When I was a kid, I thought that this was so wonderful. I can remember hearing NORAD's reports on the radio while driving home from Christmas Eve dinner at our grandparents. It was an integral part of christmas for me, and it was quite magical too.
I hadn't thought about it in a long time until I heard this story, and I'm glad I did. It warms my heart to think that a new generation of children is enjoying this, and in new ways thanks to the digital age.
Anyone else have childhood memories of NORAD tracking santa?
I'm fairly certain that it works exactly like that, for lack of a more technical explanation, which I'm sure someone else will take the time to provide.
The proposed bill doesn't real help anyone, and it's not changing the way the fees are done, but the RIAA and DiMA still have a problem with it. The reason why is fairly simple - Cannon's proposal is more limited than than the current language. It signifgently changes what they are going to be able to claim as a "vending establishment."
Ten or twenty years from now, when some new method of music transfer becomes popular, the RIAA is going to have to get new legislation passed before they can get thier claws on it. Their opposition to this bill is effectively saying "Come on, just give us the control NOW, ok?"
Cable service is sold as always-on service, at a specific bandwidth. Since a major company probably knows what it's doing well enough to keep me from grabbing extra bandwidth, it has to be assumed that I am being made to pay more to use it
I was sold a certain amount of bandwidth per second, and the right to use that bandwidth whenever I want - what's the diffrence if I am downloading a game demo, surfing for myself, VPN'ing into work or letting a few people connect to my FTP server? The only possible rationale for this is that I don't actually have the bandwidth I paid for, or the unlimited usage rights they said I had to it.
When you also look at the fact that the residential and bussiness services are technically identical; it's almost as if they have said "Well, we know you paid for it, but to use it you have to pay extra." That is a grossly abusive business practice.
This, unfortuneately, has everything to do with Rights. Yes, Microsoft can do whatever it pleases with it's properties but the issue is what happens when everyone is using Passport.
What happens when every internet-based company and thier brother starts requiring passport, because they need to integrate with Microsoft or someone else? What's going to happen when it get's to the point that to get anything done on the net, you are fairly well required to be subscribed to Passport? That's a corporation - an artificial entity with no greater motive than profit - taking away my right to choose and remain anonymous. That will never sit well with me, and I am certainly not ashamed of my indignation.
Slashdot Mirror
A number? Hah! Well? Hah! Have you tried using it for anything but Half-Life or The Sims? Five titles, maybe, will actually work "well."
Yep, I'm sure that games for 0.24% of the market have an ABSOLUTELY huge standing in the warez scene.
When I was a kid, I thought that this was so wonderful. I can remember hearing NORAD's reports on the radio while driving home from Christmas Eve dinner at our grandparents. It was an integral part of christmas for me, and it was quite magical too.
I hadn't thought about it in a long time until I heard this story, and I'm glad I did. It warms my heart to think that a new generation of children is enjoying this, and in new ways thanks to the digital age.
Anyone else have childhood memories of NORAD tracking santa?
I'm fairly certain that it works exactly like that, for lack of a more technical explanation, which I'm sure someone else will take the time to provide.
The proposed bill doesn't real help anyone, and it's not changing the way the fees are done, but the RIAA and DiMA still have a problem with it. The reason why is fairly simple - Cannon's proposal is more limited than than the current language. It signifgently changes what they are going to be able to claim as a "vending establishment."
Ten or twenty years from now, when some new method of music transfer becomes popular, the RIAA is going to have to get new legislation passed before they can get thier claws on it. Their opposition to this bill is effectively saying "Come on, just give us the control NOW, ok?"
Cable service is sold as always-on service, at a specific bandwidth. Since a major company probably knows what it's doing well enough to keep me from grabbing extra bandwidth, it has to be assumed that I am being made to pay more to use it
I was sold a certain amount of bandwidth per second, and the right to use that bandwidth whenever I want - what's the diffrence if I am downloading a game demo, surfing for myself, VPN'ing into work or letting a few people connect to my FTP server? The only possible rationale for this is that I don't actually have the bandwidth I paid for, or the unlimited usage rights they said I had to it.
When you also look at the fact that the residential and bussiness services are technically identical; it's almost as if they have said "Well, we know you paid for it, but to use it you have to pay extra." That is a grossly abusive business practice.
This, unfortuneately, has everything to do with Rights. Yes, Microsoft can do whatever it pleases with it's properties but the issue is what happens when everyone is using Passport.
What happens when every internet-based company and thier brother starts requiring passport, because they need to integrate with Microsoft or someone else? What's going to happen when it get's to the point that to get anything done on the net, you are fairly well required to be subscribed to Passport? That's a corporation - an artificial entity with no greater motive than profit - taking away my right to choose and remain anonymous. That will never sit well with me, and I am certainly not ashamed of my indignation.