Download 2005 sports scores from temporal home net
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
He could do it like this:
Have a network card on his pc that can recieve neutrons from the future.
Have a proxy server that forwards responses from external web sites to the past by encoding them as neutrons
Your PC sends http GET requests to the proxy server where they are cached for three years before being sent on to whatever site.
Your PC recieves responses from the future REAL TIME. You can surf the internet of the future!!!
What would happen if a month later, you smashed the proxy server with a sledgehammer? Would you forget everything you saw? Would you instantaneously lose all the money you made off the stock market?
If significant stock trading were done by 'scrying' into the future, nobody would do real research into the health of companies. How would that affect the efficiency of the market?
Time-scryers from the past would be kinda like information parasites. Whoever had an idea, would have it stolen by someone from the past!
If you read my post I carfully qualified the statement. I said that no information is inherently harmful to it's CONSUMERS. Now would it really hurt you to know all that stuff?
I see what you mean, but ppl who try out the recipes in The Terrorist's Handbook and blow themselves up ( available off http://www.textfiles.com by the way ) were gonna do something stupid anyway doncha think? And then there are fraudulent advertisements, but unless there is someone to take your money the actual ad isn't harmful.
If the libraries had infinite money I would say yes they should. But I would rather see it spent on books of which most libraries have too few. Internet access to pr0n costs the library nothing, in fact, filtering out the porn costs more than not filtering since the filtering software itself cost money.
No information is harmful to it's consumers in and of itself. If someone, even a child seeks out information, even pr0n, they want to view the info. If a kid who is not interested in sex sees a nekkid lady/dude, they will giggle that they are nekkid and move on - they probably clicked the wrong button to get there anyway. If a teenager who is interested in pr0n for sex why not let them see what there is to see! ( I remember bbs's were my sole source of nekkid ladies when I was 13-15 and now that I'm in my mid 20s I know it didn't hurt me at all )
Anyone who has seen Dances with Wolves knows that in the olden days the natives used to boink in the same TeePee with the rest of their family. Kids couldn't avoid seeing sex going on! And as glad as I am that I never had to see my old man and maw going at it, sex is just a fact of life like eating working dying and being born.
Of course it would suck if every site I wanted to look at, like google for instance had graphic advertizements for Gay Pr0n, and children shouldn't have pr0n shoved in their face either. On the other hand, how much more obscenely annoying is an advertizement for pr0n than an advertizement for Coca-Cola in the middle of your favorite TV show?
This is not how textual information is bought/sold/traded. The information is not *licenced* like a piece of software. Authors of physics textbooks do not *licence* Maxwell's equations adding the condition that you may not publish any electric motor plans.
First I'd like to say that the reason gnutella hasn't been shut down by litigation is that the record dudes know that freenet is there. Freenet, even if not actually used is valuable as a threat. If they shut down Gnutella, freenet would quickly become user friendly to meet the huge demand.
Second, the biggest thing holding back P2P is the lack of a good search engine.
At the present state of things you can only search based on filename! This is ridiculous! People ususally choose dumbass filenames to begin with, so you are left guessing what they called something.
Why not instead integrate P2P networks with the rest of the internet? Then you could type p2pp://oops+i+did+it+again+britany+spears+mp3 into your web browser, and it would do a search and give you a google like list of indexed content to choose from. Every time you downloaded content it would be mirrored on your machine, and so popular content should be the most reliably mirrored stuff. The search algorithm might be a distributed one, or maybe google's algorithm would apply well.
p2pp:// urls would be essentially search criteria, and may not reliably produce a result, or a small set of matching results. There might be a way to do say add a MD5 Sum ( or something ) to the url and also have that indexed. Urls with 'guaranteed' specificity could be automaticaly followed (Like google's I'm feeling lucky).
This way one could publish html documents to the p2p network without having to pay for a permanent server/ipaddress or put up with automatically inserted ads and in the case that your page was hugely popular you would not be stuck with huge bandwidth costs. There might also be some way to write something like p2p cgi scripts and have distributed interactive web content. Maybe they would talk to each other. Maybe they would evolve, maybe they would decide humans are unnecessary and that THEY should rule the earth...
What if a certain testicle zapper R&D'ed by Microsoft was used on a captured Usama bin Laden to get him to divulge the location of the smallpox bomb he planted somewhere in Chicago before it went off? I'd say the device would have served a good purpose.
CDs get scratched, so what is read is not always intentional. It seems that CDROMS/Operating Systems ought to be too robust to allow a corrupt or hacked CD to do damage. I would like to know exactly what Hardware/Software combinations are vulnerable to this kind of attack, and whose fault it is so I can not buy brittle hardware/software.
Rig a signal that LOOKS like the coordinates of the correct location and you'll fool the thing into thinking it's in the correct room. Really this is like having 3D cartesian coordinates as the decryption password. Big yawn.
Click on any of the links and you get perl stuff.. This is definately wierd.. Java sux Perl rules!! Why can't there be a CJAN and a CPAN??? This really stinks..
You don't need to wait with open arms for the police to arrest you to force the government to act reprehensibly and cause outrage on the part of the public that can bring around legislative change.
I light off firecrackers and bottle rockets in my backyard every Fourth of July. These are illegal. The government will not use harsh and intrusive war on drugs type tactics to keep these harmless noisemakers out of my hands. I light them off, and could end up paying a $500.00 fine, but if it comes to that, I'll deny that it was me shooting them off, blame it on the dog, and do whatever I can to make it as difficult and expensive as I can for them to extract the fine from me. Because the government is afraid to act as badly as it would have to in order to stamp out the fireworks trade, I know right where to buy 'em, and I do.
The pot smoking community continues to light up despite the war-on-crack style tactics and life-destroying mandatory sentences that are used to persecute perveyors of a drug that is arguably safer than alcohol. Against the cannabis community, the government has commited many ugly atrocities. These outrageous examples should serve as a brake for the runaway train that is the war-on-drugs.
People trade copyrighted digital over P2P networks. Software like Freenet has the power to make it impossible for law enforcement to track these traders down. Outlawing a tool like Freenet which can be used in closed societies like China to freely communicate is contrary to basic American values like free speech. Draconian measures like the SSSCA will not pass because they punish law abiding computer users as well as copyright infringers. Though money trails are easy for police to follow, it has become impossible to prevent digital material from being distributed freely without employing measures that are more outrageous to endure than the law-scoffing gnutella users copyright infringement. Media publishers will have to adjust to this new reality.
Nice neighbors don't phone the cops over a little 4th of July hyginx. Pot smokers don't turn in their dealers because they don't see anything worse about selling pot than selling groceries. Conversations are held freely and without worry of 'tattle-taling' between college students about all the songs they've downloaded. They are burned on cds and given away as a courtesy to friends.
Are these law-breakers heroes or villians?
As villians, law-breakers could be seen as the ultimate cause, and necessitators of heavy handed laws and enforcement. They certainly aren't the altruistic martyr types of the MLK ilk. They are rewarded for their 'dastardly deeds'.
But if the laws are bad, and unenforcable without outrageous tactics, then one could also blame the enactors of the faulty legislation, and view the lawbreakers as the inevitable outcome. Is our being saddled with intrusive government the fault of the disobedient minorities who persue illicit activities, or have we intruded into their lives too much, and they have chosen to resist imposing consequences on the rest of us?
As heroes lawbreakers bear the brunt of government violence ( and incarceration is a kind of violence ). Their criminal activity is their way of coping with the Tyrrany of the Majority. Their forcing of the hand of government to act in ways intolerable to the rest of us forces us to rethink the wisdom of certain laws, and keeps us free. Because nobody is Mr Normal in every way, these people do us all a service.
This is not to say that murderers, thieves rapists, or even copyright infringers are acting in the noble and altruistic way that the MLK bus riders acted when they broke the law. With the exception of copyright infringers, the police seem to be able to keep them under control without getting in my face or acting badly. In the case of the bus riders there was no way to 'sneak onto the front seats'. Sitting there would get you caught, and they had to all sit there en masse to make the injustice of the law clearly apparent. But tax-protesters should not simply stop paying their taxes, and wait for the paddy wagon, they should use deciet, work under the table, launder money and do anything they can to get away with it. Then when the government wants to know what I do with every penny and I start writing letters to my representatives, they might think about simplifying the tax structure.
This strategy seems to be working for copyright infringers. They've gotten slashdotters to protest the SSSCA. ( though slashdotters and copyright infringers are the same people many times I suspect ). If the SSSCA were passed we'd crack the protection illegally, and there would still be a subculture of copyright infringers, and hardware crackers.
They don't. And neither are royalties needed to encourage people to write text or software. A quick look at the free stuff on the internet will make that clear.
Are ideas created or discovered? I say they are discovered because they are can be discovered independently and so are already there. What is more, I can have an idea and tell other people without hurting you, and they can have that idea and tell other people without hurting me. What gives the first guy to discover an idea any special rights over it?
The gub'mint that's who in the name of rewarding the explorers of ideas for their discoveries. Why reward people for making these discoveries? I don't think we should. Companies that make patentable discoveries would tend to gravatate towards countries where they could be rewarded, so maybe itis a form of war. This would be like the who can pollute the most war that economics forces countries to fight with each other. We a global truce in the form of global limits on patents ( and on pollution, and on compulsory education for that matter ).
They are free to delete my account, change services, or do whatever they want to with the account which I admit is theirs because it is on their servers ( though if I am paying they should play by different rules ) But if I entrust them with my email address that is hosted on my ISP's mail servers which I pay for, and specifically opt out of their marketing lists, and they breach the terms under which I entrusted my email address to them by sending me spam, then they ought to be sued.
Microsoft is more flexible? HA!!! That's the last thing Microsoft technology is. They don't want to be compatible with anybody because they want to write all software on the planet earth. They have an MS sanctified archetecture to meet your needs that was carefully designed to lock you in tight so they can pick your pockets later. At that point you will find that it is better to adjust your business needs to fit their product line than try to go against the will of your new masters in redmond.
You will need a ton of Microsoft experts to iron out all the querks in the various MS products you use. Each will prbably have to specialize, and will be unable to learn anything not blended into pap and fed to them through an MSCE straw. They will not be flexible. They en masse will not be cheap.
Unix and especially Linux is a doublejointed circus acrobat by comparison. You are not forced into any archetecture, and everything is designed as flexible components that you can use to meet your needs. With Linux, nobody is trying to pick your pockets. By the time someone has become a Unix expert, they have probably had to solve many problems by doing independent research, and will not be thown by something unexpected and new. They are probably not certified, but they know their stuff. They have been off the pap since college or earlier and can swallow new skillsets with their regular diet of raw buffalo meat.
Unless you pay for priority download access you are limited to 56k modem bandwidth. This is enough to make many people buy the CD. I think this is fair as long as it doesn't get rediculous.
Why would we want a bill to create demand for Broadband? Who gives a damn whether broadband is profitable? I don't want to pay $50/month for it. Let them lower the frikken price if it ain't worth 50/month and nobody will buy it! Don't make the public ( including ppl like me who can't afford $50/month, but who own a computer ) foot the bill for millions upon millions of copy protection chips so that TV couch potatoes can have more junk to rot their minds with! I've had my 56K modem for quite a while now, and don't see much reason to upgrade to Cable or DSL. The text and pictures I look at download quickly enough not to be bothersome. Even low quality sound is possible to send/recieve at 56k. If I want movies, I'll watch TV or rent a film.
The film industry is worried that once people can record digital movies that piracy will be so rampant that they will go out of business. This is bullcrap. People hae been able to copy CDs for years, and do you see that any record companies have gone out of business!
Holling's argument: Because of lack of copy protection, movie studios/record companies lose money, and do not make the amount of crap they would otherwise. This supposed lack of content means there is not enough stuff available to fill the broadbandwidth available, so broadband is not worth the $50/month it costs. If there were more content, then Joe Sixpack would shell out the extra $50/month.
I've got news for Hollings: I would never pay $50/month for TV! I watch enough TV as it is, and do not have any more free time available to watch TV during. No matter how much content there is on TV, the limited amount of time I have to watch makes it impossible for TV to EVER be worth $50/Month to me. I would rather melt every music CD I own and promise never to buy another CD as long as I live than pay for a copy protection chip for my CD burner.
Does anyone only sell Linux PCs? If there were such an OEM, they'd have the market cornered 'cause none of the big-boy OEMs would be allowed by microsoft to compete with them. And not selling Windoze, they'd not be subject to bullying by micro$oft themselves.
Software licenses are used to take away user's freedom to use that software. One such license that places restrictions on users' use of software is the GPL. If someone sells software, they should retain no more rights over that software than an author retains over a book he sells. That is, the only right reserved to the copyright holder should be the right to copy and distribute the work. You don't see the author of a physics textbook making students sign away their rights to apply the knowlege contained therein! If you buy a piece of software, and decide not to accept the license agreement do they give you your money back? NO! htey assume you've burned the CD, and tell you that you're screwed. If I buy something it's bloody well mine, and I any license agreements I click 'YES I agree' to are not binding since I took delivery of the product before being given a chance to read the license agreement. Who would not ignore a notice mailed from a car dealer that they may not drive their Ford on Wednesdays anymore. You already bought the car! If they wanted to make provisos they had their chance before the frikken sale.
Slashdot Mirror
Have a network card on his pc that can recieve neutrons from the future.
Have a proxy server that forwards responses from external web sites to the past by encoding them as neutrons
Your PC sends http GET requests to the proxy server where they are cached for three years before being sent on to whatever site.
Your PC recieves responses from the future REAL TIME. You can surf the internet of the future!!!
What would happen if a month later, you smashed the proxy server with a sledgehammer? Would you forget everything you saw? Would you instantaneously lose all the money you made off the stock market?
If significant stock trading were done by 'scrying' into the future, nobody would do real research into the health of companies. How would that affect the efficiency of the market?
Time-scryers from the past would be kinda like information parasites. Whoever had an idea, would have it stolen by someone from the past!
If you read my post I carfully qualified the statement. I said that no information is inherently harmful to it's CONSUMERS. Now would it really hurt you to know all that stuff?
I see what you mean, but ppl who try out the recipes in The Terrorist's Handbook and blow themselves up ( available off http://www.textfiles.com by the way ) were gonna do something stupid anyway doncha think? And then there are fraudulent advertisements, but unless there is someone to take your money the actual ad isn't harmful.
If the libraries had infinite money I would say yes they should. But I would rather see it spent on books of which most libraries have too few. Internet access to pr0n costs the library nothing, in fact, filtering out the porn costs more than not filtering since the filtering software itself cost money.
No information is harmful to it's consumers in and of itself. If someone, even a child seeks out information, even pr0n, they want to view the info. If a kid who is not interested in sex sees a nekkid lady/dude, they will giggle that they are nekkid and move on - they probably clicked the wrong button to get there anyway. If a teenager who is interested in pr0n for sex why not let them see what there is to see! ( I remember bbs's were my sole source of nekkid ladies when I was 13-15 and now that I'm in my mid 20s I know it didn't hurt me at all )
Anyone who has seen Dances with Wolves knows that in the olden days the natives used to boink in the same TeePee with the rest of their family. Kids couldn't avoid seeing sex going on! And as glad as I am that I never had to see my old man and maw going at it, sex is just a fact of life like eating working dying and being born.
Of course it would suck if every site I wanted to look at, like google for instance had graphic advertizements for Gay Pr0n, and children shouldn't have pr0n shoved in their face either. On the other hand, how much more obscenely annoying is an advertizement for pr0n than an advertizement for Coca-Cola in the middle of your favorite TV show?
This is not how textual information is bought/sold/traded. The information is not *licenced* like a piece of software. Authors of physics textbooks do not *licence* Maxwell's equations adding the condition that you may not publish any electric motor plans.
First I'd like to say that the reason gnutella hasn't been shut down by litigation is that the record dudes know that freenet is there. Freenet, even if not actually used is valuable as a threat. If they shut down Gnutella, freenet would quickly become user friendly to meet the huge demand.
Second, the biggest thing holding back P2P is the lack of a good search engine.
At the present state of things you can only search based on filename! This is ridiculous! People ususally choose dumbass filenames to begin with, so you are left guessing what they called something.
Why not instead integrate P2P networks with the rest of the internet? Then you could type p2pp://oops+i+did+it+again+britany+spears+mp3 into your web browser, and it would do a search and give you a google like list of indexed content to choose from. Every time you downloaded content it would be mirrored on your machine, and so popular content should be the most reliably mirrored stuff. The search algorithm might be a distributed one, or maybe google's algorithm would apply well.
p2pp:// urls would be essentially search criteria, and may not reliably produce a result, or a small set of matching results. There might be a way to do say add a MD5 Sum ( or something ) to the url and also have that indexed. Urls with 'guaranteed' specificity could be automaticaly followed (Like google's I'm feeling lucky).
This way one could publish html documents to the p2p network without having to pay for a permanent server/ipaddress or put up with automatically inserted ads and in the case that your page was hugely popular you would not be stuck with huge bandwidth costs. There might also be some way to write something like p2p cgi scripts and have distributed interactive web content. Maybe they would talk to each other. Maybe they would evolve, maybe they would decide humans are unnecessary and that THEY should rule the earth...
What if a certain testicle zapper R&D'ed by Microsoft was used on a captured Usama bin Laden to get him to divulge the location of the smallpox bomb he planted somewhere in Chicago before it went off? I'd say the device would have served a good purpose.
CDs get scratched, so what is read is not always intentional. It seems that CDROMS/Operating Systems ought to be too robust to allow a corrupt or hacked CD to do damage. I would like to know exactly what Hardware/Software combinations are vulnerable to this kind of attack, and whose fault it is so I can not buy brittle hardware/software.
Rig a signal that LOOKS like the coordinates of the correct location and you'll fool the thing into thinking it's in the correct room. Really this is like having 3D cartesian coordinates as the decryption password. Big yawn.
Click on any of the links and you get perl stuff.. This is definately wierd.. Java sux Perl rules!! Why can't there be a CJAN and a CPAN??? This really stinks..
You don't need to wait with open arms for the police to arrest you to force the government to act reprehensibly and cause outrage on the part of the public that can bring around legislative change.
I light off firecrackers and bottle rockets in my backyard every Fourth of July. These are illegal. The government will not use harsh and intrusive war on drugs type tactics to keep these harmless noisemakers out of my hands. I light them off, and could end up paying a $500.00 fine, but if it comes to that, I'll deny that it was me shooting them off, blame it on the dog, and do whatever I can to make it as difficult and expensive as I can for them to extract the fine from me. Because the government is afraid to act as badly as it would have to in order to stamp out the fireworks trade, I know right where to buy 'em, and I do.
The pot smoking community continues to light up despite the war-on-crack style tactics and life-destroying mandatory sentences that are used to persecute perveyors of a drug that is arguably safer than alcohol. Against the cannabis community, the government has commited many ugly atrocities. These outrageous examples should serve as a brake for the runaway train that is the war-on-drugs.
People trade copyrighted digital over P2P networks. Software like Freenet has the power to make it impossible for law enforcement to track these traders down. Outlawing a tool like Freenet which can be used in closed societies like China to freely communicate is contrary to basic American values like free speech. Draconian measures like the SSSCA will not pass because they punish law abiding computer users as well as copyright infringers. Though money trails are easy for police to follow, it has become impossible to prevent digital material from being distributed freely without employing measures that are more outrageous to endure than the law-scoffing gnutella users copyright infringement. Media publishers will have to adjust to this new reality.
Nice neighbors don't phone the cops over a little 4th of July hyginx. Pot smokers don't turn in their dealers because they don't see anything worse about selling pot than selling groceries. Conversations are held freely and without worry of 'tattle-taling' between college students about all the songs they've downloaded. They are burned on cds and given away as a courtesy to friends.
Are these law-breakers heroes or villians?
As villians, law-breakers could be seen as the ultimate cause, and necessitators of heavy handed laws and enforcement. They certainly aren't the altruistic martyr types of the MLK ilk. They are rewarded for their 'dastardly deeds'.
But if the laws are bad, and unenforcable without outrageous tactics, then one could also blame the enactors of the faulty legislation, and view the lawbreakers as the inevitable outcome. Is our being saddled with intrusive government the fault of the disobedient minorities who persue illicit activities, or have we intruded into their lives too much, and they have chosen to resist imposing consequences on the rest of us?
As heroes lawbreakers bear the brunt of government violence ( and incarceration is a kind of violence ). Their criminal activity is their way of coping with the Tyrrany of the Majority. Their forcing of the hand of government to act in ways intolerable to the rest of us forces us to rethink the wisdom of certain laws, and keeps us free. Because nobody is Mr Normal in every way, these people do us all a service.
This is not to say that murderers, thieves rapists, or even copyright infringers are acting in the noble and altruistic way that the MLK bus riders acted when they broke the law. With the exception of copyright infringers, the police seem to be able to keep them under control without getting in my face or acting badly. In the case of the bus riders there was no way to 'sneak onto the front seats'. Sitting there would get you caught, and they had to all sit there en masse to make the injustice of the law clearly apparent. But tax-protesters should not simply stop paying their taxes, and wait for the paddy wagon, they should use deciet, work under the table, launder money and do anything they can to get away with it. Then when the government wants to know what I do with every penny and I start writing letters to my representatives, they might think about simplifying the tax structure.
This strategy seems to be working for copyright infringers. They've gotten slashdotters to protest the SSSCA. ( though slashdotters and copyright infringers are the same people many times I suspect ). If the SSSCA were passed we'd crack the protection illegally, and there would still be a subculture of copyright infringers, and hardware crackers.
I wasn't trashing the GPL, I was merely stating that it does place restrictions on use ( eg no selling derivations ).
They don't. And neither are royalties needed to encourage people to write text or software. A quick look at the free stuff on the internet will make that clear. Are ideas created or discovered? I say they are discovered because they are can be discovered independently and so are already there. What is more, I can have an idea and tell other people without hurting you, and they can have that idea and tell other people without hurting me. What gives the first guy to discover an idea any special rights over it? The gub'mint that's who in the name of rewarding the explorers of ideas for their discoveries. Why reward people for making these discoveries? I don't think we should. Companies that make patentable discoveries would tend to gravatate towards countries where they could be rewarded, so maybe itis a form of war. This would be like the who can pollute the most war that economics forces countries to fight with each other. We a global truce in the form of global limits on patents ( and on pollution, and on compulsory education for that matter ).
They are free to delete my account, change services, or do whatever they want to with the account which I admit is theirs because it is on their servers ( though if I am paying they should play by different rules ) But if I entrust them with my email address that is hosted on my ISP's mail servers which I pay for, and specifically opt out of their marketing lists, and they breach the terms under which I entrusted my email address to them by sending me spam, then they ought to be sued.
The people who make these decisions are not computer people they are corporate big-wigs who don't have a clue. They are easily swayed by this crap.
It's their nature
Microsoft is more flexible? HA!!! That's the last thing Microsoft technology is. They don't want to be compatible with anybody because they want to write all software on the planet earth. They have an MS sanctified archetecture to meet your needs that was carefully designed to lock you in tight so they can pick your pockets later. At that point you will find that it is better to adjust your business needs to fit their product line than try to go against the will of your new masters in redmond. You will need a ton of Microsoft experts to iron out all the querks in the various MS products you use. Each will prbably have to specialize, and will be unable to learn anything not blended into pap and fed to them through an MSCE straw. They will not be flexible. They en masse will not be cheap. Unix and especially Linux is a doublejointed circus acrobat by comparison. You are not forced into any archetecture, and everything is designed as flexible components that you can use to meet your needs. With Linux, nobody is trying to pick your pockets. By the time someone has become a Unix expert, they have probably had to solve many problems by doing independent research, and will not be thown by something unexpected and new. They are probably not certified, but they know their stuff. They have been off the pap since college or earlier and can swallow new skillsets with their regular diet of raw buffalo meat.
Unless you pay for priority download access you are limited to 56k modem bandwidth. This is enough to make many people buy the CD. I think this is fair as long as it doesn't get rediculous.
Why would we want a bill to create demand for Broadband? Who gives a damn whether broadband is profitable? I don't want to pay $50/month for it. Let them lower the frikken price if it ain't worth 50/month and nobody will buy it! Don't make the public ( including ppl like me who can't afford $50/month, but who own a computer ) foot the bill for millions upon millions of copy protection chips so that TV couch potatoes can have more junk to rot their minds with! I've had my 56K modem for quite a while now, and don't see much reason to upgrade to Cable or DSL. The text and pictures I look at download quickly enough not to be bothersome. Even low quality sound is possible to send/recieve at 56k. If I want movies, I'll watch TV or rent a film. The film industry is worried that once people can record digital movies that piracy will be so rampant that they will go out of business. This is bullcrap. People hae been able to copy CDs for years, and do you see that any record companies have gone out of business!
Holling's argument: Because of lack of copy protection, movie studios/record companies lose money, and do not make the amount of crap they would otherwise.
This supposed lack of content means there is not enough stuff available to fill the broadbandwidth available, so broadband is not worth the $50/month it costs. If there were more content, then Joe Sixpack would shell out the extra $50/month.
I've got news for Hollings: I would never pay $50/month for TV! I watch enough TV as it is, and do not have any more free time available to watch TV during. No matter how much content there is on TV, the limited amount of time I have to watch makes it impossible for TV to EVER be worth $50/Month to me.
I would rather melt every music CD I own and promise never to buy another CD as long as I live than pay for a copy protection chip for my CD burner.
If I buy software, and decide I don't like the EULA, do they have to give my my money back?
Does anyone only sell Linux PCs? If there were such an OEM, they'd have the market cornered 'cause none of the big-boy OEMs would be allowed by microsoft to compete with them. And not selling Windoze, they'd not be subject to bullying by micro$oft themselves.
Software licenses are used to take away user's freedom to use that software. One such license that places restrictions on users' use of software is the GPL. If someone sells software, they should retain no more rights over that software than an author retains over a book he sells. That is, the only right reserved to the copyright holder should be the right to copy and distribute the work. You don't see the author of a physics textbook making students sign away their rights to apply the knowlege contained therein! If you buy a piece of software, and decide not to accept the license agreement do they give you your money back? NO! htey assume you've burned the CD, and tell you that you're screwed. If I buy something it's bloody well mine, and I any license agreements I click 'YES I agree' to are not binding since I took delivery of the product before being given a chance to read the license agreement.
Who would not ignore a notice mailed from a car dealer that they may not drive their Ford on Wednesdays anymore. You already bought the car! If they wanted to make provisos they had their chance before the frikken sale.