It's funny, because six years ago, Microsoft spent about 20,000 dollars on political activities; I believe they were lobbying for something to do with encryption. While the monopoly investigation was going on, the government actually had the nerve to call Microsoft "arrogant" for being so aloof to them and not contributing.
Nobody is doing anything illegal until we have campaign finance reform. It's the system that's evil not the one's who play by it's rules. Besides the personal interest anyone at Microsoft may have in it's success, they also have a responsibility to its stockholders. The rules just need to change.
Our distinct evolutionary advantage has always been our intelligence. If someone uses his intelligence rather than brute strength to, say, kill a lion, I applaud that.
Now, that doesn't negate your objection: letting people who can't give birth to breed will make even more people sterile. However, I believe that our "introducing of bad genes into the gene pool" will be temporary until we have a way of simply removing them from anyone's germ cells. I don't see that being so far off on an evolutionary scale.
I think what you mean is that there isn't enough meat in the world to have everyone eat meat like Americans. That doesn't mean the Earth couldn't support that much meat if all of a sudden they started breeding more cows. And why don't you back up your assertions with a fact or two.
That's why there's still an opportunity to opt-in. If you'd like lower prices then go for it (that is, if you think opting-in will lead to lower prices). Oh, the tragedy of the commons.
The whole value of the internet is that it's a dumb network, and new protocols can be added and that you don't have to go through a bureaucracy every time you want to make something new. If you want to be on the internet, play by the rules.
If I owned an ISP would it be ok if I stopped routing and just dropped any packets that didn't originate or have a destination on my netowork?
I'm sorry, that wasn't Planet of the Apes, you must be mistaken. In Planet of the Apes, *apes* evolved into advanced apes, while humans devolved (yes, I know there's no such thing) because of their destructive nature. The movie you're talking about is just a knock-off.
Maybe you should learn to read the subject line: "For a really good example of space elevators...or beanstalks as the insiders like to call them..." I think he was calling the space elevators beanstalks, not the tsunamis. Learn to read.
Publicly held companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders. To suggest that a publicly held corporation should care about anything but making money shows a gross misunderstanding of the capitalist market. The ability for publicly held companies to care only about money is their only redeemable quality.
In the 1950's a device was released called "Hush-a-phone." This deviced attached to the mouthpiece of a phone to block out background noise. At&t objected, and with the backing of the FCC, they banned this "illegal, unauthorized attachment to the phone network." So if in the 1970's and 80's, At&t still had that kind of power modems would certainly be "unauthorized." Jack Osterman, an At&t executive, put it best in 1964: "We'll be damned if we allow the creation of a competitor to ourselves."
The internet's ability to be dumb, and do only the simplest task, transport data, is it's biggest strength. As we all know, the phone system works much better than voice over IP. The reason is because the phone network is specialized. However, the internet does not have the ability to prioritize or discriminate packets, which allows new unforseen protocols to be written, with new unimaginable uses. This all became possible (at least over telephone lines) because At&t was forced into a hands-off policy.
Before AOL acquired TW, they and At&t were pushing to open up the cable networks. Now they're pushing in the opposite direction, because of their newfound interest in keeping it closed. Now they prioritize packets in favor of themselves and their affiliates. @home (I believe) was the one who limited video streams to ten minutes.
Cable, and dark fiber (fiber w/o the electronics), should be layed with the help of the government, just like the roads are. I used to be a staunch strong libertarian in favor of completely open markets. But, corporations aren't really that different from governments: they use power to limit the rights of people, and they don't deserve a bigger exemption than does the government.
I'm not going to pretend these are all my ideas, though I believe in them strongly. If you want to learn more read "The future of ideas" by Lawrence Lessig.
Incentives mean that whoever lays the cable gets a monopoly on it. Then Time-Warner/AOL will start prioritizing packets so competitors' sites will perform poorly. After that, they'll realize that streaming video is competition to cable, and they'll limit video streams to a maximum of 10 minutes because "[They] didn't spend $56 billion laying cables just to have the blood sucked out of [them].
And there you have it. The internet will just become an enhancement to cable TV.
What we need is deregulation of the Cable internet access, like there is with DSL.
Maybe it has to do with the recent climate surrounding IP: anything resembling your work must pay a royalty to you. We were just starting that frenzy when spaceballs came out.
Yeah, good point. I was going to qualify that as follows: "At least he no longer sounds disoriented and high pitched, like he's straining to hear his feedback. Have you heard him on the radio when he was deaf? It was really awful.
I hate this misconception. There are other ways to take advantage of a dual proc machine than to run programs optimized for dual proc. Like, how about running two programs at once without them stepping on each other's toes.
Well, I think the primary qualification for holding a x.sucks domain name would be that you *don't* hold a trademark for x. However, I don't see how they could possibly enforce that qualification.
I think the reason people don't like the Xbox controller is just because it doesn't feel like most controllers they've used.
If you just hold a controller, not connected to a console, to me the gamecube's feels the most comfortable. But when you're actually playing it, Xbox works out best. The large size forces your hand into a certain position that reduces strain. When I play super smash brothers, my hands get really tired; they ache. DOA3 doesn't do that. I don't have any games for PS2 that require rapid button pushing, but I can't get it to feel right with GT3. The only problem with the Xbox controller is the layout of the ABXY buttons. They're in a diagonal type diamond shape and it's very hard at first to distinguish between the buttons. But you get used to that.
First of all, let me preface my comment by saying that I am a strong defender of the First Amendment and individual liberties, and that it bothers me incredibly when I see the way our rights are being taken away and that people are eager to give it up.
But is this really unconstitutional? Under the assumption that sexually explicit material should hidden from children, and not displayed publicly (which is a big assumption), what makes this any different? Why should anyone of any age be allowed to view and participate in violent carnage, but not see a peep show?
I am very familiar with the arguments saying that parents should take responsibility for their children. But I think those arguments only apply to videogames that can be played in the home. If they said videogames with graphic violence cannot be sold in the US I would have a big problem with that. But the law they were fighting for only made violent videogames a problem if they were played in public.
The real question, summed up, is this: How can there be people who don't have a problem (that is, that they believe it to be inconsistent and illogical, not just that they don't like how it affects them) with the restrictions on pornography and sexually explicit material, but do have a problem with this restriction? How is this any more a violation of the First Amendment than the restrictions on pornography?
This could turn out pretty well for Lucas; it could probably draw in two opposing demographics: the people who want to see nsync, and those who want to see them dead.
I guess I don't know that much about it either. I didn't mean it to come out that way, it wasn't a personal attack. So I guess your original point wasn't so off target. Thanks for the edification.
Yes, you're right, Nintendo's original view of the situation was that they'd be better off selling more of their own games than third parties. But even though it was their instinct to act that way, N64 taught them that the tradeoff isn't worth it. They lose more than they gain by hampering third parties.
That's the most absurd thing I ever heard. The whole idea of copyright, whether it's valid or not, is counter to the idea of capitalism. If true capitalism were in effect, music artists would have to be clever and figure out a way to make money instead of making a law which helps them do that. You use the argument "music companies invest so much money, they deserve a return on their investment." Well, copyright laws create any incentive to invest where the record industry invests, an incentive which didn't previously exist.
The exact same argument you're using was used to justify slavery. People paid legitimate cash for a slave, and now, after they paid a significant amount of money for it, the government wants to take that away from them, and make them lose that investment? Isn't that some sort of violation of property rights???
The only problem with reforming copyright laws is the transition. People have business strategies and have invested money based on certain assumptions that they rely on. They would be the only people screwed in a reform of copyright law, just like the slaveowners were the only ones screwed when they abolished slavery. Take your head out of the sand and realize that the current system is the farthest thing from capitalism, and is not unlike communism, when you consider that involves the government deciding what should and shouldn't be paid for.
I'm not catergorically bashing copyright. A world without copyright might be good, but it might not. We'd probably have to experiment to determine that for certain. But the current system is abysmal.
Look at art today. There is no "art" industry. There really isn't nearly as much money to be made from newly produced works of art as there is from music, and that's why there isn't too much investment there. If artists were forced to make income mostly from performances, and a little extra from merchandise (including CDs), and there were no incentive for outside investment it would be no detriment to music or the artists, and there would simply be no motivation for promotion or heavy investment.
Your comparison of the current system and a capitalistic system is incredibly short-sighted.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny, because six years ago, Microsoft spent about 20,000 dollars on political activities; I believe they were lobbying for something to do with encryption. While the monopoly investigation was going on, the government actually had the nerve to call Microsoft "arrogant" for being so aloof to them and not contributing.
Nobody is doing anything illegal until we have campaign finance reform. It's the system that's evil not the one's who play by it's rules. Besides the personal interest anyone at Microsoft may have in it's success, they also have a responsibility to its stockholders. The rules just need to change.
This isn't a lawsuit over copyrights, it's a lawsuit over patents.
Our distinct evolutionary advantage has always been our intelligence. If someone uses his intelligence rather than brute strength to, say, kill a lion, I applaud that.
Now, that doesn't negate your objection: letting people who can't give birth to breed will make even more people sterile. However, I believe that our "introducing of bad genes into the gene pool" will be temporary until we have a way of simply removing them from anyone's germ cells. I don't see that being so far off on an evolutionary scale.
I think what you mean is that there isn't enough meat in the world to have everyone eat meat like Americans. That doesn't mean the Earth couldn't support that much meat if all of a sudden they started breeding more cows. And why don't you back up your assertions with a fact or two.
Nerd culture is counter productive. I love that one.
That's why there's still an opportunity to opt-in. If you'd like lower prices then go for it (that is, if you think opting-in will lead to lower prices). Oh, the tragedy of the commons.
The whole value of the internet is that it's a dumb network, and new protocols can be added and that you don't have to go through a bureaucracy every time you want to make something new. If you want to be on the internet, play by the rules.
If I owned an ISP would it be ok if I stopped routing and just dropped any packets that didn't originate or have a destination on my netowork?
It doesn't. He just wanted his post to appear at the top of the page.
I'm sorry, that wasn't Planet of the Apes, you must be mistaken. In Planet of the Apes, *apes* evolved into advanced apes, while humans devolved (yes, I know there's no such thing) because of their destructive nature. The movie you're talking about is just a knock-off.
Maybe you should learn to read the subject line: "For a really good example of space elevators...or beanstalks as the insiders like to call them..." I think he was calling the space elevators beanstalks, not the tsunamis. Learn to read.
Publicly held companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders. To suggest that a publicly held corporation should care about anything but making money shows a gross misunderstanding of the capitalist market. The ability for publicly held companies to care only about money is their only redeemable quality.
In the 1950's a device was released called "Hush-a-phone." This deviced attached to the mouthpiece of a phone to block out background noise. At&t objected, and with the backing of the FCC, they banned this "illegal, unauthorized attachment to the phone network." So if in the 1970's and 80's, At&t still had that kind of power modems would certainly be "unauthorized." Jack Osterman, an At&t executive, put it best in 1964: "We'll be damned if we allow the creation of a competitor to ourselves."
The internet's ability to be dumb, and do only the simplest task, transport data, is it's biggest strength. As we all know, the phone system works much better than voice over IP. The reason is because the phone network is specialized. However, the internet does not have the ability to prioritize or discriminate packets, which allows new unforseen protocols to be written, with new unimaginable uses. This all became possible (at least over telephone lines) because At&t was forced into a hands-off policy.
Before AOL acquired TW, they and At&t were pushing to open up the cable networks. Now they're pushing in the opposite direction, because of their newfound interest in keeping it closed. Now they prioritize packets in favor of themselves and their affiliates. @home (I believe) was the one who limited video streams to ten minutes.
Cable, and dark fiber (fiber w/o the electronics), should be layed with the help of the government, just like the roads are. I used to be a staunch strong libertarian in favor of completely open markets. But, corporations aren't really that different from governments: they use power to limit the rights of people, and they don't deserve a bigger exemption than does the government.
I'm not going to pretend these are all my ideas, though I believe in them strongly. If you want to learn more read "The future of ideas" by Lawrence Lessig.
Incentives mean that whoever lays the cable gets a monopoly on it. Then Time-Warner/AOL will start prioritizing packets so competitors' sites will perform poorly. After that, they'll realize that streaming video is competition to cable, and they'll limit video streams to a maximum of 10 minutes because "[They] didn't spend $56 billion laying cables just to have the blood sucked out of [them].
And there you have it. The internet will just become an enhancement to cable TV.
What we need is deregulation of the Cable internet access, like there is with DSL.
Maybe it has to do with the recent climate surrounding IP: anything resembling your work must pay a royalty to you. We were just starting that frenzy when spaceballs came out.
Yeah, good point. I was going to qualify that as follows: "At least he no longer sounds disoriented and high pitched, like he's straining to hear his feedback. Have you heard him on the radio when he was deaf? It was really awful.
It was a defense mechanism.
I hate this misconception. There are other ways to take advantage of a dual proc machine than to run programs optimized for dual proc. Like, how about running two programs at once without them stepping on each other's toes.
Actually, he's had cochlear implants installed, and he's hearing just fine.
Well, I think the primary qualification for holding a x.sucks domain name would be that you *don't* hold a trademark for x. However, I don't see how they could possibly enforce that qualification.
I think the reason people don't like the Xbox controller is just because it doesn't feel like most controllers they've used.
If you just hold a controller, not connected to a console, to me the gamecube's feels the most comfortable. But when you're actually playing it, Xbox works out best. The large size forces your hand into a certain position that reduces strain. When I play super smash brothers, my hands get really tired; they ache. DOA3 doesn't do that. I don't have any games for PS2 that require rapid button pushing, but I can't get it to feel right with GT3. The only problem with the Xbox controller is the layout of the ABXY buttons. They're in a diagonal type diamond shape and it's very hard at first to distinguish between the buttons. But you get used to that.
First of all, let me preface my comment by saying that I am a strong defender of the First Amendment and individual liberties, and that it bothers me incredibly when I see the way our rights are being taken away and that people are eager to give it up.
But is this really unconstitutional? Under the assumption that sexually explicit material should hidden from children, and not displayed publicly (which is a big assumption), what makes this any different? Why should anyone of any age be allowed to view and participate in violent carnage, but not see a peep show?
I am very familiar with the arguments saying that parents should take responsibility for their children. But I think those arguments only apply to videogames that can be played in the home. If they said videogames with graphic violence cannot be sold in the US I would have a big problem with that. But the law they were fighting for only made violent videogames a problem if they were played in public.
The real question, summed up, is this: How can there be people who don't have a problem (that is, that they believe it to be inconsistent and illogical, not just that they don't like how it affects them) with the restrictions on pornography and sexually explicit material, but do have a problem with this restriction? How is this any more a violation of the First Amendment than the restrictions on pornography?
This could turn out pretty well for Lucas; it could probably draw in two opposing demographics: the people who want to see nsync, and those who want to see them dead.
I guess I don't know that much about it either. I didn't mean it to come out that way, it wasn't a personal attack. So I guess your original point wasn't so off target. Thanks for the edification.
Yes, you're right, Nintendo's original view of the situation was that they'd be better off selling more of their own games than third parties. But even though it was their instinct to act that way, N64 taught them that the tradeoff isn't worth it. They lose more than they gain by hampering third parties.
That's the most absurd thing I ever heard. The whole idea of copyright, whether it's valid or not, is counter to the idea of capitalism. If true capitalism were in effect, music artists would have to be clever and figure out a way to make money instead of making a law which helps them do that. You use the argument "music companies invest so much money, they deserve a return on their investment." Well, copyright laws create any incentive to invest where the record industry invests, an incentive which didn't previously exist.
The exact same argument you're using was used to justify slavery. People paid legitimate cash for a slave, and now, after they paid a significant amount of money for it, the government wants to take that away from them, and make them lose that investment? Isn't that some sort of violation of property rights???
The only problem with reforming copyright laws is the transition. People have business strategies and have invested money based on certain assumptions that they rely on. They would be the only people screwed in a reform of copyright law, just like the slaveowners were the only ones screwed when they abolished slavery. Take your head out of the sand and realize that the current system is the farthest thing from capitalism, and is not unlike communism, when you consider that involves the government deciding what should and shouldn't be paid for.
I'm not catergorically bashing copyright. A world without copyright might be good, but it might not. We'd probably have to experiment to determine that for certain. But the current system is abysmal.
Look at art today. There is no "art" industry. There really isn't nearly as much money to be made from newly produced works of art as there is from music, and that's why there isn't too much investment there. If artists were forced to make income mostly from performances, and a little extra from merchandise (including CDs), and there were no incentive for outside investment it would be no detriment to music or the artists, and there would simply be no motivation for promotion or heavy investment.
Your comparison of the current system and a capitalistic system is incredibly short-sighted.