and now we pause to think it can survive a corporate collapse
By this I assume that you are included in the group "we". I most certainly am not, as I do not think the internet will die, and that it still is "a communications network... capable of surviving a nuclear attack". It will be a different animal then, but it will still survive. One provider going dark, or even many going out of business, will impact the net, but not kill it.
The difference between when the net was a defence tool and now is that rather than inter-connecting a few dozen computers with redundant links, you now have millions of nodes. There was no backbone when it started - just dozens of machines working peer-ro-peer and now there are a significant number of "backbones". Take one backbone away and it will hurt, but the net will still survive, albeit in a slightly different form. Take away a link from the 60's, and it would still work as designed.
What do you want the net to be? Always there, all the time, all connections working? Never happen. The real problems here, are that people think that large corporations hold sway over life and death for many of us, and that we immediately think the worst of any situation - because that's human nature.
Corporations are important to the status quo here in the free market economy. When they go belly up, it causes ripples not waves - and the ripples will affect your life without you having to think about it. Waves that cause a significant change in your attitude make you start to think, and no-one likes that.
Human nature is the bitch here, we all want interesting stuff to happen, as long as it happens to other people.
No, the 1668 conquest of England by William of Orange.
Perhaps you mean 1688 - and Parliament sent an invitation to William, in an attempt to avoid a Catholic takeover, and keep the nation Protestant.
By no stretch of the imagination can the landing in Devon be called an invasion of England. Public opinion was so against James - he proclaimed 'We cannot but heartily wish... that all the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church; yet... conscience ought not to be constrained nor people forced in matters of mere religion...' which added to the many other actions that caused riots from 1686 onwards. Parliament had to act, and so invited William (and others) to put pressure on the King.
That'll be becuase you hardly have any "soccer" games there.
And I've seen plenty of reports concerning sports riots in North America on TV, both while I was there, and on TV specials here in Europe - so please don't tell me that there are no problems at North American sports events.
I can't be bothered to get URLs, but if you're too lazy to look, I'll oblige.
Legally, we do not. You may think that Common Law, Royal Perogative, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the Parliment Acts, the Act of Westminster etc. etc. could be called a "constitution", but as a single written legal document, there is no such beast.
Not having a constitution is not the end of the world, indeed many see it as a good thing. Would you rather have a list of things you are allowed to do (US Constitution, Bill of Rights etc.) or a list of things you are not allowed to do (UK common law, various Acts etc)?
Neither system (US v UK) is perfect, but we live with what we know. And as for DoS attacks, at least there's an attempt to do something about it, rather than bury heads in sand.
Perhaps they are really afraid that advertisers will discover that the networks have been selling them something that they don't actually own and therefore cannot legally sell.
Dunno about the States, but here in the UK commercial broadcasters have to pay for a licence to broadcast. For this, they "own" the airtime being sold. How their advertising charges are calculated is based on ratings, but they are selling something (airtime) legally.
So somebody loses. Either you no longer can make a living writing songs and you find other work, or the company lays off staff because they don't need a big distribution network anymore to deliver one thousand copies of a new song.
So what's the big deal? Finding other work won't stop a good song-writer from writing - I doubt the best song writers do it simply for the money, and that the money is probably just a nice by-product. Society won't be harmed - art will not go away.
As for companies laying off staff - that's business. Change your business model or die. That's true of every company out there, no matter what sector. Nokia wasn't always a mobile phone company, and neither will they, if they have sense.
There *is* a way to get people to watch ads - make good ads
But AOL/TimeWarner don't make the ads. They get the revenue from the ads, and only get future revenue based on the number of hits they can promise. Take away the hits and AOL/TimeWarner suffers more directly than do the advertisers.
AOL/TimeWarner are "at the mercy" of the advsertisers to produce good ads.
So it's a good point, but not one that directly addresses the issue at hand.
Q: What can AOL/TimeWarner (and other broadcasters) do to keep you watching ads?
(Maybe they can top-and-tail the breaks with trivia questions. I've seen this done here in the UK)
I call my friends when I want to catch them right after Farscape...
And how does that help pay Sci-Fi's bills?
Free-to-air cable channels CONTINUE to exist because advertisers pay them money. Take away the reason for advertisers to pay channels, the advertisers will pay someone else (e.g. print media). So how will the channels stay alive then? Go subscription?
Maybe you see that as a tax on not-seeing advertisements. It's a Free Market, and Turner is in some way right. But 100% to use the label criminals. The probelem is theirs, not ours (the consumers).
That's like saying people are bad. Some advertising is not worth it. Much of it is. Maybe you are confusing it with MARKETING, which is not the same as advertising.
Advertising, as a tool of marketing, is very effective. It's some of the other aspects of marketing that are doubtful.
I worked in media for 10 years, and apart from the PR guys, marketing was by far the most slimy group of individuals you ever wanted to meet. Doublethink? Hell, these guys could quadruplethink.
No, advertising is useful and it works. I've BTDT, so I know of what I speak.
Slashdot Mirror
... like an old oak table ...
and now we pause to think it can survive a corporate collapse
... capable of surviving a nuclear attack". It will be a different animal then, but it will still survive. One provider going dark, or even many going out of business, will impact the net, but not kill it.
By this I assume that you are included in the group "we". I most certainly am not, as I do not think the internet will die, and that it still is "a communications network
The difference between when the net was a defence tool and now is that rather than inter-connecting a few dozen computers with redundant links, you now have millions of nodes. There was no backbone when it started - just dozens of machines working peer-ro-peer and now there are a significant number of "backbones". Take one backbone away and it will hurt, but the net will still survive, albeit in a slightly different form. Take away a link from the 60's, and it would still work as designed.
What do you want the net to be? Always there, all the time, all connections working? Never happen. The real problems here, are that people think that large corporations hold sway over life and death for many of us, and that we immediately think the worst of any situation - because that's human nature.
Corporations are important to the status quo here in the free market economy. When they go belly up, it causes ripples not waves - and the ripples will affect your life without you having to think about it. Waves that cause a significant change in your attitude make you start to think, and no-one likes that.
Human nature is the bitch here, we all want interesting stuff to happen, as long as it happens to other people.
No, the 1668 conquest of England by William of Orange.
... that all the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church; yet ... conscience ought not to be constrained nor people forced in matters of mere religion ...' which added to the many other actions that caused riots from 1686 onwards. Parliament had to act, and so invited William (and others) to put pressure on the King.
Perhaps you mean 1688 - and Parliament sent an invitation to William, in an attempt to avoid a Catholic takeover, and keep the nation Protestant.
By no stretch of the imagination can the landing in Devon be called an invasion of England. Public opinion was so against James - he proclaimed 'We cannot but heartily wish
Didn't work out exactly - James abdicated.
How can the absence of something be called a copyright violation?
Hey, Rodin's "The Thinker" is only a slab of marble with the absence of everything that doesn't look like "The Thinker".
Fair point.
Oh right it doesn't happen.
That'll be becuase you hardly have any "soccer" games there.
And I've seen plenty of reports concerning sports riots in North America on TV, both while I was there, and on TV specials here in Europe - so please don't tell me that there are no problems at North American sports events.
I can't be bothered to get URLs, but if you're too lazy to look, I'll oblige.
The triple alliance that defeated Louis XIV? Hardly relevant.
my friend from Brazil calls it "carry ball"
I prefer the term "hugball"
South Korea has to have taken over the title of "Whiniest Country in International Sports".
No, the United States still holds that title. Just read chunks of this discussion.
needless to say, it was an "all-in-one" server
Well there's your problem. Business critical mail systems should be on dedicated servers.
Legally, we do not. You may think that Common Law, Royal Perogative, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the Parliment Acts, the Act of Westminster etc. etc. could be called a "constitution", but as a single written legal document, there is no such beast.
Not having a constitution is not the end of the world, indeed many see it as a good thing. Would you rather have a list of things you are allowed to do (US Constitution, Bill of Rights etc.) or a list of things you are not allowed to do (UK common law, various Acts etc)?
Neither system (US v UK) is perfect, but we live with what we know. And as for DoS attacks, at least there's an attempt to do something about it, rather than bury heads in sand.
You say two towers and my mind instantly replays 9/11 for me
Your problem, not mine. Say "Twin towers" and I agree, but "Two towers" will always be LOTR for me.
Ah. Sneakernet.
No, you're confusing "nearly a miss" with "near miss". The latter is a miss which is near (as opposed to far).
...
English is a live and well, and spoken in England.
PS: Arthur C Clarke was right in Rama
What about the people that channel surf during commercials? Are they stealing programming too?
Have you tried to surf during an ad break? All you get is more fuckin ads.
--
Perhaps they are really afraid that advertisers will discover that the networks have been selling them something that they don't actually own and therefore cannot legally sell.
Dunno about the States, but here in the UK commercial broadcasters have to pay for a licence to broadcast. For this, they "own" the airtime being sold. How their advertising charges are calculated is based on ratings, but they are selling something (airtime) legally.
--
what happened to spelling.
<snip>
Oh well, I guess this is a loosing battle
Maybe they loost their dictionary.
So somebody loses. Either you no longer can make a living writing songs and you find other work, or the company lays off staff because they don't need a big distribution network anymore to deliver one thousand copies of a new song.
So what's the big deal? Finding other work won't stop a good song-writer from writing - I doubt the best song writers do it simply for the money, and that the money is probably just a nice by-product. Society won't be harmed - art will not go away.
As for companies laying off staff - that's business. Change your business model or die. That's true of every company out there, no matter what sector. Nokia wasn't always a mobile phone company, and neither will they, if they have sense.
But you wouldn't walk down the streets with wads of cash showing from your pockets, simply because the police had started to crack down on mugging?
Until there's 0% crime, people should take steps to protect themselves. There will never be 0% crime, ergo protect your kid's identities online.
---
There *is* a way to get people to watch ads - make good ads
But AOL/TimeWarner don't make the ads. They get the revenue from the ads, and only get future revenue based on the number of hits they can promise. Take away the hits and AOL/TimeWarner suffers more directly than do the advertisers.
AOL/TimeWarner are "at the mercy" of the advsertisers to produce good ads.
So it's a good point, but not one that directly addresses the issue at hand.
Q: What can AOL/TimeWarner (and other broadcasters) do to keep you watching ads?
(Maybe they can top-and-tail the breaks with trivia questions. I've seen this done here in the UK)
You absorb roughly two watts of X-rays, radio waves, gamma rays (Hulk smash!) and microwaves for every moment you spend outdoors.
As a self-proclaimed RF expert, can you tell me what the SI units are for "Watts per moment"?
-------
I call my friends when I want to catch them right after Farscape...
And how does that help pay Sci-Fi's bills?
Free-to-air cable channels CONTINUE to exist because advertisers pay them money. Take away the reason for advertisers to pay channels, the advertisers will pay someone else (e.g. print media). So how will the channels stay alive then? Go subscription?
Maybe you see that as a tax on not-seeing advertisements. It's a Free Market, and Turner is in some way right. But 100% to use the label criminals. The probelem is theirs, not ours (the consumers).
Gr
--------
Advertising is a crock
That's like saying people are bad. Some advertising is not worth it. Much of it is. Maybe you are confusing it with MARKETING, which is not the same as advertising.
Advertising, as a tool of marketing, is very effective. It's some of the other aspects of marketing that are doubtful.
I worked in media for 10 years, and apart from the PR guys, marketing was by far the most slimy group of individuals you ever wanted to meet. Doublethink? Hell, these guys could quadruplethink.
No, advertising is useful and it works. I've BTDT, so I know of what I speak.
Gr
--------
I asked my science oracle if this were true. After a quick shake it said "Outlook not so good".
I don't believe in psychics because you have make an appointment to see one.
Then you haven't really wanted to see one