1 - charge per use, people balk ' why do i need that internet thing' 2 - make it unlimited flat rate and people love it and flock to sign up 3 - let people get used to it for a decade or so 4 - start overselling to get the last few holdouts 5 - slowly add caps, incrementally so people to complain to much 6 - reinstate charges per use now that its an integral part of daily life.
We wont ever see unlimited bandwidth happen again since all the data providers are in bed with the media giants.
I have been predicting this for years, as the ONLY way to stop piracy. Make it more cost effective to buy then download and the piracy issue will go poof.
It will also neuter the entire internet as a whole and make it a waste.
I also agree with that, except that once a forum becomes public, it should fall under the jurisdiction of the 1st amendment. ( many will disagree with me, but thats ok )
I would argue that the forum in question is public.
I would also argue that regardless of public status if the forum hoster has accepted ANY public funds, they are also bound.
The last CFO i worked for did that. Was hired to 'rescue' the company but instead he ruined the company, fired most of us that stuck with the company even during the dark times. then he left, with a bonus. ( i hear he destroyed the next one too )
1 year later the company filed bankruptcy.
In reality it was the best thing for me personally, it got me out of the slowly dying industry i had been in for 20 years just before the collapse. But the way it went down was just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is the story isn't even 100% true.
In your analogy it's more like you get banned from the store so you cant buy their accessories.
The mower is still in your possession and still works with 3rd party accessories.
Your ability to buy their books does.
Not one book on my kindle came from amazon, but instead are converted PDF files. Amazon has zero control over my unit.
Great place to build a place to live too.
Because here they can charge people until they cry. The market currently supports it, so it will continue.
( excuse the vague "profit" comparison here )
1 - charge per use, people balk ' why do i need that internet thing'
2 - make it unlimited flat rate and people love it and flock to sign up
3 - let people get used to it for a decade or so
4 - start overselling to get the last few holdouts
5 - slowly add caps, incrementally so people to complain to much
6 - reinstate charges per use now that its an integral part of daily life.
Sounds like drug dealers to me.
suuuuure.
Doesn't anything that isn't a single cell/element qualify?
Very few things are not the sum of their parts.
How will it effect them?
Easy, either you register or they don't work, or they just ban them outright.
I expect this to be in the US within 5 years, 'for our protection'.
I know you meant it as a joke, but it may not be a joke for long.
Only 'evil hackers' don't use windows. ( or OSX i suppose.. )
How can evidence gained during/via the act of a crime be admissible?
It doesn't work for the cops, why should it for us citizens?
We wont ever see unlimited bandwidth happen again since all the data providers are in bed with the media giants.
I have been predicting this for years, as the ONLY way to stop piracy. Make it more cost effective to buy then download and the piracy issue will go poof.
It will also neuter the entire internet as a whole and make it a waste.
I also agree with that, except that once a forum becomes public, it should fall under the jurisdiction of the 1st amendment. ( many will disagree with me, but thats ok )
I would argue that the forum in question is public.
I would also argue that regardless of public status if the forum hoster has accepted ANY public funds, they are also bound.
Umm why should you have to defend what is a right guaranteed in the constitution?
No one says you have to make sense or add value when exercising your right.
It will obliterate your monthly use cap.
This mode of distribution only works in a perfect world, which few of us live in now.
I had wondered for a while why yum and apt did not do this by default. *snip*
Because it would be wrong to default to forcing a person to share their limited resources.
when will lawyer types understand the world is more complex than litigation. *snip*
Really, its not, once you include the money factor.
I hope he has a bottomless pit of money to fight this, if not he's already lost.
Today, you purchase your rights.
The last year or so i have seen a big rise in postal spam. For a long time it was almost nil.
That no one can use for 50 years due to the radiation.. ( or the country that it goes thru )
These people stoned or what?
The last CFO i worked for did that. Was hired to 'rescue' the company but instead he ruined the company, fired most of us that stuck with the company even during the dark times. then he left, with a bonus. ( i hear he destroyed the next one too )
1 year later the company filed bankruptcy.
In reality it was the best thing for me personally, it got me out of the slowly dying industry i had been in for 20 years just before the collapse. But the way it went down was just wrong.
They will just change the rules again to prevent it.
Actually, that idea of hiding behind a fake name needing to be prevented has already been floated.
Please come with us, we need to talk.
( joking aside, i agree and its damned scary )
Or they are stupid and cant set up their own freenet.