I don't understand why they are complaining about the costs of this--they are just passing it on to their customers anyway.
Because the more they charge, the fewer people buy cell phones, and the less money they make. It's not like cell phones are a necessity. If the price is raised too high, people won't buy them.
It doesn't appear to be tecnically challenging to allow numbers to remain the same. Change an entry in a database and there you go.
Yeah, and we should require that ISPs allow you to keep the same email address when you switch providers. 'Cause that would just be a changed entry in a database, right?
FRS is the wrong frequency range for the Board of Ed. FRS isn't supposed to be used for business purposes. Sure, the Board of Ed is non-profit, but they're still doing business.
Though this may appear to be a squeeze on big business it really would not be. They pass along any rate increases directly to us, at some multiple of their increase in costs.
Who is us? They will pass along the rate increases to the people who use the spectrum. Cell phone bills go up. Taxes go down. This is a good thing.
Sure, we can, it's just expensive. Right now the cost is too high to be practical. Otherwise the cell phone companies would be doing exactly that. After all, near-infinite total bandwidth would be a damn good selling point.
That doesn't mean you couldn't still buy a crippled product, it just means that you can't buy a product that prevents you from turning around and selling that same crippled product to someone else.
That's what I'm saying. I can't buy a product which is crippled such that it prevents resale.
So, while you could buy a product that requires you to use a special player while standing on your head in your backyard, you couldn't buy one that self-destructs if it senses that you are thinking of letting it go.
What aspect of this article makes you think you wouldn't [be allowed to buy a crippled product]?
If the Brownback proposal were enacted, the Federal Trade Commission would have the power to ban DRM systems that limit a consumer's right to resell any "digital media product," a category that includes everything from computer software to e-books to copy-protected CDs and movies.
I pay less than $100 to the local courthouse to file a small-claims suit for whatever my imagnination decides you've done against me and suddenly I have the power of discovery.
Are you sure it's possible to file a John Doe lawsuit in small claims court? I'm pretty sure it isn't possible where I live, or I would have sued a bunch of spammers by now.
Umm, in case you haven't noticed, this case has been in the court system for a long time now. It's not "so easy to get the ISP to reveal the identity of a P2P user." It's very hard. It's just that the RIAA has lots and lots of money.
Copyright law is a strict liability law. That means it doesn't matter if you know what you're sharing or not, you're still guilty. Besides, if freenet ever becomes popular, you can rest assured congress will declare it illegal.
Seems to me like it wouldn't be hard to make money off a broadband company. If the business was losing money they were doing something wrong.
Of course this "price" would have to factor in all the debt, including any mandatory payments to all the employees I would immediately fire. But even if all I could salvage past that was the customer list, that alone would be worth something.
Doesn't seem to me that redundancy would work, since there are a limited number of satellites and all readings would be subject to similar atmospheric delays.
Re:right off the top of my list...
on
C&W Bails Out
·
· Score: 1
Guess it's time to make a P2P google.
Re:Infrastructure
on
C&W Bails Out
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Someone would have bought it. You just weren't offering a low enough price. If you were, I would have bought it:).
Your's is an extreme view with almost no chance of getting support among voters or in Congress. I'm not saying your view is wrong, but you have to recognize that it's extreme.
Well, my own particular view is extreme, but I think there would be quite a lot of support among voters to lower copyright to 5 years. I don't know though, maybe I'm wrong.
Think of this proposal as a compromise.
It is a compromise, but it accomplishes very little. It only frees up published works which have been abandoned and can be shown to have been published over 50 years ago. Besides the fact that there are not all that many of these works, in most cases the rights to these works can already be obtained for a very low fee. Plus the likelihood that someone is going to be sued for using these works is low. It's just not a very useful law.
It will be attractive to some legislators because it generates revenue.
I doubt it will generate more revenue than it costs to implement. Even if it does, it's not going to be significant.
They'll have to weigh the votes garnered from compaign contributions from the IP industry vs. losing votes because of raising taxes or cutting services in order to balance the budget (HA!).
We're talking about a trillion dollar budget here. A few million isn't going to balance the budget. I doubt anyone is going to lose a vote because they cut taxes by $0.10 less per person.
If you want any change at all, sign this petition. It won't stop you from demanding more radical change or expressing your views to your elected representatives.
The petition states that "We, the undersigned, while believing in the importance of copyright, also believe in the importance of the public domain." I don't believe in the importance of copyright. I'm not going to sign a petition which says that I do. The petition also states:
Yet because it is often impossible to track down the copyright owners for these films, commercial and noncommercial preservationist and distributors cannot safely restore and distribute these films. And because these films were made from nitrate-based stock, by the time the copyright to these films expire, most of them will have dissolved.
That's nonsense. There are many exceptions to copyright which this falls under. These archivists can make a backup under Section 107 or Section 108.
The gas primarily enourages fuel-efficiency, not density.
And the road tax primarily encourages driving less, not density.
Both encourage density indirectly.
And, sorry, property taxes MOST certainly do not encourage density. Suburbs enjoy a nice unburdened fresh-slate to escape taxes by building houses in former meadows/farmland/woods/etc.
You don't escape taxes by building houses in former meadows/farmland/woods/etc. Let me be more clear. Property taxes encourage density by charging people for land. This encourages them to actually use the land they own.
Suburbs dont pay for the services suburbanites use. Suburbanites live as nats-on-the-arse of cities by using services (highways to work, parks, arenas, museams, galleries, symphonies, etc) they dont pay for.
Most parks, arenas, museums, galleries, symphonies, etc I know of charge money. And most highways don't go through cities, they go around cities. And those highways that do go through cities are generally only used by people who live or work in that city (and therefore pay taxes to that city).
Besides, we're talking about roads here, not parks, arenas, museums, galleries, or symphonies (and certainly not etc). Those who live in the suburbs generally pay more in gas taxes than those who live in the city. So the gas tax encourages density.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why they are complaining about the costs of this--they are just passing it on to their customers anyway.
Because the more they charge, the fewer people buy cell phones, and the less money they make. It's not like cell phones are a necessity. If the price is raised too high, people won't buy them.
It doesn't appear to be tecnically challenging to allow numbers to remain the same. Change an entry in a database and there you go.
Yeah, and we should require that ISPs allow you to keep the same email address when you switch providers. 'Cause that would just be a changed entry in a database, right?
they probably did something really stupid - like using phonenumber as the primary key.
Which wouldn't have been a problem, except they're using mysql.
FRS is the wrong frequency range for the Board of Ed. FRS isn't supposed to be used for business purposes. Sure, the Board of Ed is non-profit, but they're still doing business.
Though this may appear to be a squeeze on big business it really would not be. They pass along any rate increases directly to us, at some multiple of their increase in costs.
Who is us? They will pass along the rate increases to the people who use the spectrum. Cell phone bills go up. Taxes go down. This is a good thing.
Sure, we can, it's just expensive. Right now the cost is too high to be practical. Otherwise the cell phone companies would be doing exactly that. After all, near-infinite total bandwidth would be a damn good selling point.
That doesn't mean you couldn't still buy a crippled product, it just means that you can't buy a product that prevents you from turning around and selling that same crippled product to someone else.
That's what I'm saying. I can't buy a product which is crippled such that it prevents resale.
So, while you could buy a product that requires you to use a special player while standing on your head in your backyard, you couldn't buy one that self-destructs if it senses that you are thinking of letting it go.
And that's why I don't support this law.
What aspect of this article makes you think you wouldn't [be allowed to buy a crippled product]?
More laws to protect consumers from themselves. I'm sorry, if I want to buy a crippled product, I should have that right.
As for requiring labels, that's a bit more reasonable. "This product is rated U for useless."
They don't have to. That's why it's called strict liability.
I pay less than $100 to the local courthouse to file a small-claims suit for whatever my imagnination decides you've done against me and suddenly I have the power of discovery.
Are you sure it's possible to file a John Doe lawsuit in small claims court? I'm pretty sure it isn't possible where I live, or I would have sued a bunch of spammers by now.
Umm, in case you haven't noticed, this case has been in the court system for a long time now. It's not "so easy to get the ISP to reveal the identity of a P2P user." It's very hard. It's just that the RIAA has lots and lots of money.
Copyright law is a strict liability law. That means it doesn't matter if you know what you're sharing or not, you're still guilty. Besides, if freenet ever becomes popular, you can rest assured congress will declare it illegal.
3) Everyone starts using freenet!
Right... Like you can't get a cease and desist if you're on freenet. Copyright law is a strict liability law. That means ignorance is no excuse.
s/subscribers/bandwidth hogs/
Prohibition was bad for big business. Copyright is good for big business. Welcome to capitalism.
It's only a civil case. They don't have to prove guilt. They only need a preponderance of the evidence.
Seems to me like it wouldn't be hard to make money off a broadband company. If the business was losing money they were doing something wrong.
Of course this "price" would have to factor in all the debt, including any mandatory payments to all the employees I would immediately fire. But even if all I could salvage past that was the customer list, that alone would be worth something.
They have discovered that the British Isles are tilting, with the north of the country gaining altitude and the south of the country 'sinking'.
Either that, or the GPS satellite positions are tilting!
Doesn't seem to me that redundancy would work, since there are a limited number of satellites and all readings would be subject to similar atmospheric delays.
Guess it's time to make a P2P google.
Someone would have bought it. You just weren't offering a low enough price. If you were, I would have bought it :).
My god, will someone please think about the porn!?!
Someone already did.
Your's is an extreme view with almost no chance of getting support among voters or in Congress. I'm not saying your view is wrong, but you have to recognize that it's extreme.
Well, my own particular view is extreme, but I think there would be quite a lot of support among voters to lower copyright to 5 years. I don't know though, maybe I'm wrong.
Think of this proposal as a compromise.
It is a compromise, but it accomplishes very little. It only frees up published works which have been abandoned and can be shown to have been published over 50 years ago. Besides the fact that there are not all that many of these works, in most cases the rights to these works can already be obtained for a very low fee. Plus the likelihood that someone is going to be sued for using these works is low. It's just not a very useful law.
It will be attractive to some legislators because it generates revenue.
I doubt it will generate more revenue than it costs to implement. Even if it does, it's not going to be significant.
They'll have to weigh the votes garnered from compaign contributions from the IP industry vs. losing votes because of raising taxes or cutting services in order to balance the budget (HA!).
We're talking about a trillion dollar budget here. A few million isn't going to balance the budget. I doubt anyone is going to lose a vote because they cut taxes by $0.10 less per person.
If you want any change at all, sign this petition. It won't stop you from demanding more radical change or expressing your views to your elected representatives.
The petition states that "We, the undersigned, while believing in the importance of copyright, also believe in the importance of the public domain." I don't believe in the importance of copyright. I'm not going to sign a petition which says that I do. The petition also states:
That's nonsense. There are many exceptions to copyright which this falls under. These archivists can make a backup under Section 107 or Section 108.
The gas primarily enourages fuel-efficiency, not density.
And the road tax primarily encourages driving less, not density.
Both encourage density indirectly.
And, sorry, property taxes MOST certainly do not encourage density. Suburbs enjoy a nice unburdened fresh-slate to escape taxes by building houses in former meadows/farmland/woods/etc.
You don't escape taxes by building houses in former meadows/farmland/woods/etc. Let me be more clear. Property taxes encourage density by charging people for land. This encourages them to actually use the land they own.
Suburbs dont pay for the services suburbanites use. Suburbanites live as nats-on-the-arse of cities by using services (highways to work, parks, arenas, museams, galleries, symphonies, etc) they dont pay for.
Most parks, arenas, museums, galleries, symphonies, etc I know of charge money. And most highways don't go through cities, they go around cities. And those highways that do go through cities are generally only used by people who live or work in that city (and therefore pay taxes to that city).
Besides, we're talking about roads here, not parks, arenas, museums, galleries, or symphonies (and certainly not etc). Those who live in the suburbs generally pay more in gas taxes than those who live in the city. So the gas tax encourages density.