Opening up all those networks sounds like a great idea until you realize that it'll drive all the smaller players out of the business entirely. The big players can always undercut the smaller players on price, or offer MORE features for the same price. Always. Economies of scale and all that.
If the FCC mandates that cable providers open up their lines to other providers, then at some point we'll ALL be paying AT&T for our phone/TV/internet service. Didn't we break them up 20 years ago?
You know all those little goofball utilites that perform some really simple but ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY function and are $25 time-limited shareware on the Mac? There are at least 50 *free* versions for Windows.
China has cheap labor combined with advanced manufacturing facilities. Cheap labor = more profits, regardless of the product.
Yeah, China's government is pure evil. But generally speaking, the CEO/stockholders of any given corporation really don't give a shit about human rights, or fair trade, or any of that stuff. Profits trump all of that. Actually, that's not true. PERSONAL WEALTH trumps all of that.
Seriously. The ISP I work for buys it's bandwidth from AT&T, but this week I'm talking to the boss about dumping them. The whole "we're going to charge Google to send data to our customers" thing was bad enough, and now we find out they're collaborating with the fucking NSA? Monitorying OUR traffic without telling us?
Screw AT&T. They aren't going to get my companies money, and I expect that I'm not the only one who is going to ditch them.
And, truly, modern business is all about cutting out the middle-man. And why not? Especially if they really aren't adding any value?
All theatres do is take a cut. Why should they continue to get that cut if nobody needs them anymore?
There will still be room for "nice" theatres, and so-called "dinner theaters" like the Alamo Drafthouse or whatever, but the chains are gonna die. And good riddance.
They generally know NOTHING about actually running/securing/tweaking/customizing their workstation. They know how to program. They know how to use the applications they need to use. That's IT.
A programmer that really knows how to USE his computer is a rarity. That's why so much software has a terrible interface. Programmers aren't users.
As a desktop distro, it sucks pretty hard. But for servers, it's great. It seems that *every* piece of server-oriented software is designed with Fedora/Red Hat in mind.
Well, being able to run unauthorized code would mean that the "rip your Xbox 360 game to the hard drive" apps would be just around the corner.
I think thats what MS is really worried about. Copying DVDs is still kind of a process, and not THAT many people have DVD burners. But if you can rip any game you rent to the hard drive (as you can on the Xbox), then you open up the doors for "casual" piracy.
Hell, softmodding your Xbox is so pitifully easy that you'd be nuts to *not* do it. MS doesn't want that situation with the 360.
$60 isn't that bad. Yeah, it *should* be cheaper. But think of it as $2/day. That's like buying a bottle or two of soda every day, and MANY people do that without thinking about the cost.
At some point, in order for OUR economy to grow, we have to bring the rest of the world up to speed. Most of the world lives in poverty. That has to change.
Of course, until everyone is up to speed, shoving jobs to third-world countries means that developed countries are going to see a LONG period of economic depression. And, of course, the corporations and their CEOs are STILL going to get richer, becaues their labor costs will plummet at the same time their sales increase.
Still, it has to happen eventually. It's just gonna suck for the U.S. and Europe.
Current DRM schemes prevent people from doing things they used to be able to do. Things they WANT to be able to do.
For what? So-called "pirates" aren't hindered by DRM in any real way. The only people that it affects are the average consumers that the media producers rely on for almost all of thier revenue.
What it amounts to is, the media companies HATE the idea of distributing stuff over the internet. It bypasses their ENTIRE distribution network, their entire marketing network, everything. Seriously, how many people in the record industry would lose their jobs if CDs went away?
Re:It's nice to see improved benchmarks, but...
on
MacBook Pro Benchmarks
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Yeah, yeah.
You're not fooling anyone. We all know that every time you boot your antiquated G4, you think about selling one of your kidneys to buy a new MacBook.
Why haven't we stopped all diplomatic relations with China? Why haven't we imposed trade sanctions?
Oh, right, China supplies us with cheap manufactured goods, and makes various U.S. companies richer.
Apparently, being a totalitarian, human-rights-suppressing government is *perfectly fine* with the United States as long as you supply us with lots of cheap goods. Oh, and buy up our debt so we can continue our fiscally irresponsible ways.
Why would the hosting company allow anyone on their system that sends spam? That would be part of the "verification" process I talked about: if you, as a hosting provider, are known to allow all kinds of spammers to use your system, you don't get on.
Yeah, you could still have individual USERS sign-up for e-mail accounts, and use those to send spam, but those accounts can easily be deactivated. Plus, how many spammers are going to pay for a new e-mail account every day, just to send out a few thousand spam mails before they get de-activated?
As far needing to run your own mailserver because your ISP/employer/whoever has a crappy one...
Again, that would be part of the verification process. There would be STANDARDS for what a mailserver has to support/not support. There wouldn't BE any "bad" mailservers, because they wouldn't pass the tests.
To my mind, the whole problem with the current e-mail system is that there is no accountability at any level. It's impossible to point fingers at anyone. Until that is fixed, spam won't go away.
Seriously. Just create a central database of "valid" mail servers. Require anyone that wants to run a mail server to pay $25/year, and go through a "verification" process that shows they aren't spammers, and that their servers are setup correctly.
Anytime an e-mail is sent, the receiver checks to see if they're in this "master database", if not, their mail is dumped. Obviously, you'd have some kind of public key encryption going on to prevent spoofing.
Now, creating a central authority for mail servers would be difficult, but it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to change things on the CLIENT side.
As for those of you saying "But I want to run my OWN mailserver! Why should I have to pay! And what if I want to run it in a way that doesn't meet the standards!".
Well...fuck off. You don't need to run your own mailserver. There's just no valid reason to do so.
EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war. Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.
Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.
They're popping up a dialog box that says "To view this site, you must install the "Fuck My Computer Up Beyond Recognition" ActiveX Control". Please click "Yes" to continue."
Sad but true. Most people just blindly click "OK, YES, I AGREE". There's no good way to stop that.
In order to be allowed through, the company that is paying to have their mail allowed through the filter has to PROVE that they aren't spamming. They have to show that they are complying with "anti-spam" laws and such.
Very few spammers are going to pass that test. And even if they could, none of them are going to want to pay to send e-mail. The whole reason most spammers are in business is that e-mail is essentially free. If they have to pay for each mail sent, they aren't going to be able to send out 40 million e-mails every day. They'd go broke.
Personally, I think it's a good idea. Why should mass-emails for marketing purposes be FREE? Every other kind of mass-marketing costs money.
And remember, this ONLY affects mass-mailers. It won't affect individuals at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Opening up all those networks sounds like a great idea until you realize that it'll drive all the smaller players out of the business entirely. The big players can always undercut the smaller players on price, or offer MORE features for the same price. Always. Economies of scale and all that.
If the FCC mandates that cable providers open up their lines to other providers, then at some point we'll ALL be paying AT&T for our phone/TV/internet service. Didn't we break them up 20 years ago?
So, there are people that play WoW that *aren't* homosexual? I don't believe it.
;)
You know all those little goofball utilites that perform some really simple but ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY function and are $25 time-limited shareware on the Mac? There are at least 50 *free* versions for Windows.
China has cheap labor combined with advanced manufacturing facilities. Cheap labor = more profits, regardless of the product.
Yeah, China's government is pure evil. But generally speaking, the CEO/stockholders of any given corporation really don't give a shit about human rights, or fair trade, or any of that stuff. Profits trump all of that. Actually, that's not true. PERSONAL WEALTH trumps all of that.
Seriously. The ISP I work for buys it's bandwidth from AT&T, but this week I'm talking to the boss about dumping them. The whole "we're going to charge Google to send data to our customers" thing was bad enough, and now we find out they're collaborating with the fucking NSA? Monitorying OUR traffic without telling us?
Screw AT&T. They aren't going to get my companies money, and I expect that I'm not the only one who is going to ditch them.
They should be sued into oblivion.
Oh please.
Do I sue Ford when someone steals my Mustang? They obviously didn't make it secure enough.
Actually, most companies wouldn't have released a product with such obvious bugs in the FIRST place.
It's not like Apple was re-inventing the wheel. It's an Intel-based notebook. They've been around a while.
And, truly, modern business is all about cutting out the middle-man. And why not? Especially if they really aren't adding any value?
All theatres do is take a cut. Why should they continue to get that cut if nobody needs them anymore?
There will still be room for "nice" theatres, and so-called "dinner theaters" like the Alamo Drafthouse or whatever, but the chains are gonna die. And good riddance.
Have you ever worked with programmers?
They generally know NOTHING about actually running/securing/tweaking/customizing their workstation. They know how to program. They know how to use the applications they need to use. That's IT.
A programmer that really knows how to USE his computer is a rarity. That's why so much software has a terrible interface. Programmers aren't users.
Something has to be *good* before it can jump the shark.
The "Lord of the Rings" was never good. Neither the books *or* the movies.
Seriously. Have any of you 'LoTR' fans ever read a REAL book? I just can't comprehend how anyone can like those pieces of shit. They're unbearable.
As a desktop distro, it sucks pretty hard. But for servers, it's great. It seems that *every* piece of server-oriented software is designed with Fedora/Red Hat in mind.
Well, being able to run unauthorized code would mean that the "rip your Xbox 360 game to the hard drive" apps would be just around the corner.
I think thats what MS is really worried about. Copying DVDs is still kind of a process, and not THAT many people have DVD burners. But if you can rip any game you rent to the hard drive (as you can on the Xbox), then you open up the doors for "casual" piracy.
Hell, softmodding your Xbox is so pitifully easy that you'd be nuts to *not* do it. MS doesn't want that situation with the 360.
$60 isn't that bad. Yeah, it *should* be cheaper. But think of it as $2/day. That's like buying a bottle or two of soda every day, and MANY people do that without thinking about the cost.
If you need it, $60/month isn't a big expense.
Yeah, that's going too far, but so what? It's just a game. No one gets hurt. Nobody *can* get hurt, because there are no real people involved.
If we let our government start banning things that might give us "impure thoughts", then we're fucked.
You are wrong:
e .html
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalon
Right on the main Quicktime download page.
At some point, in order for OUR economy to grow, we have to bring the rest of the world up to speed. Most of the world lives in poverty. That has to change.
Of course, until everyone is up to speed, shoving jobs to third-world countries means that developed countries are going to see a LONG period of economic depression. And, of course, the corporations and their CEOs are STILL going to get richer, becaues their labor costs will plummet at the same time their sales increase.
Still, it has to happen eventually. It's just gonna suck for the U.S. and Europe.
It's the implementation.
Current DRM schemes prevent people from doing things they used to be able to do. Things they WANT to be able to do.
For what? So-called "pirates" aren't hindered by DRM in any real way. The only people that it affects are the average consumers that the media producers rely on for almost all of thier revenue.
What it amounts to is, the media companies HATE the idea of distributing stuff over the internet. It bypasses their ENTIRE distribution network, their entire marketing network, everything. Seriously, how many people in the record industry would lose their jobs if CDs went away?
Yeah, yeah.
;)
You're not fooling anyone. We all know that every time you boot your antiquated G4, you think about selling one of your kidneys to buy a new MacBook.
Rationalization is a beatiful thing.
Why haven't we stopped all diplomatic relations with China? Why haven't we imposed trade sanctions?
Oh, right, China supplies us with cheap manufactured goods, and makes various U.S. companies richer.
Apparently, being a totalitarian, human-rights-suppressing government is *perfectly fine* with the United States as long as you supply us with lots of cheap goods. Oh, and buy up our debt so we can continue our fiscally irresponsible ways.
You know, like "guns for toys"?
Except it will be "GTA for BJs".
Why would the hosting company allow anyone on their system that sends spam? That would be part of the "verification" process I talked about: if you, as a hosting provider, are known to allow all kinds of spammers to use your system, you don't get on.
Yeah, you could still have individual USERS sign-up for e-mail accounts, and use those to send spam, but those accounts can easily be deactivated. Plus, how many spammers are going to pay for a new e-mail account every day, just to send out a few thousand spam mails before they get de-activated? As far needing to run your own mailserver because your ISP/employer/whoever has a crappy one...
Again, that would be part of the verification process. There would be STANDARDS for what a mailserver has to support/not support. There wouldn't BE any "bad" mailservers, because they wouldn't pass the tests.
To my mind, the whole problem with the current e-mail system is that there is no accountability at any level. It's impossible to point fingers at anyone. Until that is fixed, spam won't go away.
Seriously. Just create a central database of "valid" mail servers. Require anyone that wants to run a mail server to pay $25/year, and go through a "verification" process that shows they aren't spammers, and that their servers are setup correctly.
Anytime an e-mail is sent, the receiver checks to see if they're in this "master database", if not, their mail is dumped. Obviously, you'd have some kind of public key encryption going on to prevent spoofing.
Now, creating a central authority for mail servers would be difficult, but it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to change things on the CLIENT side.
As for those of you saying "But I want to run my OWN mailserver! Why should I have to pay! And what if I want to run it in a way that doesn't meet the standards!".
Well...fuck off. You don't need to run your own mailserver. There's just no valid reason to do so.
Don't be stupid.
EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war. Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.
Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.
What are they doing?
They're popping up a dialog box that says "To view this site, you must install the "Fuck My Computer Up Beyond Recognition" ActiveX Control". Please click "Yes" to continue."
Sad but true. Most people just blindly click "OK, YES, I AGREE". There's no good way to stop that.
In order to be allowed through, the company that is paying to have their mail allowed through the filter has to PROVE that they aren't spamming. They have to show that they are complying with "anti-spam" laws and such.
Very few spammers are going to pass that test. And even if they could, none of them are going to want to pay to send e-mail. The whole reason most spammers are in business is that e-mail is essentially free. If they have to pay for each mail sent, they aren't going to be able to send out 40 million e-mails every day. They'd go broke.
Personally, I think it's a good idea. Why should mass-emails for marketing purposes be FREE? Every other kind of mass-marketing costs money.
And remember, this ONLY affects mass-mailers. It won't affect individuals at all.