Its so strange to me that everytime I hear Bush say "the terrorists hate our freedom", I think of the 3 items you just laid out.
Bin Laden's complaint was never with our freedom, rather it was for the exact 3 things you lay out above. You know why I think that? Because that's what he said
If you ever read an article on/. , this is the one to read.
I knew lobbies and industry groups were powerful but this is a concrete example of just how bad it really is. There are so many obvious problems with this letter that it becomes clear that these AG's had nothing to do with the actual creation of the letter and only signed their names because "it was a good thing". I guess I am just stunned at how blatant it is....
...and it starts with the first paragraph where your locally elected attorney general of your state refers to you as a "consumer" instead of a citizen.
I could type all day about this, but please -- go read the article and form your own opinion as I am completely confident that, after
I have a simple answer to those who want to filter for their kids:
Have at it.
For those who want to filter MY material, well, that's a different story.
Sidenote: All throughout this argument about "kids and porn on the net", I can't help but wonder why the parents don't just unplug the machine from the net. If it really is as bad as you say it is, then just unplug and the problem goes away. Nobody is forced to use the internet. If you see things that offend you to the point of madness, well, then just unplug the machine. No filtering needed. No new laws needed. Little Johnny stays safe. And most importantly, you have absolutely no impact on MY usage of net.
To me, that seems reasonable. So why hasn't that ever been brought up to these over-ambitious parents who want to pass law after law telling us what we can't do on the net? To date, I've never heard anyone ask that so I ask it in all seriousness. Internet usage is not a right nor is it forced upon anyone. So what makes someone think they can "regulate" it according to what THEY deem acceptable?
The reasoning behind it was simple:
while YOU (the gmail acct owner) may not have a problem with Gmail scanning your e-mails, *I* (the sender of e-mails to you) might.
I'm not saying I agree with it, rather, I am just pointing out why they did it.
Aside from your Sony/Europe comments....I've been reading this thread for a while and you are the first one who noticed that MANY OF US LISTEN TO MUSIC IN OUR CARS. While I appreciate a good hour's worth of "new" music research every now and again, I just don't have the time to sit and "surf" for new music, much less to do it in my car. Also, if I did have that kind of time, something tells me that I'd spend more time FINDING the music than actually LISTENING to the music. Sorry, not my cup of tea. Before you go off on my lack of effort, let me also say that I *would* find the time if the "payoff" (ie: success ratio) were better. Unfortunately, we aren't at that point quite yet...
Almost every other post on this thread seems to assume a few things:
a) if I don't listen to (insert obscure band or indy label here), then I don't know anything about music.
b) that I have all day to sit around and "sample" new music, which obviously will lead me to the promised land of great music
c) that I actually enjoy a "success" ratio of around 10%. Yep - I go to the same websites everyone else does and yes, there is an occasional good artist that I find. However, that's usually AFTER I've spend a good 55 minutes listening to shit band record/song after shit band record/song.
So there you have it. That pretty much sums up why I'm jaded. How about you?:-)
Yes, except that you have left out the "other" side of the story.
It goes something like this: store also use the cards - not to track what you have bought - rather, what has to be replenished on their shelves and what is and isn't selling. They do this to make the supermarket better for their customers (ie: having items in stock when you need them, removing unpopular non-selling items and replacing them with items customers want, etc)
I can definitely see both sides of the equation here. I mean, on one hand - no, I don't want someone "watching" me to figure out what I like and don't like. However, that is a company's primary responsibility - providing customers with what they want. Sure seems to me that "data" would be a good way to determine what customer's want.
Sooooo, long story short...this is going to be a long battle until everyone reaches a compromise between privacy and obvious benefits to society through better efficiency. Make no mistake about it - there is a tradeoff.
Of course, I also think you might be suffering from delusion of gradieur if you really think someone is out there looking at YOUR individual purchases at the grocery store. Trust me....you aren't that interesting. Neither am I, for that matter.
You're right on except for the part about the high margins for retail CD's. 40% is not even close. In fact, many times, they are loss-leaders to draw in the younger crowd, hoping they'll go home with a new mp3 player to go with that new CD.
Margins are hard to predict and quantify but I'd say it is safe to say that retail CD houses get nowhere near 40% margins. No way...
I like articles like this because it scares the average Joe into NOT using whatever technology the article is about.
The surest way to kill the "elite" scene is to start adding average Joes. All of a sudden, those idiots are telling their bosses, neighbors, and whoever else will listen all about the free stuff they are getting on this "new" medium.
Except for the fact that there is nothing "dirty" about stock gains. Your analogy is seriously flawed.
Capital appreciation (stock gains) is, in the short term, tied directly to perception but over the long term, it more accurately reflects the real underlying value of the company. Nowhere in any of the many many finance classes I took for my MBA, can I find any reference to dirty money laundering being compared to stocks. Yes, fraud exists for sure, but I don't think you are suggesting that. You have implied that the sole fact of AOL having a high stock price means there is something "dirty" going on. And that, my friend, is just simply not the case.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with stock gains and capital appreciation. After all, Case and Levin didn't "vote" the price of AOL stock -- the market did. And the market, which is made up of individuals, decided the price of AOL/TW should be sky high. It's only natural (and expected) that Case would maximize his opportunities when the market places such a high value on his underlying company.
To do otherwise would be crazy (and he would be fired).
The only reason a reputable company would use OpenIPO is because their business model is not compelling enough for the big boys of finance to take an interest in.
The capital markets are open for everyone to use, given you have a solid business model. If don't, then you go to "alternative" capital markets, like OpenIPO or junk bonds.
Yea, there are success stories that arise from these alternative financings, but they are rare.
"Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1. Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above, and..."
Here is my question: What if there was a mistake? Isn't there some kind of recourse for the accused? I certainly don't condone sharing music/movies but what if a mistake is made and the person ISN'T really sharing what the MPAA/RIAA thought they were. According to this "request", that person will have already lost their internet connection. That's like turning off the electricity to someone ACCUSED of growing pot in their basement.
Isn't there somekind of due process here? Yea, I know it's civil and not criminal but still...
I've used Yahoo Mail forever and I must second this person's comment. Yahoo has done a VERY effective job of filtering spam. It's certainly not 100% but it's pretty darn close.
Like him, I have pretty much stopped checking my bulk mail folder because it is VERY rare that I get a false-positive.
Hotmail, by contrast, still sucks. I use it for my "commerce" account and even though I have the spam filter enabled, I really do no notice a change at all. About every 5-10 days, I have go into the account and delete all.
"I never saw the images from 9/11 until weeks afterward...(snip)"
"I hate TV becuase I consider it to be a tool of government and corporate control and I dont want to be affected. So I dont have a TV in my house and I dont watch. I live a different life becuase of that and my choice I've made."
Exactly...and you have now relegated yourself to being an "uninformed" citizen, for the most part. I mean, I hate the corp/gov influence as much as you do but don't you see that TV does have SOME positive influences? It's not ALL negative. People went mental about 9/11 --- because it was and still is a big f*cking deal! Perhaps the biggest deal to happen to this country in the last 50 years. The fact that you didn't go mental was not because you were informed and decided that you wouldn't go mental, rather, it was because you didn't even know in the first place. Big difference, my friend.
Don't forget that, while sitting on the ground before takeoff, there is SUBSTANTIAL fuel leakage out of the plane. It consistently drips a significant amount of fuel while on the ground and not "heated". Once the plane is in the air and heated up, the expansion causes all of the joints and fittings to tighten up thus eliminating fuel leakage.
Kind of a weird "feature" but I thought I'd throw that in as well.
So if there are so many buyers out there who respond to spam, then why is there a problem with me opting out of ALL spam? Because of the many buyers, the businesses should not have a problem with me opting out.
"Software insurance doesn't fix any of the bugs that may be encountered, and shit^H^H^H^Hbugs happen"...
Man, I can't wait until Software Engineering actually becomes a more professional practice. Imagine what would happen if all engineering degreed people in the world said things like "shit happens" when something went wrong. While we all know shit really DOES happen, there is no place other than software design where that answer seems like a normal thing. Every other discipline does everything they can to make sure shit DOESN'T happen.
Not picking on the parent, it just reminded me of how young this industry is.
My guess is that 80% of the spam is generated by the top 20% of spammers. Knocking out 6 (whatever percentage that is of total spammers) is most likely not going to do anything.
I've always wondered....what types of people work at Pixar? I mean in "computer" terms like skillsets, knowledge, degrees, etc. I've never seen any discussions or articles that talk about this.
Who actually works with and on these machines? - and what do they do with them?
Not to be cynical but so what? Perhaps I am stupid (high probability), but I don't even use all of the TLD's we have now. In my little internet world, I am pretty much limited to.com,.edu,.gov, and.org. Not because I want to be, rather, I just haven't found a need to use/find the others.
In fact, I can't think of a single instance in the last 3 years where I have used a "new" TLD like.tv or.info, etc.
Is anyone really using these or am I just out of the loop?
The Windows logo is seen by hundreds of millions of people each and everyday they boot up.
Are you actually suggesting that the Linux Penguin is a better known mascot/logo? Get serious. 95% of the world doesn't even know Linux exists.
Remember, if you read slashdot, you are in that educated 1% of populace that knows a lot about computers (insert obligatory/. joke here) but the rest of 'everybody else' has no clue about computers, much less Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Its so strange to me that everytime I hear Bush say "the terrorists hate our freedom", I think of the 3 items you just laid out.
Bin Laden's complaint was never with our freedom, rather it was for the exact 3 things you lay out above. You know why I think that? Because that's what he said
If you ever read an article on /. , this is the one to read.
...and it starts with the first paragraph where your locally elected attorney general of your state refers to you as a "consumer" instead of a citizen.
I knew lobbies and industry groups were powerful but this is a concrete example of just how bad it really is. There are so many obvious problems with this letter that it becomes clear that these AG's had nothing to do with the actual creation of the letter and only signed their names because "it was a good thing". I guess I am just stunned at how blatant it is....
I could type all day about this, but please -- go read the article and form your own opinion as I am completely confident that, after
I have a simple answer to those who want to filter for their kids:
Have at it.
For those who want to filter MY material, well, that's a different story.
Sidenote: All throughout this argument about "kids and porn on the net", I can't help but wonder why the parents don't just unplug the machine from the net. If it really is as bad as you say it is, then just unplug and the problem goes away. Nobody is forced to use the internet. If you see things that offend you to the point of madness, well, then just unplug the machine. No filtering needed. No new laws needed. Little Johnny stays safe. And most importantly, you have absolutely no impact on MY usage of net.
To me, that seems reasonable. So why hasn't that ever been brought up to these over-ambitious parents who want to pass law after law telling us what we can't do on the net? To date, I've never heard anyone ask that so I ask it in all seriousness. Internet usage is not a right nor is it forced upon anyone. So what makes someone think they can "regulate" it according to what THEY deem acceptable?
The reasoning behind it was simple: while YOU (the gmail acct owner) may not have a problem with Gmail scanning your e-mails, *I* (the sender of e-mails to you) might.
I'm not saying I agree with it, rather, I am just pointing out why they did it.
You sir, are most enlightened indeed!
:-)
Aside from your Sony/Europe comments....I've been reading this thread for a while and you are the first one who noticed that MANY OF US LISTEN TO MUSIC IN OUR CARS. While I appreciate a good hour's worth of "new" music research every now and again, I just don't have the time to sit and "surf" for new music, much less to do it in my car. Also, if I did have that kind of time, something tells me that I'd spend more time FINDING the music than actually LISTENING to the music. Sorry, not my cup of tea. Before you go off on my lack of effort, let me also say that I *would* find the time if the "payoff" (ie: success ratio) were better. Unfortunately, we aren't at that point quite yet...
Almost every other post on this thread seems to assume a few things:
a) if I don't listen to (insert obscure band or indy label here), then I don't know anything about music.
b) that I have all day to sit around and "sample" new music, which obviously will lead me to the promised land of great music
c) that I actually enjoy a "success" ratio of around 10%. Yep - I go to the same websites everyone else does and yes, there is an occasional good artist that I find. However, that's usually AFTER I've spend a good 55 minutes listening to shit band record/song after shit band record/song.
So there you have it. That pretty much sums up why I'm jaded. How about you?
Easy answer: they don't.
I *hope* my data is useless and cluttered. Although security through obscurity doesn't work well, obscurity itself if better than nothing.
The more chaff in the air, the harder it is to see.
Yes, except that you have left out the "other" side of the story.
It goes something like this: store also use the cards - not to track what you have bought - rather, what has to be replenished on their shelves and what is and isn't selling. They do this to make the supermarket better for their customers (ie: having items in stock when you need them, removing unpopular non-selling items and replacing them with items customers want, etc)
I can definitely see both sides of the equation here. I mean, on one hand - no, I don't want someone "watching" me to figure out what I like and don't like. However, that is a company's primary responsibility - providing customers with what they want. Sure seems to me that "data" would be a good way to determine what customer's want.
Sooooo, long story short...this is going to be a long battle until everyone reaches a compromise between privacy and obvious benefits to society through better efficiency. Make no mistake about it - there is a tradeoff.
Of course, I also think you might be suffering from delusion of gradieur if you really think someone is out there looking at YOUR individual purchases at the grocery store. Trust me....you aren't that interesting. Neither am I, for that matter.
You're right on except for the part about the high margins for retail CD's. 40% is not even close. In fact, many times, they are loss-leaders to draw in the younger crowd, hoping they'll go home with a new mp3 player to go with that new CD.
Margins are hard to predict and quantify but I'd say it is safe to say that retail CD houses get nowhere near 40% margins. No way...
I like articles like this because it scares the average Joe into NOT using whatever technology the article is about.
The surest way to kill the "elite" scene is to start adding average Joes. All of a sudden, those idiots are telling their bosses, neighbors, and whoever else will listen all about the free stuff they are getting on this "new" medium.
Except for the fact that there is nothing "dirty" about stock gains. Your analogy is seriously flawed.
Capital appreciation (stock gains) is, in the short term, tied directly to perception but over the long term, it more accurately reflects the real underlying value of the company. Nowhere in any of the many many finance classes I took for my MBA, can I find any reference to dirty money laundering being compared to stocks. Yes, fraud exists for sure, but I don't think you are suggesting that. You have implied that the sole fact of AOL having a high stock price means there is something "dirty" going on. And that, my friend, is just simply not the case.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with stock gains and capital appreciation. After all, Case and Levin didn't "vote" the price of AOL stock -- the market did. And the market, which is made up of individuals, decided the price of AOL/TW should be sky high. It's only natural (and expected) that Case would maximize his opportunities when the market places such a high value on his underlying company.
To do otherwise would be crazy (and he would be fired).
Do you work for Enron? If not, want a job?
We have an excellent "culture" for a person possessing your skillsets.
The only reason a reputable company would use OpenIPO is because their business model is not compelling enough for the big boys of finance to take an interest in.
The capital markets are open for everyone to use, given you have a solid business model. If don't, then you go to "alternative" capital markets, like OpenIPO or junk bonds.
Yea, there are success stories that arise from these alternative financings, but they are rare.
Ok, so I read this line:
"Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1. Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above, and..."
Here is my question: What if there was a mistake? Isn't there some kind of recourse for the accused? I certainly don't condone sharing music/movies but what if a mistake is made and the person ISN'T really sharing what the MPAA/RIAA thought they were. According to this "request", that person will have already lost their internet connection. That's like turning off the electricity to someone ACCUSED of growing pot in their basement.
Isn't there somekind of due process here? Yea, I know it's civil and not criminal but still...
WTF?
I've used Yahoo Mail forever and I must second this person's comment. Yahoo has done a VERY effective job of filtering spam. It's certainly not 100% but it's pretty darn close.
Like him, I have pretty much stopped checking my bulk mail folder because it is VERY rare that I get a false-positive.
Hotmail, by contrast, still sucks. I use it for my "commerce" account and even though I have the spam filter enabled, I really do no notice a change at all. About every 5-10 days, I have go into the account and delete all.
"I never saw the images from 9/11 until weeks afterward ...(snip)"
"I hate TV becuase I consider it to be a tool of government and corporate control and I dont want to be affected. So I dont have a TV in my house and I dont watch. I live a different life becuase of that and my choice I've made."
Exactly...and you have now relegated yourself to being an "uninformed" citizen, for the most part. I mean, I hate the corp/gov influence as much as you do but don't you see that TV does have SOME positive influences? It's not ALL negative. People went mental about 9/11 --- because it was and still is a big f*cking deal! Perhaps the biggest deal to happen to this country in the last 50 years. The fact that you didn't go mental was not because you were informed and decided that you wouldn't go mental, rather, it was because you didn't even know in the first place. Big difference, my friend.
This is funny EVERY time I see it.
Don't forget that, while sitting on the ground before takeoff, there is SUBSTANTIAL fuel leakage out of the plane. It consistently drips a significant amount of fuel while on the ground and not "heated". Once the plane is in the air and heated up, the expansion causes all of the joints and fittings to tighten up thus eliminating fuel leakage.
Kind of a weird "feature" but I thought I'd throw that in as well.
Yea, I got it.
Proud member of the Cherokee Nation (no shit, I'm on the rolls).
That's cool. We'll just keep the casino money.
So if there are so many buyers out there who respond to spam, then why is there a problem with me opting out of ALL spam? Because of the many buyers, the businesses should not have a problem with me opting out.
So why do they?
"Software insurance doesn't fix any of the bugs that may be encountered, and shit^H^H^H^Hbugs happen"...
Man, I can't wait until Software Engineering actually becomes a more professional practice. Imagine what would happen if all engineering degreed people in the world said things like "shit happens" when something went wrong. While we all know shit really DOES happen, there is no place other than software design where that answer seems like a normal thing. Every other discipline does everything they can to make sure shit DOESN'T happen.
Not picking on the parent, it just reminded me of how young this industry is.
80/20 rule probably applies...
My guess is that 80% of the spam is generated by the top 20% of spammers. Knocking out 6 (whatever percentage that is of total spammers) is most likely not going to do anything.
I've always wondered....what types of people work at Pixar? I mean in "computer" terms like skillsets, knowledge, degrees, etc. I've never seen any discussions or articles that talk about this.
Who actually works with and on these machines? - and what do they do with them?
Not to be cynical but so what? Perhaps I am stupid (high probability), but I don't even use all of the TLD's we have now. In my little internet world, I am pretty much limited to .com, .edu, .gov, and .org. Not because I want to be, rather, I just haven't found a need to use/find the others.
.tv or .info, etc.
In fact, I can't think of a single instance in the last 3 years where I have used a "new" TLD like
Is anyone really using these or am I just out of the loop?
The Windows logo is seen by hundreds of millions of people each and everyday they boot up.
/. joke here) but the rest of 'everybody else' has no clue about computers, much less Linux.
Are you actually suggesting that the Linux Penguin is a better known mascot/logo? Get serious. 95% of the world doesn't even know Linux exists.
Remember, if you read slashdot, you are in that educated 1% of populace that knows a lot about computers (insert obligatory