I completely agree with charging for bandwidth usage. I'd probably download less if I had to pay for every MB or if a cap was a concern.
However, to be so naive as to believe that either businesses or Congress with reel in spam once this happens? Hell no! If spam makes money, as that recent/. article illustrated, no one in positions of power is going to be making changes against it.
What should be demanded, however, are some concessions about static IPs and other useful aspects of net connections in exchange for a new pricing policy. Otherwise, IPs will just milk it for profit.
Re:Per Transaction Fees Suck...
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 1
You might want to think about WHY a certain establishment asks for a minimum purchase. For example, a Mom and Pop grocer near my apartment asks for a $5 minimum purchase, which is key, because VISA takes something like $1.50 out of every purchase that is charged. So help out the little guy and use cash, so they don't have to send all their retirement money to a big corporate bank.
...playing games, having LAN parties, reading e-mail, surfing the web, or being productive as opposed to configuring and installing my OS, troubleshooting for compatibility, reading techie websites for problem solving tips, rebooting after making changes, and being told "this software will not work with your OS."
Windows is secure enough for the basic user, stable enough for the basic user, and compatible with 100% of my friends' computers. Sure, LINUX would be fun, but I'd have to want to use it a priori to select it over Windows, which pretty much just works.
The supplier of this news to Reuters is the DisplaySearch firm, "The Worldwide Leader in FPD Market Research and Consulting." Hello, they make their money offering information and marketing data to help sell more flat panel displays. Not really surprising that they'd release this kind of economic news--free advertising anyone?
Consoles are sold at a loss because games are the money maker. So when people use their machine for something else, M$ loses money on the sale. I understand people who are obsessed and try to run Linux and Divx movies on their electronic bathroom scale, but if average people start using the XBox for non-gaming purposes, M$ will just raise the price on the next console to make sure that profitablility is ensured.
I support the idea of using a given product for more than it was intended, but if you don't really want to use it for the intended purpose, maybe you need to go out and invent a better item to do what you want.
For example, if I use duct tape to hold down a loose piece of paneling on my car, I've found an ingenious and cheap way to solve my problem. But, if I mod my XBox to do the same thing, I've really only managed to waste money.
Patents were originally devised to offer some reasonable legal protection for inventors to make a reasonable profit from their ideas. The overarching goal was to encourage people to invent and create things that contributed to the public good.
In many instances, this has gone completely overboard, with ridiculously long patents and an outrageous concept of "reasonable profit."
With online auctions, it's hard to say. If the guy with the patent arguably contributed to the public good (which I'd say eBay does, it's a great service), he deserves some reasonable recompense. But I hardly think that the millions he's asking for are necessarily his. After all, he did basically take the idea of an auction and say, "we can use a computer to do this."
That's a whole different point, of course. Does simply improving on an old practice with newer technology deserve a patent? Wouldn't people logically "upgrade" their products and processes to include the newest technology? I'm not sure that this kind of change is really patentable.
Normally, Slashdot abounds with the libertarian hardliners, spouting off "freedom" and "rights" like sprinklers. Why do y'all cave just because this has to do with the workplace?
We don't give up all our rights just to work for The Man. I get breaks at work, I use the bathroom, and I get some privacy. As long as I don't abuse the resources given me or take outrageously long breaks, I ought to be able to make a personal phone call, check my e-mail, or read part of the paper.
Having some personal time at work guarantees that I'll be sane enough to be productive the rest of the time. If I couldn't take a break and have a little privacy, I'd probably end up staring blankly at the screen drooling on my keyboard and I'm sure the IT folks would REALLY love that.
Planet Earth has simply slimmed down from 18 down to 17 trillion tons, all by using the Ab Roller...and it can work for YOU! Call now, operators are standing by...
Nuclear waste is nasty stuff, and it'll be around for thousands of years.
I think that's the most important point. We decided to go ahead with nuclear energy without any consideration for what we were going to do with the waste. It's not just a matter of "throwing it away." This shit is going to be radioactive and destructive for 4-40 TIMES longer than this country has even been in existence.
Sure we should store the stuff we already have, but I would advocate a gradual phaseout of all nuclear energy to a more responsible and renewable energy policy. Go wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass...!
Better than a few hundred or even thousand people die in a terrorist act than an entire government and nation become less free and democratic. Freedom from persecution and privacy are shields of law that are ESSENTIAL to democratic and free nations, because otherwise the government is free to squelch the necessary diversity and dissent that makes a democratic nation strong.
...are doomed to repeat it...to repeat it....to re
on
Surveillance Update
·
· Score: 1
Ashcroft and this administration's moves on civil liberties are just plain scary. Not only do we knee-jerk after Sept. 11 by doing things like trying to interview every Middle-Eastern man in the Detroit metropolitan area, but now we start rolling back laws that were passed to prevent erosion of civil liberties by an FBI and CIA that had already gone too far.
Look, as US citizen, I understand the fear that people have of new terrorist attacks, but it's a lot easier to clean up after one terrorist attack than it will be to recover power from overzealous security agencies. I would even go so far as to say that it might be impossible for a truly democratic and free society to prevent all terrorist attacks, because that would suggest that it wasn't truly open and free.
First of all, there are some people who have some serious issues with the author of this story. I find it highly amusing that so many comments immediately dismiss Katz's comments just because they are from here. After reading 10-20 such comments as I scroll down, it strikes me that the comment posters are pretty hypocritical: posting the same old anti-Katz rant complaing that Katz writes the same old BS. Just read the damn comment and post something about the content. Go chew on your grudge in some dark corner of your room.
To the topic:
I think Katz has a good point. As someone who watched Star Wars a lot as a kid, I grew up loving the movies. There IS something missing in the new ones, even if they are movies very similar to Spiderman. I've seen EP I and II as well as Spiderman, and Spiderman beats them, partly because there aren't such grandiose expectations.
However, I'd still argue that the original Star Wars movies, (yes, all 3) are better than Spiderman. Katz is right about that irreverance and sense of humor that Han Solo brought to 4-6. That kind of wry and sarcastic humor made sure no one took it too seriously, whereas the new movies lack that kind of feeling.
I think that the fact that there is so much discussion about Star Wars points to the simple fact that it has a history in many of the readers here and that many people feel disappointed in some way by how the new movies failed to fit with their memory or expectation. Good, bad? I don't know, but it's still worth the cost of a ticket to see each one once.
The game is unfortunately wedged in a very twentieth-century-american mode. You cannot build a city without building roads everywhere
There are more cars than people in America. If Americans build a city simulation game, you better have to deal with roads. After all, in my home state of Minnesota, we have no good mass transit because the rural legislators don't want to pay for it and the suburban legislators are convinced their voters won't use it.
"So the combination is 1,2,3,4,5... That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! That's the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage."
"... 1,2,3,4,5. That's amazing, I've got the same combination on my luggage."
Every broadcaster and content creator ought to be goddamn thankful that the American people have forgotten (and that Congress, thanks to $$$ contributions, ignores) that we gave them the airwaves for FREE. If we or any company wants to develop different ways to enjoy the content moving across public airwaves, that's our prerogative. If broadcasters and content providers don't like it, perhaps they'd enjoy paying to broadcast on the public's space instead.
It's our airwaves, we should be free to tune selectively on them.
Color blindness doesn't mean colors are "translated," it means that certain sets of colors look exactly the same. My friend is red/green colorblind which means that light green and light red look the same to him. Neither are "translated" into anything else and when either the red or green color he views are very bright or deep, he knows the difference.
Re:They made a mistake on their website ..
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 1
I agree 100%. The internet makes it so easy to take advantage of a misprint. Obviously, if the price looks too good to be true, it probably is.
I had an issue like this once on a website for a CPU/mobo combo. I selected the mobo and then added the cpu, but it didn't add any more price! Rather than be a dick about it and demand my ultra cheap combo, I called the customer service and asked them if the price was accurate. Obviously, it wasn't.
We all make mistakes, even corporations. Just because Best Buy makes umpteen million dollars a year doesn't mean we all have the right to rip them off when they make a mistake. They're even being generous enough to give away gift certificates to people who tried to take advantage of them. Sounds like Best Buy is pretty reasonable.
I'm an idiot and I formatted this wrong. Here's a re-posted version.
At the heart of it, people are stealing music. Most of the mp3s I have that are commercial music, I do not own the actual copy. Often I will buy a CD after downloading one or two of its songs online, but not always.
Personally, free music on P2P networks has meant:
1) I actually listen to commercial music and I am exposed to a lot more than I normally would be
2) I actually buy some music (which I never did before)
3) I also have illegally downloaded and saved music I don't own
Obviously, security measures are going to fail, because every hacker sees them as a challenge and they are a violation of fair use laws. However, there should be some sort of compensation for recording companies and artists who have legitimately released good music for profit. They're like any other business or service, you can shop around, but ultimately, to play it fair, you have to pay.
I think there should be some sort of small tax on every blank CDR sold (maybe on burners, too). Maybe a $1 on a pack of 50 or something. Call it the Commercial Privilege Tax or something and use it to help compensate the artists, software companies and others who have legitimate losses from piracy and "sharing among friends."
How to distribute it? Do what we always do. Pick random proportions, give deep and meaningful rationalizations for every tenth-percent, and then let people sue each other over the pickings. At least it will stop the RIAA and artists from alienating and attacking their fans and allow people to share cool music and software without having to pony up $20 or $50 for a CD with one good song or a video game of poor quality.
At the heart of it, people are stealing music. Most of the mp3s I have that are commercial music, I do not own the actual copy. Often I will buy a CD after downloading one or two of its songs online, but not always.
Personally, free music on P2P networks has meant:
1) I actually listen to commercial music and I am exposed to a lot more than I normally would be
2) I actually buy some music (which I never did before)
3) I also have illegally downloaded and saved music I don't own
Obviously, security measures are going to fail, because every hacker sees them as a challenge and they are a violation of fair use laws. However, there should be some sort of compensation for recording companies and artists who have legitimately released good music for profit. They're like any other business or service, you can shop around, but ultimately, to play it fair, you have to pay.
I think there should be some sort of small tax on every blank CDR sold (maybe on burners, too). Maybe a $1 on a pack of 50 or something. Call it the Commercial Privilege Tax or something and use it to help compensate the artists, software companies and others who have legitimate losses from piracy and "sharing among friends."
How to distribute it? Do what we always do. Pick random proportions, give deep and meaningful rationalizations for every tenth-percent, and then let people sue each other over the pickings. At least it will stop the RIAA and artists from alienating and attacking their fans and allow people to share cool music and software without having to pony up $20 or $50 for a CD with one good song or a video game of poor quality.
You know, it may seem like Windows gets bashed a lot, but on the other hand, was anyone listening to National Public Radio today? Apparently, Windows XP has what even Microsoft is admitting to be one of the "most serious" security holes ever. Apparently, the OS can be hacked just by having the computer be connected to the internet.
Perhaps Slashdot is right in offering a little criticism. Is anyone else tired of finding out how many ways hackers can get into their computer?
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree with charging for bandwidth usage. I'd probably download less if I had to pay for every MB or if a cap was a concern.
/. article illustrated, no one in positions of power is going to be making changes against it.
However, to be so naive as to believe that either businesses or Congress with reel in spam once this happens? Hell no! If spam makes money, as that recent
What should be demanded, however, are some concessions about static IPs and other useful aspects of net connections in exchange for a new pricing policy. Otherwise, IPs will just milk it for profit.
You might want to think about WHY a certain establishment asks for a minimum purchase. For example, a Mom and Pop grocer near my apartment asks for a $5 minimum purchase, which is key, because VISA takes something like $1.50 out of every purchase that is charged. So help out the little guy and use cash, so they don't have to send all their retirement money to a big corporate bank.
...playing games, having LAN parties, reading e-mail, surfing the web, or being productive as opposed to configuring and installing my OS, troubleshooting for compatibility, reading techie websites for problem solving tips, rebooting after making changes, and being told "this software will not work with your OS."
Windows is secure enough for the basic user, stable enough for the basic user, and compatible with 100% of my friends' computers. Sure, LINUX would be fun, but I'd have to want to use it a priori to select it over Windows, which pretty much just works.
The supplier of this news to Reuters is the DisplaySearch firm, "The Worldwide Leader in FPD Market Research and Consulting." Hello, they make their money offering information and marketing data to help sell more flat panel displays. Not really surprising that they'd release this kind of economic news--free advertising anyone?
Consoles are sold at a loss because games are the money maker. So when people use their machine for something else, M$ loses money on the sale. I understand people who are obsessed and try to run Linux and Divx movies on their electronic bathroom scale, but if average people start using the XBox for non-gaming purposes, M$ will just raise the price on the next console to make sure that profitablility is ensured.
I support the idea of using a given product for more than it was intended, but if you don't really want to use it for the intended purpose, maybe you need to go out and invent a better item to do what you want.
For example, if I use duct tape to hold down a loose piece of paneling on my car, I've found an ingenious and cheap way to solve my problem. But, if I mod my XBox to do the same thing, I've really only managed to waste money.
Patents were originally devised to offer some reasonable legal protection for inventors to make a reasonable profit from their ideas. The overarching goal was to encourage people to invent and create things that contributed to the public good.
In many instances, this has gone completely overboard, with ridiculously long patents and an outrageous concept of "reasonable profit."
With online auctions, it's hard to say. If the guy with the patent arguably contributed to the public good (which I'd say eBay does, it's a great service), he deserves some reasonable recompense. But I hardly think that the millions he's asking for are necessarily his. After all, he did basically take the idea of an auction and say, "we can use a computer to do this."
That's a whole different point, of course. Does simply improving on an old practice with newer technology deserve a patent? Wouldn't people logically "upgrade" their products and processes to include the newest technology? I'm not sure that this kind of change is really patentable.
We don't give up all our rights just to work for The Man. I get breaks at work, I use the bathroom, and I get some privacy. As long as I don't abuse the resources given me or take outrageously long breaks, I ought to be able to make a personal phone call, check my e-mail, or read part of the paper.
Having some personal time at work guarantees that I'll be sane enough to be productive the rest of the time. If I couldn't take a break and have a little privacy, I'd probably end up staring blankly at the screen drooling on my keyboard and I'm sure the IT folks would REALLY love that.
-Me
I think that's the most important point. We decided to go ahead with nuclear energy without any consideration for what we were going to do with the waste. It's not just a matter of "throwing it away." This shit is going to be radioactive and destructive for 4-40 TIMES longer than this country has even been in existence.
Sure we should store the stuff we already have, but I would advocate a gradual phaseout of all nuclear energy to a more responsible and renewable energy policy. Go wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass...!
Better than a few hundred or even thousand people die in a terrorist act than an entire government and nation become less free and democratic. Freedom from persecution and privacy are shields of law that are ESSENTIAL to democratic and free nations, because otherwise the government is free to squelch the necessary diversity and dissent that makes a democratic nation strong.
Look, as US citizen, I understand the fear that people have of new terrorist attacks, but it's a lot easier to clean up after one terrorist attack than it will be to recover power from overzealous security agencies. I would even go so far as to say that it might be impossible for a truly democratic and free society to prevent all terrorist attacks, because that would suggest that it wasn't truly open and free.
To the topic:
I think Katz has a good point. As someone who watched Star Wars a lot as a kid, I grew up loving the movies. There IS something missing in the new ones, even if they are movies very similar to Spiderman. I've seen EP I and II as well as Spiderman, and Spiderman beats them, partly because there aren't such grandiose expectations.
However, I'd still argue that the original Star Wars movies, (yes, all 3) are better than Spiderman. Katz is right about that irreverance and sense of humor that Han Solo brought to 4-6. That kind of wry and sarcastic humor made sure no one took it too seriously, whereas the new movies lack that kind of feeling.
I think that the fact that there is so much discussion about Star Wars points to the simple fact that it has a history in many of the readers here and that many people feel disappointed in some way by how the new movies failed to fit with their memory or expectation. Good, bad? I don't know, but it's still worth the cost of a ticket to see each one once.
There are more cars than people in America. If Americans build a city simulation game, you better have to deal with roads. After all, in my home state of Minnesota, we have no good mass transit because the rural legislators don't want to pay for it and the suburban legislators are convinced their voters won't use it.
Deal with it
"... 1,2,3,4,5. That's amazing, I've got the same combination on my luggage."
It's our airwaves, we should be free to tune selectively on them.
Listen to the full report at (Real Audio): http://news.mpr.org/programs/futuretense/daily_raf iles/20020506.ram
Except that having overweight Americans lose 3 billion pounds would be far preferable to losing 300 million dollars...
Color blindness doesn't mean colors are "translated," it means that certain sets of colors look exactly the same. My friend is red/green colorblind which means that light green and light red look the same to him. Neither are "translated" into anything else and when either the red or green color he views are very bright or deep, he knows the difference.
I had an issue like this once on a website for a CPU/mobo combo. I selected the mobo and then added the cpu, but it didn't add any more price! Rather than be a dick about it and demand my ultra cheap combo, I called the customer service and asked them if the price was accurate. Obviously, it wasn't.
We all make mistakes, even corporations. Just because Best Buy makes umpteen million dollars a year doesn't mean we all have the right to rip them off when they make a mistake. They're even being generous enough to give away gift certificates to people who tried to take advantage of them. Sounds like Best Buy is pretty reasonable.
I'm an idiot and I formatted this wrong. Here's a re-posted version.
At the heart of it, people are stealing music. Most of the mp3s I have that are commercial music, I do not own the actual copy. Often I will buy a CD after downloading one or two of its songs online, but not always.
Personally, free music on P2P networks has meant:
1) I actually listen to commercial music and I am exposed to a lot more than I normally would be
2) I actually buy some music (which I never did before)
3) I also have illegally downloaded and saved music I don't own
Obviously, security measures are going to fail, because every hacker sees them as a challenge and they are a violation of fair use laws. However, there should be some sort of compensation for recording companies and artists who have legitimately released good music for profit. They're like any other business or service, you can shop around, but ultimately, to play it fair, you have to pay.
I think there should be some sort of small tax on every blank CDR sold (maybe on burners, too). Maybe a $1 on a pack of 50 or something. Call it the Commercial Privilege Tax or something and use it to help compensate the artists, software companies and others who have legitimate losses from piracy and "sharing among friends."
How to distribute it? Do what we always do. Pick random proportions, give deep and meaningful rationalizations for every tenth-percent, and then let people sue each other over the pickings. At least it will stop the RIAA and artists from alienating and attacking their fans and allow people to share cool music and software without having to pony up $20 or $50 for a CD with one good song or a video game of poor quality.
At the heart of it, people are stealing music. Most of the mp3s I have that are commercial music, I do not own the actual copy. Often I will buy a CD after downloading one or two of its songs online, but not always. Personally, free music on P2P networks has meant: 1) I actually listen to commercial music and I am exposed to a lot more than I normally would be 2) I actually buy some music (which I never did before) 3) I also have illegally downloaded and saved music I don't own Obviously, security measures are going to fail, because every hacker sees them as a challenge and they are a violation of fair use laws. However, there should be some sort of compensation for recording companies and artists who have legitimately released good music for profit. They're like any other business or service, you can shop around, but ultimately, to play it fair, you have to pay. I think there should be some sort of small tax on every blank CDR sold (maybe on burners, too). Maybe a $1 on a pack of 50 or something. Call it the Commercial Privilege Tax or something and use it to help compensate the artists, software companies and others who have legitimate losses from piracy and "sharing among friends." How to distribute it? Do what we always do. Pick random proportions, give deep and meaningful rationalizations for every tenth-percent, and then let people sue each other over the pickings. At least it will stop the RIAA and artists from alienating and attacking their fans and allow people to share cool music and software without having to pony up $20 or $50 for a CD with one good song or a video game of poor quality.
Perhaps Slashdot is right in offering a little criticism. Is anyone else tired of finding out how many ways hackers can get into their computer?