partisanship? How biased could you possibly be?
The fact that, in addition to "sitting pretty with socialized medicine," you'd also face Medicare cuts and a trillion dollar bill for 10 years is one of the reasons Republicans and the public don't want this. On top of a skyrocketing deficit that won't stop climbing, desperate attempts to pin this on Republicans only serve to drive independents away even more.
For crying out loud, Pelosi is now considering passing legislation without having anyone vote on it. I can't help thinking you'd be absolutely livid if Republicans were pulling that kind of bullshit.
[citation needed]
MP3s and GIFs didn't take down your beloved free and open internet. Why would H.264?
Maybe if Obama wasn't spending trillions on failed stimulus programs in the middle of a recession, we'd have enough to go to the moon. Even India is heading there.
You people who try to portray it as nothing more than "sending tourists to a dry barren rock" are idiots. The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today, including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts. It's not just about flying to moon. Think a little.
The Democrats here are just being very defensive because of the doomed fate of their Congress later this year. Any criticism of Obama is always followed with an illogical statement followed by bashing Bush ("I'd rather have healthcare than go to the moon! Blame Bush for spending our money in Iraq!" Ignoring the fact that Obama's healthcare will cost over a trillion dollars for the next decade).
The sad truth is that this administration's obsession with government expansion and spending in the middle of a recession is bankrupting us and weakening us as a superpower in the world. We can't even afford to do space travel, which was once a proud mark on American history. To dismiss it is to dismiss the future of science.
Freakin' India has space plans and we don't.
One of the most retarded statements on Slashdot in a while. It's like you think it's September 10th, 2001.