By the way, asshole - it was a culture that UNDERVALUES female's consent that led to this.
She did not consent, yet all over the web you'll see on every news site thousands of comments blaming HER for creating the problem.
But she didn't. She did NOT CONSENT. But when females don't consent, there are always plenty of males who don't give a fuck and proceed to harass and abuse and insult and sexualize and objectify anyway.
They are required to because cable companies use public rights of way for their cables. The rights of way are typically controlled by the city, and the city generally requires that the company serve the general public interest if they are going to get to use the rights of way.
Serving the general public interest included providing the over-the-air channels that they get FREE and that they are allowed to rebroadcast for FREE in order to make sure that people don't have to have cable AND rabbit ears. Cable companies WANTED to include local channels, and they generally don't PAY for them.
So they don't get to CHARGE for them since the originator of the programming gets nothing from them.
Satellite companies use public airwaves for their transmissions.
The commons is rapidly (and immorally) becoming privatized. Rights-of-way, eminent domain being used to give property to private companies, increasingly intrusive IP laws and the weakening of fair use, etc.
If the cable company doesn't want to feel like the owe the community something, then they can tear out and take down the cables that they run through the community's property.
If someone is murdering me I will be dead, yes. They will have taken my life. That does not mean they are taking away my right to be alive.
People of African ancestry in the US had all of the same rights as every other person. That they lived under a criminal oppression doesn't change that.
They did not gain rights in 1865, they did not gain rights in the 1960s.
What happened is others stopped violating some of them. Their rights were not granted, they were finally RECOGNIZED.
You are not granted rights. Government does not grant rights, it recognizes them.
If you are in the US, please learn that the Constitution is NOT an enumeration of the rights of people, it's an enumeration of the rights of GOVERNMENT. All rights not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
Read the tenth amendment.
Do you REALLY want to live in a world where what rights you have are decided by someone else? Granted by government? Taken away by government?
"It's a dangerous trend that will threaten the budding Internet-based video business â" whether from Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Windows Store, or Google Play..."
That's exactly WHY they are doing this. Not because they can't handle the traffic, but because they have their own competing plans.
They're blocking the competition from their pipes. They don't want to be a utility, a dumb pipe, they want to be a content delivery system - THEIR content.
These companies mostly use public rights of way (in the case of cable, fiber) and broadcast spectrum and municipal tower site regulations (cell), and they are licensed with a requirement to comply with the best needs of the community in order to get that use and its built-in virtual monopoly.
Municipalities can and do need to demand network neutrality from these companies or revoke their charter to operate in that municipality.
Yes, Bush was the worst on this. Until Obama. Bush never asserted the right to have US citizens killed at his own discretion (though I doubt that his not claiming that right would have stopped him.)
Obama DOES assert that right. That is an escalation.
(R) or (D) is not a factor here. It's just that what is, is.
I am a medical marijuana patient in California. I also was a habitual pot user 25 years ago when I was a teen, for about a year.
I agree that "harmless" is a stupid thing to call anything that you ignite and inhale into your lungs, and would concede that it might be mildly physically addictive.
If so, however, it is FAR less physically addictive that caffeine (coffee, soda). The withdrawal symptoms, if any, are FAR less severe than those of a Starbucks addict going cold turkey.
As far as psychologically addictive, there is no such thing. Addiction is bio-chemical. You cannot be "addicted" to gambling, shopping, masturbation, etc. These are compulsive behaviors - they are NOT addiction. That is not meant to insult sufferers, compulsive behavior patterns are an illness and are FAR worse to deal with than simple physical addition. With physical addiction, you simply need to detox.
But compulsive behavior cannot be blamed on the object of that compulsion, whether it be cannabis, eBay shopping, sex, or collecting beanie babies.
Beanie babies are not a gateway drug. But they have bankrupted people and destroyed lives. Ban THEM? Of course not.
If anything can be said to be addictive about these things, it is an addiction to brain chemicals the behaviors cause the release of. If you are addicted to your own serotonin, you are NOT a "stamp collecting addict."
You need treatment, but stamps are not the cause.
Cannabis, if it has a physical addiction component, has one that is far less severe than many substances that have no regulation whatsoever, and are sold to kids in machines in some of their High Schools.
That depends on your meaning of the word "computing."
People already HAVE long since done more "computing" on other devices than on the PC. They use microwave ovens.
As long as you use "computing" to mean the use of any device or appliance with a CPU, then watches, pocket calculators, MP# players, GPS units, your CAR, satellite radio, bread machine, digital wall thermostat and any other thing can be heralded as signalling the "end of the PC era."
Whereas if you define "computing" as doing productive work, the PC era is still in its infancy.
All I'm saying is that IF someone wants to be sure they can grab your hard drive without you destroying it, they have to do it FAST.
Which is what's WRONG with these police powers, they use this fact to justify busting in with guns... because they have a legitimate reason to IF we grant that they should have the right to seize hard drives in the first place in cases like this. I disagree with this, but the fact remains.
I have read statements from people who leave their hard drive outside the case for that very reason - they can grab it quickly.
I've destroyed a few obsolete drives myself experimentally. All a person would have to do is have their HD outside the case with a 22 caliber concrete nailer they got from Home Depot to quickly put several nails straight through the case and platters, most likely shattering the platters to bits in the process.
Silly scenario? Sure, maybe - BUT if the police assume that the person expects to be raided, they sure might imagine such scenarios and design their raid accordingly.
I'm not saying it's good or just or fair, but if you see their mindset it's hardly surprising or unexpected. Quite the opposite - if you are in a position to fear being raided, you'd be silly NOT to expect these tactics.
Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)
And when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.
I agree on over-application of force and wouldn't disagree with the argument that the raid may not have been necessary in the first place, and I personally hate and distrust cops and want their powers scaled back......but if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.
Common sense? Actual knowledge of how the consumer electronics market works will tell you that the product price is determined by how much the company has determined the targeted consumer is willing to spend... adjusted periodically due to competition... and that that profit margin is already as high as they feel they can make it, ads or no ads.
The ads are added because they add revenue and amazon has determined that people will put up with them. If amazon determined that people would put up with ads on every book page, there would be ads on every page.
If they determined that most people would pay a $9.99 per month fee to use the device, there would be a $9.99 fee.
Remember, you're talking about a company that had as an initial big attraction the fact that it had an army of unpaid volunteer laborers it could exploit with them adding value to every product Amazon sells... reviews.
Wait... You have a bad year, trees are stressed and thus don't overproduce sap, and so we suck what sap they manage to make out of them if it wont run.
Slashdot Mirror
The culture of consent led to this?!?!?!
Are you saying that what we need is NON-consent?
By the way, asshole - it was a culture that UNDERVALUES female's consent that led to this.
She did not consent, yet all over the web you'll see on every news site thousands of comments blaming HER for creating the problem.
But she didn't. She did NOT CONSENT. But when females don't consent, there are always plenty of males who don't give a fuck and proceed to harass and abuse and insult and sexualize and objectify anyway.
They are required to because cable companies use public rights of way for their cables. The rights of way are typically controlled by the city, and the city generally requires that the company serve the general public interest if they are going to get to use the rights of way.
Serving the general public interest included providing the over-the-air channels that they get FREE and that they are allowed to rebroadcast for FREE in order to make sure that people don't have to have cable AND rabbit ears. Cable companies WANTED to include local channels, and they generally don't PAY for them.
So they don't get to CHARGE for them since the originator of the programming gets nothing from them.
Satellite companies use public airwaves for their transmissions.
The commons is rapidly (and immorally) becoming privatized.
Rights-of-way, eminent domain being used to give property to private companies, increasingly intrusive IP laws and the weakening of fair use, etc.
If the cable company doesn't want to feel like the owe the community something, then they can tear out and take down the cables that they run through the community's property.
is like expecting McDonald's to protect the lives of beef cattle.
Who the hell gives out their real birthdate and real zip code to sites?
IP addess - now that's something else entirely.
I have been born in years ranging from 1898 to 1989, according to what I tell any software or website.
Hell, I even have those grocery store discount cards they track you with, but I have no idea what names and addresses I filled out on the forms.
This "one and only free country in the world"???
You are an ignorant nationalistic idiot. Your opinion is of less than no value.
If someone is murdering me I will be dead, yes. They will have taken my life. That does not mean they are taking away my right to be alive.
People of African ancestry in the US had all of the same rights as every other person.
That they lived under a criminal oppression doesn't change that.
They did not gain rights in 1865, they did not gain rights in the 1960s.
What happened is others stopped violating some of them. Their rights were not granted, they were finally RECOGNIZED.
You are not granted rights.
Government does not grant rights, it recognizes them.
If you are in the US, please learn that the Constitution is NOT an enumeration of the rights of people, it's an enumeration of the rights of GOVERNMENT. All rights not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
Read the tenth amendment.
Do you REALLY want to live in a world where what rights you have are decided by someone else? Granted by government? Taken away by government?
They can pry my cd burner from my cold dead hands.
You can't be bigoted against an idea.
All ideas and concepts are fair game for critique. The ones that fail are discarded.
If the holders of an idea declare that idea off-limits for critique, their idea automatically loses.
"It's a dangerous trend that will threaten the budding Internet-based video business â" whether from Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Windows Store, or Google Play..."
That's exactly WHY they are doing this. Not because they can't handle the traffic, but because they have their own competing plans.
They're blocking the competition from their pipes. They don't want to be a utility, a dumb pipe, they want to be a content delivery system - THEIR content.
These companies mostly use public rights of way (in the case of cable, fiber) and broadcast spectrum and municipal tower site regulations (cell), and they are licensed with a requirement to comply with the best needs of the community in order to get that use and its built-in virtual monopoly.
Municipalities can and do need to demand network neutrality from these companies or revoke their charter to operate in that municipality.
Miley Cyrus is the best?
You are naive.
Actually, it's more like if you are in the 1%, you get records made and make money on them.
If you are in the next 2 or 3 percent, you get records made but don;t make any money or even end up owing a label in the end.
If you are in the rest of the 95+% of musicians, you play bars - if you're lucky.
Yes, Bush was the worst on this. Until Obama.
Bush never asserted the right to have US citizens killed at his own discretion (though I doubt that his not claiming that right would have stopped him.)
Obama DOES assert that right. That is an escalation.
(R) or (D) is not a factor here. It's just that what is, is.
Don't be silly.
Obama could already order him killed without any official designation as enemy of state.
Even if he was a US citizen.
I realize that our civil rights are changing rapidly, Do please try to keep up.
Yep, and I am one of them. I am compulsive. I have tried, sometimes very successfully, to channel that compulsion into productive activities.
For me, cannabis actually helps me chill out and CONTROL that behavior which otherwise has often overturned my life chaotically.
I am a medical marijuana patient in California.
I also was a habitual pot user 25 years ago when I was a teen, for about a year.
I agree that "harmless" is a stupid thing to call anything that you ignite and inhale into your lungs, and would concede that it might be mildly physically addictive.
If so, however, it is FAR less physically addictive that caffeine (coffee, soda). The withdrawal symptoms, if any, are FAR less severe than those of a Starbucks addict going cold turkey.
As far as psychologically addictive, there is no such thing. Addiction is bio-chemical. You cannot be "addicted" to gambling, shopping, masturbation, etc. These are compulsive behaviors - they are NOT addiction. That is not meant to insult sufferers, compulsive behavior patterns are an illness and are FAR worse to deal with than simple physical addition. With physical addiction, you simply need to detox.
But compulsive behavior cannot be blamed on the object of that compulsion, whether it be cannabis, eBay shopping, sex, or collecting beanie babies.
Beanie babies are not a gateway drug. But they have bankrupted people and destroyed lives. Ban THEM? Of course not.
If anything can be said to be addictive about these things, it is an addiction to brain chemicals the behaviors cause the release of. If you are addicted to your own serotonin, you are NOT a "stamp collecting addict."
You need treatment, but stamps are not the cause.
Cannabis, if it has a physical addiction component, has one that is far less severe than many substances that have no regulation whatsoever, and are sold to kids in machines in some of their High Schools.
Religions are always profitable.
That depends on your meaning of the word "computing."
People already HAVE long since done more "computing" on other devices than on the PC. They use microwave ovens.
As long as you use "computing" to mean the use of any device or appliance with a CPU, then watches, pocket calculators, MP# players, GPS units, your CAR, satellite radio, bread machine, digital wall thermostat and any other thing can be heralded as signalling the "end of the PC era."
Whereas if you define "computing" as doing productive work, the PC era is still in its infancy.
I totally agree with you about law enforcement.
All I'm saying is that IF someone wants to be sure they can grab your hard drive without you destroying it, they have to do it FAST.
Which is what's WRONG with these police powers, they use this fact to justify busting in with guns... because they have a legitimate reason to IF we grant that they should have the right to seize hard drives in the first place in cases like this. I disagree with this, but the fact remains.
I have read statements from people who leave their hard drive outside the case for that very reason - they can grab it quickly.
I've destroyed a few obsolete drives myself experimentally.
All a person would have to do is have their HD outside the case with a 22 caliber concrete nailer they got from Home Depot to quickly put several nails straight through the case and platters, most likely shattering the platters to bits in the process.
Silly scenario? Sure, maybe - BUT if the police assume that the person expects to be raided, they sure might imagine such scenarios and design their raid accordingly.
I'm not saying it's good or just or fair, but if you see their mindset it's hardly surprising or unexpected. Quite the opposite - if you are in a position to fear being raided, you'd be silly NOT to expect these tactics.
I'm not defending the raid, but yes, you DO.
Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)
And when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.
I agree on over-application of force and wouldn't disagree with the argument that the raid may not have been necessary in the first place, and I personally hate and distrust cops and want their powers scaled back... ...but if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.
Actually its more likely they wanted the surprise so that no hard drives could be wiped.
Pretty standard for computer-related stuff.
Not if you actually look at the cost of the electronics. The profit margin is healthy.
It's not about price, it's about "price point." Big difference.
Common sense?
Actual knowledge of how the consumer electronics market works will tell you that the product price is determined by how much the company has determined the targeted consumer is willing to spend... adjusted periodically due to competition... and that that profit margin is already as high as they feel they can make it, ads or no ads.
The ads are added because they add revenue and amazon has determined that people will put up with them. If amazon determined that people would put up with ads on every book page, there would be ads on every page.
If they determined that most people would pay a $9.99 per month fee to use the device, there would be a $9.99 fee.
Remember, you're talking about a company that had as an initial big attraction the fact that it had an army of unpaid volunteer laborers it could exploit with them adding value to every product Amazon sells... reviews.
Nothing like a free sales force.
You're right! Using this means there might be another intelligence agency monitoring your activities besides just the CIA.
Wait...
You have a bad year, trees are stressed and thus don't overproduce sap, and so we suck what sap they manage to make out of them if it wont run.
Hmmm.
Nope, no possible downsides.