thanks to the fcc the telcos can now exclude competitors from their hubs. The cable companies will never let a competitor on their cable. The cable networks were created with large government subsidies and such subsidies will not come for a duplicate cable network.
This government of ours has ensured that telcos and cable companies will have a monopoly on broadband for a loong time.
before saying an article is a crock of shit make sure you read the whole thing.
The main focus of the article is the fact that large companies are trying to take over the internet by legislation, and Silicon Valley bussinesses and internet users are not fighting back.
That is a fact that has been widely recognised by most security proffessionals and people that take computer security seriously.
For example banks do not use secret algortighms for their communications. They use well known algorithms so the mathematics community can examine them and point out any problems.
Another example - computers games. They are usually closed source and yet almost every famous multiplayer game has been hacked.
So no closed source doesnt give you much security.
Open source would provide much more security because it would allow every one to check the code and correct mistakes.
In patents you dont have to enforce your patent equally against all infringers - it is your money you can sue whoever you want.
But you cannot purposefully wait just so every one starts using the patented technology and then start suing. There is a legal theory called "laches" that prevents that.
I am not sure whether latches applies here, though i dont want to bother to check it out.
The courts may (probably will) uphold the gpl, but they usually refrain from granting extraudinary remedies.
Thus if one has already taken gpled code out of their program the courts will not require that person to submit their whole program to the gpl. But if that person is being stupid and insists on keeping gpled code in their program the courts may order them to realease their code.
For this reason the FSF cant change their mind too much.
By the way this is not legal advice and i am not a lawyer just my guess as to how things may go.
Thats like saying that using a bank for your personal finances is dangerous because in the event that you rob the bank you may have to return the money you stole.
I am pretty sure it comes from "rob" a word that in Russian and most other slavic languages means slave. I am not sure who came up with it though.
Probably Azimov.
American media companies are scared of interaction
on
Net-Nexus Seoul
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
they want to keep the condition where they talk and the others listen.
I think the reason is that american media is the largest creator of content in the world, and they are affraid of losing that.
So they try to keep hirarchical distribution networks.
A Korean cable network would probably not care what is going trough their cables, as long as people are paying.
In the us timewarner has a shitload of tv channels, movies, etc to push trough their cables, so they do care.
Also in the us, while almost every building is cable ready, there are only a few cable companies that are monopolies and provide pretty mediocre internet service.
there is a lot of corruption in NASA's spending, but i dont think overpayed engineers are a big problem. Space engineers arent that well paid afaik, and they are quite necessary.
i think corporations that overbill the govt are more of a problem.
the article does not say that currently the space station is not able to do much meaningful research, but it says that it cannot do enough.
Also the heading suggests that the space station is failing as a tool of science and that is just not true - it is completely capable of being a tool of science with increased funding. And that increased funding seems to be much less than the initial 30 b cost.
As far as mission to mars is concerned, considering NAsa's track record of cost overruns, a manned mission to mars will cost much more than 30 B.
nobody has to look at a website. If it offends you then dont look at it.
Usually religions bitching about "being offended" are just putting on a PR to cover up their attempts to control speach.
Like the muslims that offered a price for the head of salmon Rushdie and then they said it is ok because he offended islam on purpose.
Being offended is part of living in a society with free speach. Half the times i post on slashdot some idiot offends me. So what.
And the great thing about the internet is that you dont have to be offended. There is nothing on the internet, that you are required to see. You dont have to look at anything that offends you.
Anybody that attempts to cencor the internet because they were offended is a liar. They just want to limit other people's ability to reach information.
"but the end result is the people who are hungry steal from those who have food."
exactly and a good idea would be not to have hungry people. Your way of dealing with the problem is that you just arm yourself and protect yourself. Well if you have enough hungry people that usually does not work. And eventually you may decide that it might be a good idea to keep people content.
By the way your statement about socialists is not entirely correct. Many socialists are well to do people that merely show care about their fellow human beings. Just because you do not have such feelings does not mean you should attack them.
so what if you are the next to die? would you be worried? or would you be ok with it because too many people are alive anyways.
i think you you would be at least a little bit worried. And dont say "it wont happen to me, it will only happen to brown people in other countries" because that's just stupid. I can give numerous examples where groups of people that have hoped to delegate misery and suffering to the unwashed masses have had their heads severed by those masses.
So ask your self would you think it is unfair if you were the next to die as a result of over population.
If you answer yes, then you shouldnt flame people that are at least trying to find another way.
Slashdot Mirror
how do you suppose that will happen?
thanks to the fcc the telcos can now exclude competitors from their hubs. The cable companies will never let a competitor on their cable. The cable networks were created with large government subsidies and such subsidies will not come for a duplicate cable network.
This government of ours has ensured that telcos and cable companies will have a monopoly on broadband for a loong time.
The problem is that you cannot use anybody else.
most broadband providers have a govt sanctioned monopoly.
And after the recent declarations from the FCC the little competition that was coming from small dsl providers will soon evaporate.
before saying an article is a crock of shit make sure you read the whole thing.
The main focus of the article is the fact that large companies are trying to take over the internet by legislation, and Silicon Valley bussinesses and internet users are not fighting back.
any "effect" where you use grvity to move with zero fuel is called falling.
no need to give it fancy names.
That is a fact that has been widely recognised by most security proffessionals and people that take computer security seriously.
For example banks do not use secret algortighms for their communications. They use well known algorithms so the mathematics community can examine them and point out any problems.
Another example - computers games. They are usually closed source and yet almost every famous multiplayer game has been hacked.
So no closed source doesnt give you much security.
Open source would provide much more security because it would allow every one to check the code and correct mistakes.
you are partially right.
In patents you dont have to enforce your patent equally against all infringers - it is your money you can sue whoever you want.
But you cannot purposefully wait just so every one starts using the patented technology and then start suing. There is a legal theory called "laches" that prevents that.
I am not sure whether latches applies here, though i dont want to bother to check it out.
Cetainly the NSA are secret but we can have reasonably guesses as to what technology they use.
I think it is silly to suppose that they have quantum computers or some other exotic super computer.
And with current technology decrypting because completely impractical as long as your key is long enough.
Yeah and suppose when crypto restrictions get imposed the terrorists will stop using crypto because it is now illegal.
This is an argument most governments do or will try to use in order to spy on their citizens and it is completely bogus.
The courts may (probably will) uphold the gpl, but they usually refrain from granting extraudinary remedies.
Thus if one has already taken gpled code out of their program the courts will not require that person to submit their whole program to the gpl. But if that person is being stupid and insists on keeping gpled code in their program the courts may order them to realease their code.
For this reason the FSF cant change their mind too much.
By the way this is not legal advice and i am not a lawyer just my guess as to how things may go.
you will be asked to remove the GPLd code you used. If you remove that code you will not lose your rights to the other code because:
a) the fsf and its general council have clearly stated that they will give people chance to remove GPLed code.
b) no court will force you to surrender your code if you stop the breach of the GPL.
So the whole "you may accidentaly lose all your IP" story is a bunch of bs.
Thats like saying that using a bank for your personal finances is dangerous because in the event that you rob the bank you may have to return the money you stole.
didnt read your whole message. i guessi was wrong.
I am pretty sure it comes from "rob" a word that in Russian and most other slavic languages means slave. I am not sure who came up with it though. Probably Azimov.
Paul van Dyke
they want to keep the condition where they talk and the others listen.
I think the reason is that american media is the largest creator of content in the world, and they are affraid of losing that.
So they try to keep hirarchical distribution networks.
A Korean cable network would probably not care what is going trough their cables, as long as people are paying.
In the us timewarner has a shitload of tv channels, movies, etc to push trough their cables, so they do care.
Also in the us, while almost every building is cable ready, there are only a few cable companies that are monopolies and provide pretty mediocre internet service.
it is still in service but it gets practicaly rebuilt after every flight.
there is a lot of corruption in NASA's spending, but i dont think overpayed engineers are a big problem. Space engineers arent that well paid afaik, and they are quite necessary.
i think corporations that overbill the govt are more of a problem.
the article does not say that currently the space station is not able to do much meaningful research, but it says that it cannot do enough.
Also the heading suggests that the space station is failing as a tool of science and that is just not true - it is completely capable of being a tool of science with increased funding. And that increased funding seems to be much less than the initial 30 b cost.
As far as mission to mars is concerned, considering NAsa's track record of cost overruns, a manned mission to mars will cost much more than 30 B.
Unfortunately the overcrowded courts are very willing to enforce arbitration awards.
So the winner can easily get a judgement from the court.
nobody has to look at a website. If it offends you then dont look at it.
Usually religions bitching about "being offended" are just putting on a PR to cover up their attempts to control speach.
Like the muslims that offered a price for the head of salmon Rushdie and then they said it is ok because he offended islam on purpose.
Being offended is part of living in a society with free speach. Half the times i post on slashdot some idiot offends me. So what.
And the great thing about the internet is that you dont have to be offended. There is nothing on the internet, that you are required to see. You dont have to look at anything that offends you.
Anybody that attempts to cencor the internet because they were offended is a liar. They just want to limit other people's ability to reach information.
all he has to do is knock off Lucas, and then say as his best friend Lucas would have wanted him to direct the next star wars.
Just like he did with kubrick and AI:)
in any event he might as well after seeing TPM even spielberg would be an improvement.
and no i have not seen aotc.
"but the end result is the people who are hungry steal from those who have food."
exactly and a good idea would be not to have hungry people. Your way of dealing with the problem is that you just arm yourself and protect yourself. Well if you have enough hungry people that usually does not work. And eventually you may decide that it might be a good idea to keep people content.
By the way your statement about socialists is not entirely correct. Many socialists are well to do people that merely show care about their fellow human beings. Just because you do not have such feelings does not mean you should attack them.
so what if you are the next to die? would you be worried? or would you be ok with it because too many people are alive anyways.
i think you you would be at least a little bit worried. And dont say "it wont happen to me, it will only happen to brown people in other countries" because that's just stupid. I can give numerous examples where groups of people that have hoped to delegate misery and suffering to the unwashed masses have had their heads severed by those masses.
So ask your self would you think it is unfair if you were the next to die as a result of over population.
If you answer yes, then you shouldnt flame people that are at least trying to find another way.
If they were "wild speculations" they would not have anything to do with Job's pronouncements, so they couldnt diminish their surprise.
By the time we know something more concrete, we may be already too late.
Witness MS's practice of sneaking things into routine software upgrades.
In any event a patent should be as concrete as you need, because it should enable one to practice the invention.