They belong to us! Do not sell them to rich corporates that then monopolize,horde and charge ridiculous fees. As long as you people sit on your hands and don't organize then the dream will never happen.
Youtube may have been first but their video is crap. It's very pixelated.
Censorship on youtube is growing. You can't comment anymore on controversial subjects: No more immediate posting of comments. It's crap. Don't even get me started on 'no commentable' videos.
Also what about the phony fake actors thinking it's their ticket to fame.
And the crappy videos everywhere that have no purpose but SPAM.
Youtube sucks. Please use an Alternative like Blip.tv or Stage6. Both are better quality also.
No it's not. Whenever you ask just a computer program to weed out spam , it will always be outwitted by average human intelligence.
There are websites strictly devoted to google ranking.
Let me add this about Google. The google corporation really isn't 100% innovative. Their search uses common links to rank. This has led to evolution of the spammers. They load their pages with links to spam. So my point to slashdot is......
If google is so damn loaded with money and that their search tech uses common user links, why not pay people/moderators for 'quality' links to information?
The penalties are not fair and way excessive. The Mpaa has records of all P2p filesharing transactions throught 3rd parties who monitor. Penalties should be spread around to everyone and no a few. $10-20 fine would be good.
Many people object to the application of copyright to not for profit (or at a loss) distribution or redistribution of copyrighted works. When copyright was created, it was to prevent book publishers from taking an author's work, publishing it, and making profits from the sales of that work without giving a cent back to the author. However, when financial gain isn't involved, as in peer-to-peer file sharing, many feel that copyright is absurd, as no one is truly gaining from the distribution, because ideas, which copyright "protects", are naturally free, just as speech is naturally free--unless the creator of the ideas chooses to keep them secret and outside of public knowledge and distribution. In a similar vein, some argue that since sharing a copy of their data costs nothing, it would be unethical to not share when someone else asks for a copy.
It is no different than people wanting municipal water,roads or electricity. There is only one resource and it shouldn't be hoarded by a single company. The public is uneducated about this and thinks that giving the monopoly over for a sum of money is a good deal but where do you think the companies get the money to pay these prices? By billing the customer. All the FCC is doing is shifting "taxes" from something the tax payer is able to notice to a bump in the price you pay for a service. It's much easier to take citizens' money when they aren't aware the government is doing it.
This artificial monopoly only hurts new technologies while providing phone companies to block out competition which would reduce prices. The auction & the monopoly keep prices high which I am against.
The public doesn't own the airwaves. It's owned by corporate america because they are the only ones that can afford the ridiculous auction prices. What would happen to the average citizen if they broadcast something on unused piece of spectrum owned by the private sector? If you guessed thrown to jail, you would be right.
The government coffers are really *our* coffers in that the government uses this money to provide us with public goods that we like to consume. If the government did not receive this money from the auctions then it would have to raise the cash necessary to provide these public goods in other less desirable ways, such as raising taxes.
You may find it shocking but maybe our government spends money excessively just to buy votes. Some political experts do suggest this as happening. And if the government is so good with our money then lets give them 'all' of our money. That would surely solve all of our problems.
Selling the right to use the spectrum at auction and then allowing the market with competition to decide the outcome yields the best and most fair result for everyone. You will have your cheap phone for everyone much faster, and at a much better price, from the market than you would from government control and central planning. Remember here that wireless spectrum is not entangled in "natural monopoly" scenarios with last mile physical infrastructure problems so the market is much more able to reach the optimal result more quickly than might be the case in fiber optic or cables and other utilities.
Creating a monopoly for just 'ONE COMPANY' to horde spectrum does not equal the free market. The gov makes makes a buck and that doesn't always filter down to average Joe citizen
A better idea is to free and democrotize our spectrum much like the internet or even better than the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
phone. Alot of people wont let you use their cell phone.
Your F**Ked.
Get rid of it.
It has no social value at all.
It's basically owned by Payola by commercial interests. It's one giant infomercial to the record companies.
Exactly. Shilling toys for kids. $$$=greedy Lucas.
Mark Cuban owns an HD channel. The internet is really starting to gain marketshare of peoples tv time and they are worried.
There is now a push for HD on the internet and therefore Mark Cuban is saying all his stupid rants.
Don't trust him
They belong to us! Do not sell them to rich corporates that then monopolize,horde and charge ridiculous fees. As long as you people sit on your hands and don't organize then the dream will never happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum
Youtube may have been first but their video is crap. It's very pixelated.
Censorship on youtube is growing. You can't comment anymore on controversial subjects: No more immediate posting of comments. It's crap. Don't even get me started on 'no commentable' videos.
Also what about the phony fake actors thinking it's their ticket to fame.
And the crappy videos everywhere that have no purpose but SPAM.
Youtube sucks. Please use an Alternative like Blip.tv or Stage6. Both are better quality also.
What i don't like about this is that only one person was targetted when it's actually a lot of people.
She downloaded these songs from someone and others downloaded from her.
No it's not. Whenever you ask just a computer program to weed out spam , it will always be outwitted by average human intelligence.
There are websites strictly devoted to google ranking.
Let me add this about Google. The google corporation really isn't 100% innovative. Their search uses common links to rank. This has led to evolution of the spammers. They load their pages with links to spam. So my point to slashdot is......
If google is so damn loaded with money and that their search tech uses common user links, why not pay people/moderators for 'quality' links to information?
No. We need the public to buy it since we never owned it in the first place and create an open network.
And find out which ones better.
Are you seriously trying to compare an Iphone to music which is mass produced onto plastic discs?
Try comparing it to photographing a photo or taping a concert and NOT SELLING the music.
Your analogies are weak.
No no. I didn't explain that part.
10 to 20 for individual downloaders. Not huge fines for a single uploader.
The penalties are not fair and way excessive. The Mpaa has records of all P2p filesharing transactions throught 3rd parties who monitor. Penalties should be spread around to everyone and no a few. $10-20 fine would be good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Many people object to the application of copyright to not for profit (or at a loss) distribution or redistribution of copyrighted works. When copyright was created, it was to prevent book publishers from taking an author's work, publishing it, and making profits from the sales of that work without giving a cent back to the author. However, when financial gain isn't involved, as in peer-to-peer file sharing, many feel that copyright is absurd, as no one is truly gaining from the distribution, because ideas, which copyright "protects", are naturally free, just as speech is naturally free--unless the creator of the ideas chooses to keep them secret and outside of public knowledge and distribution. In a similar vein, some argue that since sharing a copy of their data costs nothing, it would be unethical to not share when someone else asks for a copy.
Has anyone here even searched some common stuff like opening a business.
All it gets you is spammed commercial businesses.
All the hype that google gets is undeserved.
There is no more clean uncommercial information on google search. It's all been tainted.
This is what you get for believing using links on websites as indicators of quality results.
Time to find something better. Turn off that firefox auto google search too while your at it.
We need internet FAST ENOUGH(which it isn't) that we can hire indian doctors for the poor.
Thats right. I am sure outsourcing to india would save the lower incomes a good penny.
Robotic Surgery with a doctor all the way in India or China?
Sounds good to me. I am sure the medical lobby will deem it too dangerous since they care for us so much.
Checked it and said nothing.
Is it achieving real space flight?
Trying to get the russian share of billionaires wanting to go to space.
Linux? Bsd? Billsoft?
On these boards. Abrams or writers are reading here.
Use opengl.
These game producers are idiots.
You got what you wanted when you only support Microsoft.
They got you by the balls.
Because games don't work on them.
Maybe a hybrid os with a dual boot with reactos?
It is no different than people wanting municipal water,roads or electricity. There is only one resource and it shouldn't be hoarded by a single company. The public is uneducated about this and thinks that giving the monopoly over for a sum of money is a good deal but where do you think the companies get the money to pay these prices? By billing the customer. All the FCC is doing is shifting "taxes" from something the tax payer is able to notice to a bump in the price you pay for a service. It's much easier to take citizens' money when they aren't aware the government is doing it.
This artificial monopoly only hurts new technologies while providing phone companies to block out competition which would reduce prices. The auction & the monopoly keep prices high which I am against.
Who doesn't need a phone.
The spectrum belongs to me and everyone else in america.
Not just the ATT FCC lobbyist.
openspectrum.org
yo you asshole.
The public doesn't own the airwaves. It's owned by corporate america because they are the only ones that can afford the ridiculous auction prices. What would happen to the average citizen if they broadcast something on unused piece of spectrum owned by the private sector? If you guessed thrown to jail, you would be right.
The government coffers are really *our* coffers in that the government uses this money to provide us with public goods that we like to consume. If the government did not receive this money from the auctions then it would have to raise the cash necessary to provide these public goods in other less desirable ways, such as raising taxes.
You may find it shocking but maybe our government spends money excessively just to buy votes. Some political experts do suggest this as happening. And if the government is so good with our money then lets give them 'all' of our money. That would surely solve all of our problems.
Selling the right to use the spectrum at auction and then allowing the market with competition to decide the outcome yields the best and most fair result for everyone. You will have your cheap phone for everyone much faster, and at a much better price, from the market than you would from government control and central planning. Remember here that wireless spectrum is not entangled in "natural monopoly" scenarios with last mile physical infrastructure problems so the market is much more able to reach the optimal result more quickly than might be the case in fiber optic or cables and other utilities.
Creating a monopoly for just 'ONE COMPANY' to horde spectrum does not equal the free market. The gov makes makes a buck and that doesn't always filter down to average Joe citizen
A better idea is to free and democrotize our spectrum much like the internet or even better than the internet.