It is quite obvious that eating plants is essentially healthier. See, animals can be nutritious, but only because they get their nutrients from the plants (or carnivores get their nutrients from other animals who get it from plants). This just means we aren't getting it from the source.
Ok, so eat plants, but you are missing out. Where do you think plants get their nutrients from? The soil. So, if you want the real thing, the most nutritious substance in the world, without any loss by transfer - then eat dirt.
What? You don't like the taste? Not much we can do about that. I don't like the taste of veggies, so I guess we're even there.
Too much potential for bacteria or viral infection? Start a program to sterilize and prepackage the dirt.
In my opinion, vegitarians are just another extremist group who think that just because a living thing isn't conscious or has a brain then it is right to slaughter them. A farm is a death camp for vegitables, it's that simple.
And with carnivores killing other animals every day as their sole source of food, it's hard for me to find any moral issues with being an omnivore.
"Customers Rate PC Vendors' Tech Support"
Hmmm, perhaps that's why I called it customer support or customer sales support Who's not reading what?
"In any event, that entire ordeal soured me to Dell."
Dell handling it bad doesn't give me a reason to be soured, etc, etc, etc (etc) Can you be any more confusing?
"When you appreciate a company until you have one bad experience."
I plainly said that the reason I wouldn't order another computer from Dell... Appreciation and repeat buisiness are two totally different things.
You also try to defend yourself by saying they were wrong for treating you the way they did. I actually said, "I am not justifying their actions," and so I am not saying you were wrong on that part, nor that they were wrong. The way I see it, your credit was denied. Companies give preference to the paying customers. Saying, "I bought two computers before and now I want another one," doesn't put you high on their priority if you failed to shell out the money when requested. So, they put you on hold and deal with the paying customers first, such as those who are buying three computers at once (or three hundred).
I agree that they were wrong to give you a runaround like that, I do not agree that it was entirely their fault. It's a shame the way those with low credit limits or little on hand cash get treated. Few people who are not in financial trouble ever experience that. Consider yourself enlightened.
Microsoft didn't go to Dell and tell them they couldn't sell PCs with other OSes or they wouldn't sell them Windows any more.
What makes you so sure? If they did do it that way, Dell would see the following options:
Sign the contract, or
Give up selling M$Windows pre-installed.
Under the circumstances, where giving up on M$Windows all together would lose 95% of your customers and drop you far from being the top PC seller, Dell would definiately choose option (1).
M$ sees this, and they write up the contract. Dell doesn't have much of a choice, unless there was competiton (in which case Dell could see greater profit potential in using the competing OSes as opposed to eliminating them).
I hate when people do this. When you appreciate a company until you have one bad experience. I am not justifying their actions, but what obligation do they have to someone who tried to buy something without paying? Explain "brain fart" to your debtors.
It's so easy to blame the company, but what did you do wrong? You tried to exceed your credit limit whether intentionally or not.
This isn't even Tech Support. you pay for tech support when you purchase the product, so the support technicians are definately getting paid. But how do you pay for support to non-customers who's payment couldn't be processed? They really had no obligation to you at all.
Usually with a plea bargain, and with out of court settlements, the criminal must do some service to the people. For example, if you get pegged for drug possession or use, you may be able to get out of it by revealing substantial information on the dealer. Get pegged for dealing, and you may get off in exchange for substantial information on the supplier.
I do not agree with outlawing drugs, but this seems to be an appropriate means of control. I se nothing wrong with any situation where you can get to and prosecute the root of the criminal action in exchange for the pardon of what is actually a symptom.
Unfortunately, as with the issue with the FTC, this is not always the case. They show nothing that even comes close to an effort to prosecute the source of the problem. The agreement states that Microsoft did in fact commit the crime. It mentions nothing involving the existance of anything more serious, such as conspiricy, corruption, etc.
So the fact remains that this particular agreement falls short of benefiting the people, but out-of-court settlements are not always like that.
FTC
Office of the Secretary
600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
RE: Microsoft Passport Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to inform you of my disappointment with the recent Microsoft Passport Settlement.
This settlement charged Microsoft with false representation on several parts, but my concern deals with the fact that the settlement lacks a penalty. Instead, it includes:
(I)... shall not misrepresent in any manner... its information practices...
a. They should have been following this from the beginning, not waiting until after they get caught.
b. They should not have to sign an agreement to obey the law.
c. This is basically saying "Don't do it again."
(II)... establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program...
a. They must have had such a program, or one very similar, already in place if there was originally any security at all.
(III)... obtain... an assessment and report from a... third-party professional...
a. It should be further stated that the third party must not have done work with Microsoft prior to, during, or in between these assessments other than this specific series of assessments, thereby avoiding any potential bias in the assessments.
b. Furthermore, it should be added that the third party must not receive any payment, gift, or benefit from Microsoft other than the exact dollar amount, which should be stated clearly in the agreement, for payment of the assessment, which cannot be raised or lowered without the FTC's approval. This measure is necessary to assure that there will be no form of bribery or additional compensation between Microsoft and the third party.
(IV)... upon request make available to the Federal Trade Commision...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(V)... deliver a copy of this order to all current and future...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(VI)... notify the commission... of any change in the corporation...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(VII)... file... a report... setting forth... the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(VIII) This order will terminate 20 years...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
The measures set forth in this agreement are essentially those that prohibit the reoccurrence of such a violation that inspired this very agreement. Nowhere in the agreement is there any penalty for violation of a federal law, such a fine or prison term. If a fine is pursued, then it should be a set amount, relative to the gross profits of the company, so that future violations by any company, regardless of the size or nature of the company, could be treated similarly and on similar terms and without bias or discrimination.
Thank you for taking the time to give serious consideration to the issues I have presented. I hope that justice will prevail.
Spammers hide by using fake "from" addresses and relaying their messages through anonymous mail servers in places like China.
This sounds very deceptive, so wouldn't a reasonable law to impose be that what the "from" line says must be true? If you are sending something to me, I want to know who you are.
Once we know where it's coming from, we can reply to say we don't want any more messages. In fact, set it up as an auto-reply-delete for that address. Then, if they don't follow through wih your request to stop the mailings, they get the same message again and the spam is deleted, you wouldn't even have to see it.
She mentions how the RIAA sees internet piracy as a "serious problem." I don't see how they can get away with that.
For example, I can (potentially, not necisarily legally) take a poem from a book and run it on a copy machine x times. Then I can hand them out like flyers, post them around town, or even give them to people who ask me for it.
I had teachers and professors who copied pages and pages for teaching purposes. In the end, if I liked it, I bought the book and trashed the copies. Reasons: Obvious quality difference, completeness, reliability, convinience, etc.
The differences I see in internet file sharing are that the consumers are using the technology before the prodviders, and the exchange is easier and less demanding on resourses.
When we start paying for the bandwidth we use, people will be more skeptical about downloading what looks like Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" but may turn out to be a chopped up N'Street-Degrees song overdubbed with teletubby quotes.
Offer me a reliable high quality downlad for 25 cents, then you got a customer. The RIAA may have a high percentage of the CD/Cassette market share, but they apparently have 0% (?) of the MP3 market. If there is no MP3 market, why can we buy portable MP3 players? You can get a hardrive in your car instead of a CD or Cassette deck.
The way I see it, the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.
So you are willing to let millions die, to save a few thousand?
Exactly.
Why not do both?
It's probably too expensive.
My girlfirend struggles to feed her two children. She budgets herself and cuts corners wherever possible. She goes through the insane amount of paperwork and interviews for government assistance. She pays only $175 for rent per month to her mother if she has the money to do so. She receives child support from her ex-husband (whom she left after pressing legal charges, not from some bull like lack of interest).
Yet, if it weren't for me she would have lost her car for not being able to pay the relatively low payment, and would have lost her liscense for not being able to pay car insurance, and maybe even lost her job for not being able to get there and work the scheduled hours (which is where the transportation becomes very important).
I can go into more detail, but my point should be clear. The US government should be primarily conscerned about US citizens. I don't want to hear about other countries when here in the US people like my girlfriend are struggling day to day ever since they made the move to leave an abusive mate.
Also note that she is definately NOT the worst case in this country. There are other people in different situations, but the same still applies.
There are very few, in any, places in this country where you could rent a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage. A lot of people on/. are making $20 or $30 or $40 per hour. Not me. In fact, I'm making twice what my girlfriend makes per hour and I was regected at every apartment complex I went to.
So, don't tell me about any other country's problems while my fellow United Statesians are suffering.
I had a clever reply to this, but as I was reading the preview, the browser window closed. Or I closed it inadvertantly. Or something. So, I will try to summarize.
Please understand, I have an involuntary habit of not relaying my thoughts effectively.
My solution was meant as an illustration of one of many solutions if resources permit such a solution.
Democracy has a broad range of conotations, such as those which can be used to determine that the US is not a democracy or those that clasify China as a democracy. What the CIA thinks is meaningless. What is important is that the nation practices a democratic philosophy and experiences minimal corruption.
A nation in famine that turns down a food source because it can planted and harvested is definately corrupt. Are the leaders of these countries starving? I doubt it.
Is it in the People's best interest to reject this food source? Absolutely not, and so it can not be called a democratic response (regardless of what the CIA wants to call the nation as a whole).
You said: Not donating money or food to save lives because it won't help long term is just as cynical as not giving people medical treatment because they'll die soon enough anyway... I completely disagree. Famine is nature's populations control. As Steve Irwin (the Crodile Hunter) would say, "That's nature's way." If I remember correctly, 95% of all known species are extinct. Remember what Darwin said? Survival of the fittest is nature's way. If the nation can't hold itself together, why would we want it to stick around? Because they're human? That must be it, since an over population of deer results in hunting season. I'm not saying kill them all. I'm not saying let them cannibalize. I'm saying that if they are having trouble, they should ask for help. It is not our responsibility to watch over them.
You also say: And you seem to believe that there aren't starvation in democratic capitalist countries, which is another fundamentally flawed assumption. On the contrary, I know that there is famine even in the US (although not mass famine) which is exactly why we need to stop worrying about these other countries. Instead of sending our food and money elsewhere, we should be giving it to the poor and hungry in our own country.
Yes this is my own opinion, but I don't see it flawed anywhere. I could be wrong or blind or whatever, so I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I just really don't see any legit reason to be throwing our resources into these countries. I feel strongly against it (which scares me because I feel strongly against not feeling strongly about anything). Sometimes the best way to help someone (or some country) is to leave them alone.
There is one thing you need to understand about starvation in non-democratic nations. They consider it a Good Thing (tm) because it allows them to passively kill off the minorities. Do you think everyone in these contries are starving? People starve because the government allows it.
The reason this doesn't happen in places like the US is because... as if I really need to explain this to you... those in power are in power because the people chose them, so piss them off and you'll be out of work.
Capitalism also helps. Where there is a demand for something (food) there is someone willing to deliver the supply (being that the demanders have the money, of course).
As for the starving nations... Got a problem with some (ethnic, geographical, religous, etc) group in your country? Deprive them of food. You bet the government officials aren't starving.
Had this been a democratic capitalistic country, the solution would be simple: stick a supermarket in the troubled areas and issue food stamps to the poor. The supermarket will get the food there because it can profit from it. Plus, you jump-started the economy by creating jobs. Those working there are rich compared to the other locals. Other shops will spawn up around the supermarket for these new "wealthy" individuals to spend their money. More jobs, more money, more jobs... more supermarkets. If there is food somewhere in the world, the supermarkets will obtain and sell it.
This is why I will never donate food or money to the needy in other countries. It nurtures the symptoms with a temporary relief that decreases the desire for self-dependence, and avoids addressing the cause. The government turned down corn? No surprise, but not for patent issues. The government doesn't need the corn, the people do. In these countries the government is not the people, otherwise they would be a democracy.
Help the needy in your own country. The US doesn't have mass famine, but there are still many people who can't afford to live up to our (admittedly high) standard of living. A dual income minimum wage family can't afford to rent in most places. Our problems may not be as widespread, but we are more likely to discover cold fusion than to solve mass famine in another country.
This actually makes sense to me. (Don't flame me for taking a different opinion)
First of all, the way it was set up before was not fair. My mom, who uses the internet only to send email (that's all she knows how to do with it anyway) would be paying the same amount that I would be paying to play online video games, downloading whatever into My Pants, and transfering whatever to whoever (and all that pr0n when my wife is away) et cetera et cetera.
Yeah yeah, I know: if she wants to just send email, then she should use dial-up. But she shouldn't have to. Dial-up is a totally different service, requiring tying up your phone line or paying for another phone line. On top of that, it requires you to (duh) dial out - a concept to complicated for my mother. She needs it Always On.
The way I see it, she has been paying to support bandwith hogs like myself (and I am not as bad a hog as many others are - I haven't networked computers at home since I left my college roomates).
I would honestly be more worried about their Networking Policy (you need to pay for additional IP addresses, etc.) than to complain about not getting a free ride anymore.
[FYI: I find it compelling to add another tidbit on the irrationality of my parents. They are paying AOL dial-up, Earthlink dial-up, MSN dial-up, and Comcast cable internet. They only use the cable. I have told them twice to get rid of those they don't use. "But we use Earthlink - that's what comes up (reffering to their home page) when we go online (reffering to opening IE).]
If landlines aren't being used much anymore, it makes sense to me that their price would increase. (ie: not enough customers to cover expenses) I don't know if this is the whole case in Japan, but I would think that it would be a factor.
In other words (and for the fun of illustration, NOT to insult your intelligence), say a service you provide costs you $1000/month regardless of the number of customers. With 1000 customers, you can make a 100% profit by charging them $2/month. But if you only have ten customers (maybe because your customers found a better and more convenient service), then you would need to charge them $100/month just to break even.
Of course, if your cost is relative to your customer base, then this philosophy may have little effect on you. On the other hand, there aren't many businesses that I can think of that can stay in business and hold competitive prices if they don't have enough customers.
Who needs domain names? You can very easily 123.12 the 1.11.4 in the 3.2.56 and instantly 88.76.122.5 any 47.3.44.111 without any dificulty what so ever!
a public that seems pretty satisfied with traditional analog TVs
I am far from satisfied. TV is so 20th century. I have no use for it. A computer is comparitive in cost and can do so much more, and has a much better resolution. Sell me a 40" computer monitor, not a 40" TV.
Making TV digital? Come on! Computers are already there!
HDTV? Give me a break! Just an oversized computer monitor with the wrong video jacks.
My computer sound goes from my sound card and into my receiver, just as though it were a TV. Plus I have surround sound 3Dfx in video games (I can actually hear which direction the screams are coming from).
Downgrade to a TV? Are you nuts? I'm surprised people still buy those ancient pieces of junk.
I got a lot of stuff from my grandfather because he was moving and had stuff where he was moving, and I was moving and had nothing. Unfortunately I am now burdened with a TV. I will need to worry about where I am going to keep it. Living room? No, that's where the PC entertainment center is. Bedroom? Nope, that's for the PC workstation. Basement? Nope, that's for the server. I will need to keep it in storage just in case a use comes up for it.
This is exactly what the US needs. More options. It's so limited now. If you are lucky you can choose from a set of one (1) cable ISP. We need to see more of this in the communications industry. It would be nice, for example, to see cell phones cost comparitively close to land lines, if not cheaper. Japan can do it, so can we. We just need more far-sighted people.
In the exemptions to circumvention, the Librarian of Congress includes:
Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
The obsolence of Win95 prohibts me from installing new software. Would this give me the legal right to circumvent the security measures that prohibit me from making the proper adjustments to the OS to allow said program to install and run properly?
If it appears that there's a reasonable chance the judge will rule against the bad guys, then the bad guys will drop the charges right before the ruling.
The keyword here: IF. They will not drop charges unless it is clear that the judge is favoring the "good guy." And if they do drop the case?
End result? No precedent...
This is not entirely true. Yes, there will not be any legal ruling to help you in your case against the DMCA. But you can still obtain the information on the trial and model your defense after it. It's all on record.
Plus, if a company sees that 95% of these cases get dropped with no ruling, then they are a lot less likely to take legal action.
Pacemaker stopped? Don't worry! The hospital is automatically contacted and an ambulance is on the way. All thanks to the Internet and GPS. (Meanwhile, we get to keep track of where you are so that we can enhance the marketing power of our company and our "affiliates.")
Car stolen? Have no fear! We caught the thief on video and identified him before he even had a chance to start the car, which he won't be able to do anyway since his facial structure doesn't match yours. (Furthermore, if anyone other than you is to drive your car, you will have to register them as additional drivers, therby increasing registration fees and insurance costs. Oh yeah, did we mention the EULA you signed at the dealership? Each additional driver will cost you another $20k)
Wish you didn't have to make dinner everynight? Your prayers are answered! Our new, government patented refrigerovefreezewavestoventry will do it all for you! It stores and manages all your food, including monitoring expiration dates and printing out shopping lists. Choose predefined or custom recipes at the push of a button and your job is done! New recipes are downloded off the internet. Shopping lists can be submitted to a delivery service at the push of a button. (All recipes entered into the system become the property of the Acme Corporation. Your eating habits will be recorded for marketing and health insurance purposes.)
Slashdot Mirror
It is quite obvious that eating plants is essentially healthier. See, animals can be nutritious, but only because they get their nutrients from the plants (or carnivores get their nutrients from other animals who get it from plants). This just means we aren't getting it from the source.
Ok, so eat plants, but you are missing out. Where do you think plants get their nutrients from? The soil. So, if you want the real thing, the most nutritious substance in the world, without any loss by transfer - then eat dirt.
What? You don't like the taste? Not much we can do about that. I don't like the taste of veggies, so I guess we're even there.
Too much potential for bacteria or viral infection? Start a program to sterilize and prepackage the dirt.
In my opinion, vegitarians are just another extremist group who think that just because a living thing isn't conscious or has a brain then it is right to slaughter them. A farm is a death camp for vegitables, it's that simple.
And with carnivores killing other animals every day as their sole source of food, it's hard for me to find any moral issues with being an omnivore.
"Customers Rate PC Vendors' Tech Support"
Hmmm, perhaps that's why I called it customer support or customer sales support
Who's not reading what?
"In any event, that entire ordeal soured me to Dell."
Dell handling it bad doesn't give me a reason to be soured, etc, etc, etc (etc)
Can you be any more confusing?
"When you appreciate a company until you have one bad experience." ...
I plainly said that the reason I wouldn't order another computer from Dell
Appreciation and repeat buisiness are two totally different things.
You also try to defend yourself by saying they were wrong for treating you the way they did. I actually said, "I am not justifying their actions," and so I am not saying you were wrong on that part, nor that they were wrong. The way I see it, your credit was denied. Companies give preference to the paying customers. Saying, "I bought two computers before and now I want another one," doesn't put you high on their priority if you failed to shell out the money when requested. So, they put you on hold and deal with the paying customers first, such as those who are buying three computers at once (or three hundred).
I agree that they were wrong to give you a runaround like that, I do not agree that it was entirely their fault. It's a shame the way those with low credit limits or little on hand cash get treated. Few people who are not in financial trouble ever experience that. Consider yourself enlightened.
Microsoft didn't go to Dell and tell them they couldn't sell PCs with other OSes or they wouldn't sell them Windows any more.
What makes you so sure? If they did do it that way, Dell would see the following options:
Under the circumstances, where giving up on M$Windows all together would lose 95% of your customers and drop you far from being the top PC seller, Dell would definiately choose option (1).
M$ sees this, and they write up the contract. Dell doesn't have much of a choice, unless there was competiton (in which case Dell could see greater profit potential in using the competing OSes as opposed to eliminating them).
I hate when people do this. When you appreciate a company until you have one bad experience. I am not justifying their actions, but what obligation do they have to someone who tried to buy something without paying? Explain "brain fart" to your debtors.
It's so easy to blame the company, but what did you do wrong? You tried to exceed your credit limit whether intentionally or not.
This isn't even Tech Support. you pay for tech support when you purchase the product, so the support technicians are definately getting paid. But how do you pay for support to non-customers who's payment couldn't be processed? They really had no obligation to you at all.
Usually with a plea bargain, and with out of court settlements, the criminal must do some service to the people. For example, if you get pegged for drug possession or use, you may be able to get out of it by revealing substantial information on the dealer. Get pegged for dealing, and you may get off in exchange for substantial information on the supplier.
I do not agree with outlawing drugs, but this seems to be an appropriate means of control. I se nothing wrong with any situation where you can get to and prosecute the root of the criminal action in exchange for the pardon of what is actually a symptom.
Unfortunately, as with the issue with the FTC, this is not always the case. They show nothing that even comes close to an effort to prosecute the source of the problem. The agreement states that Microsoft did in fact commit the crime. It mentions nothing involving the existance of anything more serious, such as conspiricy, corruption, etc.
So the fact remains that this particular agreement falls short of benefiting the people, but out-of-court settlements are not always like that.
FTC
Office of the Secretary
600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
RE: Microsoft Passport Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to inform you of my disappointment with the recent Microsoft Passport Settlement.
This settlement charged Microsoft with false representation on several parts, but my concern deals with the fact that the settlement lacks a penalty. Instead, it includes:
(I) ... shall not misrepresent in any manner ... its information practices ...
a. They should have been following this from the beginning, not waiting until after they get caught.
b. They should not have to sign an agreement to obey the law.
c. This is basically saying "Don't do it again."
(II) ... establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program ...
a. They must have had such a program, or one very similar, already in place if there was originally any security at all.
(III) ... obtain ... an assessment and report from a ... third-party professional ...
a. It should be further stated that the third party must not have done work with Microsoft prior to, during, or in between these assessments other than this specific series of assessments, thereby avoiding any potential bias in the assessments.
b. Furthermore, it should be added that the third party must not receive any payment, gift, or benefit from Microsoft other than the exact dollar amount, which should be stated clearly in the agreement, for payment of the assessment, which cannot be raised or lowered without the FTC's approval. This measure is necessary to assure that there will be no form of bribery or additional compensation between Microsoft and the third party.
(IV) ... upon request make available to the Federal Trade Commision ...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(V) ... deliver a copy of this order to all current and future ...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(VI) ... notify the commission ... of any change in the corporation ...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(VII) ... file ... a report ... setting forth ... the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
(VIII) This order will terminate 20 years ...
a. I currently have no complaints on this section.
The measures set forth in this agreement are essentially those that prohibit the reoccurrence of such a violation that inspired this very agreement. Nowhere in the agreement is there any penalty for violation of a federal law, such a fine or prison term. If a fine is pursued, then it should be a set amount, relative to the gross profits of the company, so that future violations by any company, regardless of the size or nature of the company, could be treated similarly and on similar terms and without bias or discrimination.
Thank you for taking the time to give serious consideration to the issues I have presented. I hope that justice will prevail.
Signed,
[hand signed here]
--
Spammers hide by using fake "from" addresses and relaying their messages through anonymous mail servers in places like China.
This sounds very deceptive, so wouldn't a reasonable law to impose be that what the "from" line says must be true? If you are sending something to me, I want to know who you are.
Once we know where it's coming from, we can reply to say we don't want any more messages. In fact, set it up as an auto-reply-delete for that address. Then, if they don't follow through wih your request to stop the mailings, they get the same message again and the spam is deleted, you wouldn't even have to see it.
This is obviously what they want to avoid.
She mentions how the RIAA sees internet piracy as a "serious problem." I don't see how they can get away with that.
For example, I can (potentially, not necisarily legally) take a poem from a book and run it on a copy machine x times. Then I can hand them out like flyers, post them around town, or even give them to people who ask me for it.
I had teachers and professors who copied pages and pages for teaching purposes. In the end, if I liked it, I bought the book and trashed the copies. Reasons: Obvious quality difference, completeness, reliability, convinience, etc.
The differences I see in internet file sharing are that the consumers are using the technology before the prodviders, and the exchange is easier and less demanding on resourses.
When we start paying for the bandwidth we use, people will be more skeptical about downloading what looks like Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" but may turn out to be a chopped up N'Street-Degrees song overdubbed with teletubby quotes.
Offer me a reliable high quality downlad for 25 cents, then you got a customer. The RIAA may have a high percentage of the CD/Cassette market share, but they apparently have 0% (?) of the MP3 market. If there is no MP3 market, why can we buy portable MP3 players? You can get a hardrive in your car instead of a CD or Cassette deck.
The way I see it, the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.
I thought a super computer was a gigaflop, and we're talking about a teraflop being almost a supercomputer? Is this right or am I misinformed?
You're equating humanity with animals...
That's correct.
So you are willing to let millions die, to save a few thousand?
Exactly.
Why not do both?
It's probably too expensive.
My girlfirend struggles to feed her two children. She budgets herself and cuts corners wherever possible. She goes through the insane amount of paperwork and interviews for government assistance. She pays only $175 for rent per month to her mother if she has the money to do so. She receives child support from her ex-husband (whom she left after pressing legal charges, not from some bull like lack of interest).
Yet, if it weren't for me she would have lost her car for not being able to pay the relatively low payment, and would have lost her liscense for not being able to pay car insurance, and maybe even lost her job for not being able to get there and work the scheduled hours (which is where the transportation becomes very important).
I can go into more detail, but my point should be clear. The US government should be primarily conscerned about US citizens. I don't want to hear about other countries when here in the US people like my girlfriend are struggling day to day ever since they made the move to leave an abusive mate.
Also note that she is definately NOT the worst case in this country. There are other people in different situations, but the same still applies.
There are very few, in any, places in this country where you could rent a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage. A lot of people on /. are making $20 or $30 or $40 per hour. Not me. In fact, I'm making twice what my girlfriend makes per hour and I was regected at every apartment complex I went to.
So, don't tell me about any other country's problems while my fellow United Statesians are suffering.
I had a clever reply to this, but as I was reading the preview, the browser window closed. Or I closed it inadvertantly. Or something. So, I will try to summarize.
Yes this is my own opinion, but I don't see it flawed anywhere. I could be wrong or blind or whatever, so I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I just really don't see any legit reason to be throwing our resources into these countries. I feel strongly against it (which scares me because I feel strongly against not feeling strongly about anything). Sometimes the best way to help someone (or some country) is to leave them alone.
There is one thing you need to understand about starvation in non-democratic nations. They consider it a Good Thing (tm) because it allows them to passively kill off the minorities. Do you think everyone in these contries are starving? People starve because the government allows it.
The reason this doesn't happen in places like the US is because ... as if I really need to explain this to you ... those in power are in power because the people chose them, so piss them off and you'll be out of work.
Capitalism also helps. Where there is a demand for something (food) there is someone willing to deliver the supply (being that the demanders have the money, of course).
As for the starving nations... Got a problem with some (ethnic, geographical, religous, etc) group in your country? Deprive them of food. You bet the government officials aren't starving.
Had this been a democratic capitalistic country, the solution would be simple: stick a supermarket in the troubled areas and issue food stamps to the poor. The supermarket will get the food there because it can profit from it. Plus, you jump-started the economy by creating jobs. Those working there are rich compared to the other locals. Other shops will spawn up around the supermarket for these new "wealthy" individuals to spend their money. More jobs, more money, more jobs... more supermarkets. If there is food somewhere in the world, the supermarkets will obtain and sell it.
This is why I will never donate food or money to the needy in other countries. It nurtures the symptoms with a temporary relief that decreases the desire for self-dependence, and avoids addressing the cause. The government turned down corn? No surprise, but not for patent issues. The government doesn't need the corn, the people do. In these countries the government is not the people, otherwise they would be a democracy.
Help the needy in your own country. The US doesn't have mass famine, but there are still many people who can't afford to live up to our (admittedly high) standard of living. A dual income minimum wage family can't afford to rent in most places. Our problems may not be as widespread, but we are more likely to discover cold fusion than to solve mass famine in another country.
This actually makes sense to me. (Don't flame me for taking a different opinion)
First of all, the way it was set up before was not fair. My mom, who uses the internet only to send email (that's all she knows how to do with it anyway) would be paying the same amount that I would be paying to play online video games, downloading whatever into My Pants, and transfering whatever to whoever (and all that pr0n when my wife is away) et cetera et cetera.
Yeah yeah, I know: if she wants to just send email, then she should use dial-up. But she shouldn't have to. Dial-up is a totally different service, requiring tying up your phone line or paying for another phone line. On top of that, it requires you to (duh) dial out - a concept to complicated for my mother. She needs it Always On.
The way I see it, she has been paying to support bandwith hogs like myself (and I am not as bad a hog as many others are - I haven't networked computers at home since I left my college roomates).
I would honestly be more worried about their Networking Policy (you need to pay for additional IP addresses, etc.) than to complain about not getting a free ride anymore.
[FYI: I find it compelling to add another tidbit on the irrationality of my parents. They are paying AOL dial-up, Earthlink dial-up, MSN dial-up, and Comcast cable internet. They only use the cable. I have told them twice to get rid of those they don't use. "But we use Earthlink - that's what comes up (reffering to their home page) when we go online (reffering to opening IE).]
If landlines aren't being used much anymore, it makes sense to me that their price would increase. (ie: not enough customers to cover expenses) I don't know if this is the whole case in Japan, but I would think that it would be a factor.
In other words (and for the fun of illustration, NOT to insult your intelligence), say a service you provide costs you $1000/month regardless of the number of customers. With 1000 customers, you can make a 100% profit by charging them $2/month. But if you only have ten customers (maybe because your customers found a better and more convenient service), then you would need to charge them $100/month just to break even.
Of course, if your cost is relative to your customer base, then this philosophy may have little effect on you. On the other hand, there aren't many businesses that I can think of that can stay in business and hold competitive prices if they don't have enough customers.
repel mosquitoes, cockroaches, and rats
I am much more worried about repelling Mo$quitoes and RIAAts.
Who needs domain names? You can very easily 123.12 the 1.11.4 in the 3.2.56 and instantly 88.76.122.5 any 47.3.44.111 without any dificulty what so ever!
a public that seems pretty satisfied with traditional analog TVs
I am far from satisfied. TV is so 20th century. I have no use for it. A computer is comparitive in cost and can do so much more, and has a much better resolution. Sell me a 40" computer monitor, not a 40" TV.
Making TV digital? Come on! Computers are already there!
HDTV? Give me a break! Just an oversized computer monitor with the wrong video jacks.
My computer sound goes from my sound card and into my receiver, just as though it were a TV. Plus I have surround sound 3Dfx in video games (I can actually hear which direction the screams are coming from).
Downgrade to a TV? Are you nuts? I'm surprised people still buy those ancient pieces of junk.
I got a lot of stuff from my grandfather because he was moving and had stuff where he was moving, and I was moving and had nothing. Unfortunately I am now burdened with a TV. I will need to worry about where I am going to keep it. Living room? No, that's where the PC entertainment center is. Bedroom? Nope, that's for the PC workstation. Basement? Nope, that's for the server. I will need to keep it in storage just in case a use comes up for it.
This is exactly what the US needs. More options. It's so limited now. If you are lucky you can choose from a set of one (1) cable ISP. We need to see more of this in the communications industry. It would be nice, for example, to see cell phones cost comparitively close to land lines, if not cheaper. Japan can do it, so can we. We just need more far-sighted people.
Superdisk
In the exemptions to circumvention, the Librarian of Congress includes:
Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
The obsolence of Win95 prohibts me from installing new software. Would this give me the legal right to circumvent the security measures that prohibit me from making the proper adjustments to the OS to allow said program to install and run properly?
Or am I misinterpreting this?
If it appears that there's a reasonable chance the judge will rule against the bad guys, then the bad guys will drop the charges right before the ruling.
The keyword here: IF. They will not drop charges unless it is clear that the judge is favoring the "good guy." And if they do drop the case?
End result? No precedent...
This is not entirely true. Yes, there will not be any legal ruling to help you in your case against the DMCA. But you can still obtain the information on the trial and model your defense after it. It's all on record.
Plus, if a company sees that 95% of these cases get dropped with no ruling, then they are a lot less likely to take legal action.
Pacemaker stopped? Don't worry! The hospital is automatically contacted and an ambulance is on the way. All thanks to the Internet and GPS. (Meanwhile, we get to keep track of where you are so that we can enhance the marketing power of our company and our "affiliates.")
Car stolen? Have no fear! We caught the thief on video and identified him before he even had a chance to start the car, which he won't be able to do anyway since his facial structure doesn't match yours. (Furthermore, if anyone other than you is to drive your car, you will have to register them as additional drivers, therby increasing registration fees and insurance costs. Oh yeah, did we mention the EULA you signed at the dealership? Each additional driver will cost you another $20k)
Wish you didn't have to make dinner everynight? Your prayers are answered! Our new, government patented refrigerovefreezewavestoventry will do it all for you! It stores and manages all your food, including monitoring expiration dates and printing out shopping lists. Choose predefined or custom recipes at the push of a button and your job is done! New recipes are downloded off the internet. Shopping lists can be submitted to a delivery service at the push of a button. (All recipes entered into the system become the property of the Acme Corporation. Your eating habits will be recorded for marketing and health insurance purposes.)
My favorite line, from the policy:
This portion of the policy alone, if used by everyone, could really hurt M$ and finally bring fair competition to the common desktop pc.
What will I do with my gigabit ethernet card when school is out?
If you really want to end Spam globally rather than just on your own account...
-- use a blacklist in conjuction with auto reply --
Therefore, repetitive spammers will be repetedly spammed!