I don't think kit meant the sig the way you see it. Your example is one of contradiction but the sig is not. It is a poetic way of saying "you can never go back".
Comprehending relativity doesn't make sense to me unless the speed of light can vary. On the one hand you have "Nothing is constant, eveything is relative" and on the other "the speed of light is constant". That the speed of light can speed up as the universe expands makes it possible (for me at least) to visualize the universe from bigband to the present. Before this I had a perception of the universe where everything in it (space/time, big rocks, etc.) was connected and influenced by each other - except for light, somehow immune yet influenced by gravity. Too many contradictions.
Thank You for explaining my point better than me. Further illustrated by this quote from the article.
''Of course, the Rwandans are pillaging us,'' he said. ''But they are not the first to do it and they are no worse than the others. King Leopold did it. The Belgians did it. Mobutu and the Americans did it. The most sorrowful thing I have to live with is that we are incapable of coming up with an elite that can run things with Congolese interests in mind.''
The problem is we are staying uninvolved. The Congolese do not have the ability to form a government. I know this is hard for a westerner to relate to, but there is not one leader in the whole country. Only robbers and pillagers. Whenever someon gains power it purely to enrich himself, not because he loves his people and wants to improve their lot. We started all of this when we killed Patrice and we are responsible for whats happening now.
As a matter of fact yes. I mean get some Europeans in to tidy the place up and then kick them out again. Many Africans wonder why we're willing spend money and risk our lives to bring peace to Yugoslavia (white people) but not in Africa. Racism?
Actually something like this is the only way to save this country. Let me qualify this.
My best friend is born and grew up in Zaire (now the Congo). Her mother is from Zaire and her father is an American who went over in the Peace Corps and eventually become the owner of a diamond mine. Because of her I often hear the news from that country as well as the opinions of the few Congolese who happen to live in this country.
Less than 10 years ago the Congo had roads, electricity, hospitals, schools, an infrastructure. Now there is nothing. My friend describes it as "surreal" the way the country became "not a country" so quickly. Now it's so far gone they cannot recover on their own. Without some outside force strong enough to completely dominate the region nothing will change. It is my personal opinion that most Congolese who are not warlords would actually welcome an invasion from a European power. At least there would be less chance of being murdered by some "soldier" for what pitiful possesions you still own.
Yes I have heard too many times that wearing a better pair of boots than the soldier who confronts you is a capitol offense
You've touched on what ultimately must happen if individual internet users are to continue have any control over how they use this tool.
A few years ago if you had a DSL connection and you wanted to host a small website it made more sense to use your already existing static ip to host the site than to co-locate or pay rent on a virtual server. That is no longer the case. Ports are being blocked and I for one would not be surprised to see them remain so forever in the interests of "network security". Realize the following:
1. Servers are becoming geographically centralized as illustrated by the recent slashdot feature. Co-location and virtual hosting are becoming the only economicaly feasible way to get your site hosted.
2. The big corporations are learning to control the internet. Right now they know that they want to control the content you see but the recent threats of litigation are forcing the big ISP's (who also may be publishing their own content. the lines are blurred here(AOL/TW))to learn how to control content gets published and how it gets published.
My gut feeling here is that P2P over the existing internet is a losing battle. Just like you hear people say here on/. "let them make a new copyright prevention scheme, we'll just crack that one too", the big corps will turn that philosophy back on to file sharing networks, no matter the protocol. They own the tools and the talent. Whether it's port blocking, packet filtering, litigation, or what-have-you, everytime a "new" P2P network reaches a popularity threshold high enough to be considered "dangerous" it will be snuffed out.
The only solution is a truly free and open internet that is not controlled by anyone. It would start with me running some CAT5 across the backyard to my neighbors house and setting up a wireless connection to the guy across the street. The biggest hurdle to this "internet" is addressing. The addressing scheme you described may be a solution. This is one of those things that so big no one tries to get it going, but I'm sure there's a few million people who've thought along these same lines. I've never coded anything beyond "hello world" but I do think this is possible if someone just takes the first step and starts a project on sourceforge
Is it possible to manufacture a player that is completely programmable? Like that first personal computer that came in a kit. People could buy a "blank" player and write their own firmware for it. The firmware images could be downloaded and installed so my kit player could be a cd/dvd/cdr/cdrw/something completely different. This would place TOTAL control in the hands of the "consumer" (don't you hate being called that?).
I've been thinking along the same lines but I'm not up on what equipment to use etc. I just started yesterday trying to find out what kind of frequencies/watts are required vs. what's available for regular people.
uh no I haven't. I used to with always check that when I was using netscape but so far I haven't noticed any leaks with mozilla and I haven't been paying attention to that. To be honest I have 512 ram and it didn't occur to me to check that. Good point.
Step one - clear your cache
Step two - load up the biggest waste of bandwidth page you can find in IE. Make a mental note of the time it took to load the page.
Step three - repeat with Mozilla.
Even with my cable modem there's a marked difference. When I load/.'s front page IE takes about two seconds to get from the top banner ad to the bottom of the page. With Mozilla I can't time it. The whole page just pops up.
And besides, I think Mozilla looks real cool with the Aqua theme I downloaded. Only problem I have is that it freezes when I try to download 78,000 headers from alt.binaries.images.
"Sounds pretty unimportant to me. But if your life revolves around weed... well, each to their own."
I don't smoke pot, and if anyone I know who does they are keeping it to themselves. But I seriously resent tax money that goes to fighting the "drugwar".
Drug law reform would effect everyone whether you use drugs or not. So it is a very important issue.
This is not a choice. The existing internet will be altered to provide greater control to the content providers, leaving you with less control. There will not be an Internet2 that is seperate from this one. I really hope a lot people can realize some important things before it's too late.
In every New Industry (electricity, cars, etc.), the initial cost of entry is pretty low. As companies grow and become successful, they swallow up the smaller ones and begin to "shore up" their position in the market. They will deliberately do anything to raise the cost of entry for anyone who tries to follow them. That's what Internet2 is really all about. Making it more difficult for a couple of hacks to do they're own thing and be successful. It means small local ISP's won't have access to popular content, which will eventually put them out of business.
That the internet is dumb with smart terminals favors the individual user. I can do what I want and I don't give a damn what AOL wants to shove down someone elses throat. A smart internet means eventually I will have choice between AOL, Earthlink, or MSN. I'm actually surprised at my own anger and frustration regarding the direction the world seems to be moving.
The attack is on several fronts. So many/. articles seem to be different topics but they all boil down to the same thing don't they?
No one has a right to make a profit from the Internet. It's just fine the way it is, and the big Corporations already make enough money.
Yes I think you are. This diversification you talk about does not, in effect, exist. Let me explain.
I'm sure you would count Slashdot as one these "new" media outlets which prove that news and media have become more diversified. However comma space as popular as slashdot is try stopping people on a street one day and see how many people have actually heard of it much less read a thread.
Almost all of these people would have heard of and watched CNN or read a Time Magazine
Stop posting meaningless numbers in bold print like you know something. You're style is obvious even as an A/C. The "diversified" media you speak of does not have a loud enough voice to be heard over the shout of AOL-TW-ETC.
The PARTICULAR market being discussed the desktop market, not the server market, not the handheld market, etc. It is in this PARTICULAR market that the above poster is claiming MS has a 95% market share. Please remember that most Mac owners use their Mac's in a professional capacity and that the bulk of the Linux market is in servers.
For ANY OS to make inroads in the home desktop market that OS must be compatible with MS Windows, hence a monopoly.
Microsoft is in fact a monopoly, this has been proven in a court of law. Do you think all those lawyers and judges don't realize that "words mean something"?
Fortunately I'm not on Verizon, but if I were I'd be pitching a fit. Nothing to see? What if I want my mail to be from my hotmail account but I also want to use my browsers email program to compose? I like reading my email on hotmail because I don't have to download anything, buy I like to compose on my browser becasue hotmails sucks.
Use baby oil, Pam, or Rainex. You put a little oil/grease on the CD and LIGHTLY polish so the scratches are all filled in. Then you burn a copy. As soon as something (your thumb) touches the CD the scratches will come back.
1. Copyright laws are presently unenforceable.
2. As laws become more draconian (the preferred adjective used to describe DMCA) in order to protect copyright there will inevitably be collateral damage to our freedoms.
3. This results in an artificial marketplace governed by a plutocracy.
I prefer that the whole thing be scrapped in favor of a system that makes sense given todays technology. The music and movie distribution industry did not exist a hundred years ago and people got along fine. People still wrote songs and they *did* get distributed. Does anyone think that if the MPAA and the RIAA ceased to exist creativity would go with them?
First, the qualifications:
I'm not from Britain, and have never been there.
The mandatory IANAL.
My point:
I agree that copyright law should be taught in the classroom. However, it should not be a subject in and of itself. The Law as a whole should be taught in high school.
When I went to high school in Georgia, U.S., we had mandatory citizenship class where we learned the importance of paying taxes, showing up for jury duty, voting, etc. A "citizenship" class may seem harmless but I don't see it that way. I see it as an indoctrination/brainwash.
It wouldn't be difficult to give students a *working* knowledge of the law and allow them to decide for themselves how to conduct themselves in society. Personally I believe this isn't done because "they" don't want the average person to have this knowledge.
This relates to copyright in that the history of law and how it has evolved to its present form should be taught in class, including the first appearances of copyright law as a direct result of the printing press, a new *technology*. These students may then, on their own, decide that if "technology giveth, technology can taketh away".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think kit meant the sig the way you see it. Your example is one of contradiction but the sig is not. It is a poetic way of saying "you can never go back".
Comprehending relativity doesn't make sense to me unless the speed of light can vary. On the one hand you have "Nothing is constant, eveything is relative" and on the other "the speed of light is constant". That the speed of light can speed up as the universe expands makes it possible (for me at least) to visualize the universe from bigband to the present. Before this I had a perception of the universe where everything in it (space/time, big rocks, etc.) was connected and influenced by each other - except for light, somehow immune yet influenced by gravity. Too many contradictions.
That was damn funny. I wish I could of seen it.
Mod this up please. This one actually is "insightful".
Thank You for explaining my point better than me. Further illustrated by this quote from the article.
''Of course, the Rwandans are pillaging us,'' he said. ''But they are not the first to do it and they are no worse than the others. King Leopold did it. The Belgians did it. Mobutu and the Americans did it. The most sorrowful thing I have to live with is that we are incapable of coming up with an elite that can run things with Congolese interests in mind.''
The problem is we are staying uninvolved. The Congolese do not have the ability to form a government. I know this is hard for a westerner to relate to, but there is not one leader in the whole country. Only robbers and pillagers. Whenever someon gains power it purely to enrich himself, not because he loves his people and wants to improve their lot. We started all of this when we killed Patrice and we are responsible for whats happening now.
As a matter of fact yes. I mean get some Europeans in to tidy the place up and then kick them out again. Many Africans wonder why we're willing spend money and risk our lives to bring peace to Yugoslavia (white people) but not in Africa. Racism?
Actually something like this is the only way to save this country. Let me qualify this.
My best friend is born and grew up in Zaire (now the Congo). Her mother is from Zaire and her father is an American who went over in the Peace Corps and eventually become the owner of a diamond mine. Because of her I often hear the news from that country as well as the opinions of the few Congolese who happen to live in this country.
Less than 10 years ago the Congo had roads, electricity, hospitals, schools, an infrastructure. Now there is nothing. My friend describes it as "surreal" the way the country became "not a country" so quickly. Now it's so far gone they cannot recover on their own. Without some outside force strong enough to completely dominate the region nothing will change. It is my personal opinion that most Congolese who are not warlords would actually welcome an invasion from a European power. At least there would be less chance of being murdered by some "soldier" for what pitiful possesions you still own.
Yes I have heard too many times that wearing a better pair of boots than the soldier who confronts you is a capitol offense
You've touched on what ultimately must happen if individual internet users are to continue have any control over how they use this tool.
A few years ago if you had a DSL connection and you wanted to host a small website it made more sense to use your already existing static ip to host the site than to co-locate or pay rent on a virtual server. That is no longer the case. Ports are being blocked and I for one would not be surprised to see them remain so forever in the interests of "network security". Realize the following:1. Servers are becoming geographically centralized as illustrated by the recent slashdot feature. Co-location and virtual hosting are becoming the only economicaly feasible way to get your site hosted.
2. The big corporations are learning to control the internet. Right now they know that they want to control the content you see but the recent threats of litigation are forcing the big ISP's (who also may be publishing their own content. the lines are blurred here(AOL/TW))to learn how to control content gets published and how it gets published.My gut feeling here is that P2P over the existing internet is a losing battle. Just like you hear people say here on /. "let them make a new copyright prevention scheme, we'll just crack that one too", the big corps will turn that philosophy back on to file sharing networks, no matter the protocol. They own the tools and the talent. Whether it's port blocking, packet filtering, litigation, or what-have-you, everytime a "new" P2P network reaches a popularity threshold high enough to be considered "dangerous" it will be snuffed out.
The only solution is a truly free and open internet that is not controlled by anyone. It would start with me running some CAT5 across the backyard to my neighbors house and setting up a wireless connection to the guy across the street. The biggest hurdle to this "internet" is addressing. The addressing scheme you described may be a solution. This is one of those things that so big no one tries to get it going, but I'm sure there's a few million people who've thought along these same lines. I've never coded anything beyond "hello world" but I do think this is possible if someone just takes the first step and starts a project on sourceforgeIs it possible to manufacture a player that is completely programmable? Like that first personal computer that came in a kit. People could buy a "blank" player and write their own firmware for it. The firmware images could be downloaded and installed so my kit player could be a cd/dvd/cdr/cdrw/something completely different. This would place TOTAL control in the hands of the "consumer" (don't you hate being called that?).
Wireless?
I've been thinking along the same lines but I'm not up on what equipment to use etc. I just started yesterday trying to find out what kind of frequencies/watts are required vs. what's available for regular people.
Doh! The pic was in my cache when I checked the link and thought loaded fine. Thanks for the info.
screenshot of Mozilla w/Aqua theme
Step one - clear your cache
/.'s front page IE takes about two seconds to get from the top banner ad to the bottom of the page. With Mozilla I can't time it. The whole page just pops up.
Step two - load up the biggest waste of bandwidth page you can find in IE. Make a mental note of the time it took to load the page.
Step three - repeat with Mozilla.
Even with my cable modem there's a marked difference. When I load
And besides, I think Mozilla looks real cool with the Aqua theme I downloaded. Only problem I have is that it freezes when I try to download 78,000 headers from alt.binaries.images.
"Sounds pretty unimportant to me. But if your life revolves around weed... well, each to their own."
I don't smoke pot, and if anyone I know who does they are keeping it to themselves. But I seriously resent tax money that goes to fighting the "drugwar".
Drug law reform would effect everyone whether you use drugs or not. So it is a very important issue.
A little disjointed, but I'm not a writer.
/. articles seem to be different topics but they all boil down to the same thing don't they?
This is not a choice. The existing internet will be altered to provide greater control to the content providers, leaving you with less control. There will not be an Internet2 that is seperate from this one. I really hope a lot people can realize some important things before it's too late.
In every New Industry (electricity, cars, etc.), the initial cost of entry is pretty low. As companies grow and become successful, they swallow up the smaller ones and begin to "shore up" their position in the market. They will deliberately do anything to raise the cost of entry for anyone who tries to follow them. That's what Internet2 is really all about. Making it more difficult for a couple of hacks to do they're own thing and be successful. It means small local ISP's won't have access to popular content, which will eventually put them out of business.
That the internet is dumb with smart terminals favors the individual user. I can do what I want and I don't give a damn what AOL wants to shove down someone elses throat. A smart internet means eventually I will have choice between AOL, Earthlink, or MSN. I'm actually surprised at my own anger and frustration regarding the direction the world seems to be moving.
The attack is on several fronts. So many
No one has a right to make a profit from the Internet. It's just fine the way it is, and the big Corporations already make enough money.
Yes I think you are. This diversification you talk about does not, in effect, exist. Let me explain. I'm sure you would count Slashdot as one these "new" media outlets which prove that news and media have become more diversified. However comma space as popular as slashdot is try stopping people on a street one day and see how many people have actually heard of it much less read a thread. Almost all of these people would have heard of and watched CNN or read a Time Magazine Stop posting meaningless numbers in bold print like you know something. You're style is obvious even as an A/C. The "diversified" media you speak of does not have a loud enough voice to be heard over the shout of AOL-TW-ETC.
The PARTICULAR market being discussed the desktop market, not the server market, not the handheld market, etc. It is in this PARTICULAR market that the above poster is claiming MS has a 95% market share. Please remember that most Mac owners use their Mac's in a professional capacity and that the bulk of the Linux market is in servers.
For ANY OS to make inroads in the home desktop market that OS must be compatible with MS Windows, hence a monopoly.
Microsoft is in fact a monopoly, this has been proven in a court of law. Do you think all those lawyers and judges don't realize that "words mean something"?
Fortunately I'm not on Verizon, but if I were I'd be pitching a fit. Nothing to see? What if I want my mail to be from my hotmail account but I also want to use my browsers email program to compose? I like reading my email on hotmail because I don't have to download anything, buy I like to compose on my browser becasue hotmails sucks.
Rob
Use baby oil, Pam, or Rainex. You put a little oil/grease on the CD and LIGHTLY polish so the scratches are all filled in. Then you burn a copy. As soon as something (your thumb) touches the CD the scratches will come back.
1. Copyright laws are presently unenforceable.
2. As laws become more draconian (the preferred adjective used to describe DMCA) in order to protect copyright there will inevitably be collateral damage to our freedoms.
3. This results in an artificial marketplace governed by a plutocracy.
I prefer that the whole thing be scrapped in favor of a system that makes sense given todays technology. The music and movie distribution industry did not exist a hundred years ago and people got along fine. People still wrote songs and they *did* get distributed. Does anyone think that if the MPAA and the RIAA ceased to exist creativity would go with them?
First, the qualifications:
I'm not from Britain, and have never been there.
The mandatory IANAL.
My point:
I agree that copyright law should be taught in the classroom. However, it should not be a subject in and of itself. The Law as a whole should be taught in high school.
When I went to high school in Georgia, U.S., we had mandatory citizenship class where we learned the importance of paying taxes, showing up for jury duty, voting, etc. A "citizenship" class may seem harmless but I don't see it that way. I see it as an indoctrination/brainwash.
It wouldn't be difficult to give students a *working* knowledge of the law and allow them to decide for themselves how to conduct themselves in society. Personally I believe this isn't done because "they" don't want the average person to have this knowledge.
This relates to copyright in that the history of law and how it has evolved to its present form should be taught in class, including the first appearances of copyright law as a direct result of the printing press, a new *technology*. These students may then, on their own, decide that if "technology giveth, technology can taketh away".