So what exactly is the difference between Cuba and China?
About 1.31 Billion people. That's the biggest difference right there.
Plus all the Cuban exiles that *want* us to sanction Cuba, vs. all the Chinese immigrants that *don't* want the US interfering in China's policies. There are Chinese dissidents that do support US sanctions against China, but they are generally in the minority among Chinese-Americans.
I don't think it's so much that Cuba won't let American corporations back in, it's just if they did come back in, the Cuban government would take all their shit (just like they took everybody's shit when Castro took over). That's pretty much the same policy for *any* corporation. You're not allowed to own assets there, whether you are a corporation or an entrepreneur or what have you. Kind of hard to run a business that way.
I thought it was kind of interesting how the housing works there now. Everybody has a place to live, but you're not really allowed to move around without some justification, and the waiting lists for changes is years long. So they have these housing "meet-up group" type things, where people that want something different get together and try to hook up with somebody that has what they want. Then they apply to the government to let them swap places. Funny how things like that develop to get around some of the rules. It's almost like they've developed an alternative "market" where they are not supposed to exist (or be needed) at all.
I'm perfectly willing to dump on AppleTV. It's deficient. Look at it as a replacement for a DVD player, it's an excellent product. But what I'd really prefer is an AppleTV with a ATSC tuner and DVR capability. That would be a product that would sell (I would definitely buy one, even if it added $200 to the price). I looked at the AppleTV when I decided to dump cable. It looked like a really nice. Anything I can put on my computer I can push to the AppleTV and watch. But then I need a separate Tuner and DVR.
I'm now looking at doing a MythTV or MediaCenter instead. It will give me 1 box with all the features I want, not just the rental/online stuff.
Actually, the device doesn't rely on strictly EEG-style "thoughts" waves. It has 3 sensors, one of which picks up electro encephalographic signals. The other 2 actually pick up your eye movements (electro oculographic), and facial muscles (electromyographic). So, in theory (and supposedly the thing works) it should be really good at controlling a mouse, or at least sending the cursor where you are looking.
The EEG signal is going to be the one that's the most difficult to learn. Because there is no common signal that is going to be the same for any person. It sounds like it's going to map to a game-pad style controls for games (Unreal Tournament was mentioned). Turn-shoot-jump is probably going to be easier to learn to control than "open spreadsheet" - "go to cell C45" - "enter $300".
If it has API it will rock as a secondary input system to mouse. You will be able to scroll through text/code just by looking, switch windows, copy paste - it has an enormous potential. Again, if it can be trained to work with 99.9% precision like a mouse. Forget having a secondary mouse--when can I type using this thing?
Yea, hopefully it *does* have an API. I've been watching this tech for a while, and considering trying to put together a device myself (and build my own drivers, etc.). This could be a really good starting point.
As far as typing, voice commands are still the way to go (and probably will be for at least the next 10 years). The open stuff is really far behind in this technology. Dragon's Naturally Speaking is by far the best software that I have found for doing voice commands and dictation. But I've found it has some limitations that could be overcome with a little code hacking - it just doesn't do everything the way I want it to.
Obviously, we're still a long way from making the keyboard and mouse anachronistic, but this is a good step in the right direction. The direct brain -> computer interface is definitely where the research needs to go. Just remember that to make it effective, you have to train your brain, which can take a long time. I mean look how long it took you to learn to use your hands. You don't remember it, but it really took a long time.
This is quite simply incorrect and illogical even. You say that Microsoft has a monopoly on Vista, this is true currently only because copyright law protects their monopoloy. The Grand-Parent Post was refering to if copyright didn't exist...
Assuming you've made the copies legally (i.e. copyright law doesn't exist) If copyright doesn't exist, Microsoft is no longer the only producer of valid Vista copies. There are now millions of people with the hardware, software, and legal rights needed to distrubute Vista.
Hmmm... you're right. I didn't even notice that.
It's kind of sad that a post completely ignores its parent post's premise, promotes an illogical argument, and still gets modded up to +5 insightful; simply because it takes the anti-IP stand.
Well, I don't think that that's entirely true. I don't think the entire argument was as illogical as the original one as you have interpreted it (correctly) - I mean, if copyright law didn't exist, not only would Vista not cost $400, it wouldn't exist at all. So I would say that's a pretty illogical argument right there (and probably why I gleaned over it).
Also, I don't necessary think my post was anti-IP, (I'm not), there just isn't any balance left anymore, and the system is being abused. IP laws are important, and will become more so if we can come up with some rational rules. 120-150 years for copyright; patents that cover obvious ideas just to extract money from people that work to implement those obvious ideas; Artists exploited into poverty while corporations and CEOs rake in millions from their work. We need to fix these things *now* before it's too late.
My first point is this: historically, as soon as widespread distribution of a media became possible, some method of protecting the works of content creators within that media followed.
Almost. That's what I thought, too. But if you study the history of copyright, it turns out that the actual authors had no qualms about giving away their work. In fact their primary motivation was wanting someone to read their stuff.
It was the owners of the printing presses (capitalists with the means of production) that lobbied for protection and exclusive rights to print a particular work.
So things haven't really changed that much. The artists just want their work available, and they are exploited by the elite.
(No matter how many copies I make of Vista Ultimate, it still sells for $400)
Perhaps that's true in the short term, but it's not in the long term. Assuming you've made the copies legally (i.e. copyright law doesn't exist), the value of Vista will go down due to supply and demand. If people can get Windows for free, no one (except the ignorant and those needing support contracts) would pay for it.
No, I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Diminishing returns only works on real goods, not state-supported monopolies. That's because in a free market the producers are "price-takers" - they accept the price the market sets based on supply and demand. Goods protected by copyright exist in monopoly markets, not free markets. Microsoft owns the monopoly on Vista, and thus are the "price-setter". If they say it's $400, it's $400.
Sorry, but this is just economics 101.
There needs to be a way for people to be compensated for the content they create. They may not be creating a tangible good, but you can't deny that they've put a lot of time into their creations. I'm a big fan of open source projects; many of them have been successful at earning their creators decent livings while they give away their code for free. Not every piece of intellectual property can work this way, however - you're not going to sell a support contract on a work of art or a musical composition, for example.
Let's face it - copyrights are necessary if we want the arts to continue to be a career option. While there are certainly many ways that the law is flawed, the underlying concept is not.
No, this is also wrong. People do *not* have a right to be compensated. Let's say I go out into a field (designated as a public resource) and dig a hole. A really big hole. I work 10 hours a day in the blazing sun and now there is a hole big enough for 2 or 3 olympic sized swimming pools.
I've put a *lot* of work into that hole. Who is going to pay me? Probably nobody, because nobody wants that hole. Just because you work hard on something doesn't mean it has value.
There was never an "industry" for things like books and recorded music for most of history, yet music and writing have existed for thousands of years. Cavemen painted on the walls of their caves. Nobody paid them, but it was still done.
Frankly, I think music in general would be a lot better if there weren't a bunch of corporations making widgets out of it.
Well now you're just being an ass. We were discussing "Hate Crime", not anti-discrimination. But go ahead and act like you don't know WTF the debate was about if you want to. But it really makes you look like an ass.
And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s they got to learn their place. One is an attack; the other is an attack intended to intimidate everyone like him.
So certain people get "special" protection. Because they are "special"? Because it's really difficult to determine motivation in these circumstances. If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?
Oh, wait... bald people are part of a "special", "protected" class. Well, that's just wrong, and it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections and privileges for their group ad infinitum.
The Constitution also expressly forbids this type of thing - in fact the principle of equal protection is even older. Everyone should get "Equal protection under the law". Period. Anything else is just a variation of "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
You are claiming that these countries installed the new infrastructure with more efficiency.
Not at all. I'm claiming that the overall market, regulatory scheme, and planning are more efficient. The struggle over corporate acquisitions, wrangling for exclusive right-of-ways, and navigating (and manipulating) the FCC policies and congressional regulations adds a lot of overhead. There's a lot more to it than just running some lines.
Neither one of us really has any data to back up our claims...
Speak for yourself. The evidence is clear. Check out the charts here. This article points out a number of issues that are causing the US to drop further behind the rest of the world in broadband deployments (and overall efficiency, BTW). There have been a number of studies that demonstrate that population density is *not* a significant factor.
There are other companies out there. Where I live the incumbent cable company is Cox. I have no trouble with them. I pay a bit less than $45/mo (not this $55/mo comcast bullshit) without purchasing any other services from them except cable modem service. I use an antenna to get broadcast TV and I have a cell phone.
Oh, cool, I'll just switch to Cox. Oh... wait. I *can't*. Where is this "competition" you refer to? Doesn't really seem to be working for most of us.
That's ridiculous. About 10 years ago you could as an average person get at best a dial-up connection that might (theoretically) be able to download at up to 56kbps (actually 53). If you wanted a little better you could pay for ISDN. If you wanted better than that you could pay for a T1.
Ok, that much is true. I had ISDN 10 years ago, and it was not real cheap. I paid $30/month, but with limited connection time (I don't remember my limit, but I never went over). Whenever I connected, though, I used the maximum bandwidth available. Why wouldn't I? I was charged by the minute.
I know for a fact they were making a profit. Same old copper lines that had been in the ground since 1962, and I had to pay $100 for the connection!
Today you can get a cable modem or DSL for not much more than you'd have paid for dial-up and probably less if you had a second phone line dedicated to your internet access. Technology advanced. The providers improved their infrastructure. Costs came down.
No - this is bullshit. More bandwidth, sure. But it's more expensive, too, and we paid for it in myriad ways (check out the $200 Billion Ripoff for example). I could get dial up for $10 a month (yea, plus phone line). Now I pay like $55/month, and it would be $15 more if I also didn't buy their "cable TV" service.
The sad fact is that what we have now is more or less what we can collectively afford. It's easy to point to more socialized states and say that a handful of them have faster internet connections. What you seem to fail to consider is that those faster connections were paid for. Most likely it costs the average person in one of those states a lot more for their internet connection, they just don't see it as a separate internet bill. If they do get an internet bill it's not really reflecting the true cost of providing the service.
This is speculative and complete bullshit. Just because other countries don't have schizophrenic policies ("it's a phone - no it's a data service - no it falls under this other rule") and corporations writing the laws so they favor their own monopolistic pricing doesn't mean they are subsidizing the costs. Those countries are just more *efficient*. The US is falling behind in data communication infrastructure - and it's not just anecdotal evidence that demonstrates it - it's a troubling trend.
Comcast alone makes about $1.2 Billion dollars in profit a year. Billion with a "B". Not revenue - *PROFIT*. I think they're doing just fine - maybe they should invest in a little more infrastructure instead of bitching about having to keep up with demand.
I'm no socialist - but Internet infrastructure needs to be either regulated or state supported. It's too critical to be left to these corporations that just want to slow everybody down!! If there was real competition, it might work to motivate these guys to make their customers happy. But there's not, so it doesn't.
If you can live with forcing everyone to pay several times what they're paying now for internet access we can do this too. But don't sit there and spout that we could do better without pointing out that it does actually cost more to do so. I personally find that my cable modem is fast enough and I don't want to pay more than I do per month. I especially don't want to have the money effectively hidden in a bunch of federal budget documents.
As if... Look - this is critical infrastructure we are talking about. Everybody says that when they talk about "security measures" to make sure anybody that tries to cut a trunk line will get put under the ground for the rest of their lives. But we have these clowns running it that think it's okay to just put the brakes on innovation and new business models and growth of the economy so they can squeeze more profit out of the infrastructure that really needs constant upgrades.
Sorry, but in this case Comcast's actions aren't defensible as QoS. They aren't queuing the bittorrent traffic giving it a lower priority - they are killing the connections entirely, and they are forging packets to do it. Not ok.
Oh for God's sake. Do any of you whinging about "network upgrades" have any idea how expensive it is to maintain a cable plant? Not to mention the time involved in swapping out nodes, performing node splits, upgrading drops to 1 GHz, etc. From here:
North America's largest MSO [Comcast] said it plans to spend a record $5.7 billion on cable plant upgrades and new service launches in 2007
This is not like putting a new line card in a router. This is upgrading or adding thousands of devices in hundreds of miles of physical infrastructure in a single system.
So how is that a problem when they are raking in $13 billion a year?
Personally I don't see anything wrong with Comcast limiting traffic in this way. The government has no business saying what services you must offer your customers. The only problem I see is if they claim that they're selling "unlimited" or "full" internet -- that would clearly be fraud.
No, the problem is that they are limiting traffic based on content, rather than something more deterministic like sustained bandwidth demand, protocol, etc. ISPs must be content agnostic - anything else is unacceptable. I note in their statement that they are purposefully trying to confuse the issue, by talking about bandwidth and traffic shaping on one hand, then turning around and admitting that the type of traffic they target "includes music and video".
Worse, they talk about traffic between their users - so they even admit to using prejudicial shaping based on the source and destination, which is even more egregious.
There are many ways to manage network traffic that do not discriminate against users and content, but Comcast is not interested in QOS or other acceptable control measures. And they are intentionally blurring the line between these things. From the article:
Comcast compared its practices to a traffic-ramp control light that regulates the entry of additional vehicles onto a freeway during rush hour. "One would not claim that the car is 'blocked' or 'prevented from entering the freeway; rather it is briefly delayed," the company's statement said.
Of course this doesn't really wash, because while the control light stops everyone. But while they are there the Comcast cops have each one roll down their window and present their papers, and they check around in the car with their flashlight. And if they don't like what they see, some cars are sent to a siding and made to wait further while the rest of the traffic slides through. They have absolutely no right to do that and remain immune from liability. If they want to be the content cops, then they should be liable for the accident that occurred 50 miles up the road because they let somebody through with a bottle of vodka under the seat.
You are obviously not familiar with the Constitution. Courts are limited to deciding "cases and controversies" - which have been interpreted to mean that there must actually need to be someone out there who was willing to sue in court before the system decides to rule on the constitutionality of what's at stake.
Well, why can't they just make up an interpretation like they did for the Commerce Clause, and just say "Well, this will have a substantial effect on the cases and controversies that may arise, and that's our interpretation of that clause, so we're going to rule on this right out of the gate..."
Heh, interesting conspiracy theory. Though it doesn't quite jive with the local sendmail instance I use for outgoing mail which connects directly to appropriate relay servers (on 25); or the fact that I sometimes send through gmail, and have in the past used my own Qmail installation on a remote server...
Give it time - they'll get to you.
I used to do the same thing (using exim instead of sendmail), until I got this letter from Comcast claiming that I was sending spam. They claimed to have proof:
We have confirmed that your computer has been involved in transmitting
unsolicited email, an activity that is in violation of the Comcast Terms
of Service Agreement. The reporting parties have provided email header
information, which identifies the IP address of the computer that was
transmitting the email. The IP address listed was one that was assigned
to your computer at the date and time in question.
I knew this to be bogus, as there is only one way out of my home network and every email is logged. Despite this, they stuck to their guns and refused to unblock port 25, and refused to even discuss the possibility of sending me the proof they claimed to have, or even reveal anything about the email, the IP in question, etc.
The worst part of this was not the block on outgoing. I just had to use a different port and authenticate each time, which was a pretty simple configuration change in Exim. A lot of ISPs refused email directly from me anyway, indicating that they don't accept email from a network unless it's from an "official" email relay on that network. The list of host names that I had to send through Comcast was getting rather long.
The worst part was that they also blocked port 25 for all incoming traffic. What is that supposed to do for anybody? How is it even justified? But of course their TOS already prohibits "servers", so they felt justified to block mail from reaching me. I had to set up a RollerNet account to get around it. Very annoying.
Yea, yea, I know "switch providers if they treat you like that" you say. Well my only other option is Verizon FIOS (can't even get DSL), and they block 25 by default as well as any incoming port 80 traffic. So that's just a non-starter.
The cableco's argument is that 5% of their subscribers (who currently all pay the same) use 50% of the bandwidth. I'm open to argument, why the other 95% should not be paying less, than these 5%...
I don't see, why TW's reasoning must be rejected immediately by all.
Well, let me spell it out for you, since you seem confused about what TW is proposing. This is all about more. Less is never considered. To wit (as an example):
In 2007, 100% of subscribers pay $50 each.
In 2008, 95% of subscribers pay $53, 5% pay $200
Well, you know, rate increases and all. Plus, gotta pay for all that equipment and software upgrades to make sure everybody is charged fairly. Get it now?
Now, back to the subject at hand. Why should not people, who use less bandwidth, be paying less for the Internet service? Who ever said *anybody* should be paying *less*. I'm sure you won't hear that from Time-Warner Cable. You can't maximize revenue that way. The idea is to figure out who can pay *more*.
Piracy HAS to go back underground. It's not an invincible jedi skill people.
What does this have to do with piracy?
As it stands, they OWN all the communication mediums we are using and they are going to be able to filter those as some point to pretty much any degree they like.
So, we justify setting them up by saying "well, since your serving the public, you can have a monopoly for this area and we'll protect your business". But then when they start crippling the services to improve their profits we just say "well, they own it so they can do anything they like". Sure, that sounds fair.
I guess at least you will have pushed the technology, but doesn't it stand that on a mass scale, the ISP, as decentralized hubs, have an extreme potential to be used against us ?
Yar - which is why we are trying to stop them from doing this
You know, if we were all rich, we probably wouldn't bother to pirate. That being the case, I think the whole public piracy concept is a bad idea. It suggests some forced socialism on any intellectual property maker or just some consumer anarchy. You know, most of the time, the public isn't exactly fair and balanced. I think we are more like children crying for attention, politician's interpret that how they what, and they impose laws to change our behavior/make things fair with corporate advice of course, ehm. It's a reaction based system. Supporting piracy openly is like declaring war on terrorism because there there is no logical victory. You can't give away people's property for them and expect that to work on a global scale without AT least watering down the quality of that product via lost profit and moral to the manufacturing market of that product.
Not sure why you are talking about piracy, here, it seems a little off-topic. But it started because it offered a convenience that the manufacturers did not want to offer at any price. So, no, being rich would not have given you that convenience.
You can't steal their shit without it hurting the industry... eventually. Unless you want to just embed advertising right into the CPU architecture and compilers you have to pay for products somehow. Right ?
That's why it's not WORTH the few resources the average p2per adds to the mix compared to the many resources and quality collection a more elite p2per brings. And that's why public p2p networks aren't worth the trouble.
You have to realize who your hurting the most. Your not simply stealing money from mega-corporations you're preventing new artists from getting opportunities and new films from getting made. Instead of new artists a similar elitism is practiced in Hollywood and record studios where they bet heavily on the best bets for profit pushing the same artists and ideas with little innovation and yes, even less than before.
Then you ground all that up and fed it to your children. Now sure, you download a lot of free games and apps for them, but your culture may be suffering from a disposable and convenience driven mentality. The same mentality than can so easily justify piracy and not realize the public was better off without knowing how to steal trillions in copyrighted shit.
Well, that is just a load of Hollywood propaganda you are spouting, there. I think our "culture" would be much better off without most of the crap that Hollywood spends big bucks producing. Most of the "independent" films with small budgets are much better. Oh, and it's not stealing you are talking about - it's copyright infringement.
I say, cut off the moochers ! I bet more than 50% of the shit that's downloaded on p2p networks gets deleted by the average user within a month and hardly used if used at all. It also has insane potential to spread hand made GOD KNOWS WHAT kind of malware and you can only hope that it's detectable. Cut em off. If you can't follow releases and such, you shouldn't download. I
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, Mr. Marx. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I look forward to becoming one of the more equal animals.
About 1.31 Billion people. That's the biggest difference right there.
Plus all the Cuban exiles that *want* us to sanction Cuba, vs. all the Chinese immigrants that *don't* want the US interfering in China's policies. There are Chinese dissidents that do support US sanctions against China, but they are generally in the minority among Chinese-Americans.
I don't think it's so much that Cuba won't let American corporations back in, it's just if they did come back in, the Cuban government would take all their shit (just like they took everybody's shit when Castro took over). That's pretty much the same policy for *any* corporation. You're not allowed to own assets there, whether you are a corporation or an entrepreneur or what have you. Kind of hard to run a business that way.
I thought it was kind of interesting how the housing works there now. Everybody has a place to live, but you're not really allowed to move around without some justification, and the waiting lists for changes is years long. So they have these housing "meet-up group" type things, where people that want something different get together and try to hook up with somebody that has what they want. Then they apply to the government to let them swap places. Funny how things like that develop to get around some of the rules. It's almost like they've developed an alternative "market" where they are not supposed to exist (or be needed) at all.
I'm now looking at doing a MythTV or MediaCenter instead. It will give me 1 box with all the features I want, not just the rental/online stuff.
Actually, the device doesn't rely on strictly EEG-style "thoughts" waves. It has 3 sensors, one of which picks up electro encephalographic signals. The other 2 actually pick up your eye movements (electro oculographic), and facial muscles (electromyographic). So, in theory (and supposedly the thing works) it should be really good at controlling a mouse, or at least sending the cursor where you are looking. The EEG signal is going to be the one that's the most difficult to learn. Because there is no common signal that is going to be the same for any person. It sounds like it's going to map to a game-pad style controls for games (Unreal Tournament was mentioned). Turn-shoot-jump is probably going to be easier to learn to control than "open spreadsheet" - "go to cell C45" - "enter $300".
Yea, hopefully it *does* have an API. I've been watching this tech for a while, and considering trying to put together a device myself (and build my own drivers, etc.). This could be a really good starting point.
As far as typing, voice commands are still the way to go (and probably will be for at least the next 10 years). The open stuff is really far behind in this technology. Dragon's Naturally Speaking is by far the best software that I have found for doing voice commands and dictation. But I've found it has some limitations that could be overcome with a little code hacking - it just doesn't do everything the way I want it to.
Obviously, we're still a long way from making the keyboard and mouse anachronistic, but this is a good step in the right direction. The direct brain -> computer interface is definitely where the research needs to go. Just remember that to make it effective, you have to train your brain, which can take a long time. I mean look how long it took you to learn to use your hands. You don't remember it, but it really took a long time.
Hmmm... you're right. I didn't even notice that.
It's kind of sad that a post completely ignores its parent post's premise, promotes an illogical argument, and still gets modded up to +5 insightful; simply because it takes the anti-IP stand.Well, I don't think that that's entirely true. I don't think the entire argument was as illogical as the original one as you have interpreted it (correctly) - I mean, if copyright law didn't exist, not only would Vista not cost $400, it wouldn't exist at all. So I would say that's a pretty illogical argument right there (and probably why I gleaned over it).
Also, I don't necessary think my post was anti-IP, (I'm not), there just isn't any balance left anymore, and the system is being abused. IP laws are important, and will become more so if we can come up with some rational rules. 120-150 years for copyright; patents that cover obvious ideas just to extract money from people that work to implement those obvious ideas; Artists exploited into poverty while corporations and CEOs rake in millions from their work. We need to fix these things *now* before it's too late.
You really want to recreate that situation ? If books and arts have no value, they will disappear. Sad, but true.
Now why do you suppose that is? Hmmm? What changed? Oh, yea... the printing press. Follow quickly by copyright laws.
Almost. That's what I thought, too. But if you study the history of copyright, it turns out that the actual authors had no qualms about giving away their work. In fact their primary motivation was wanting someone to read their stuff.
It was the owners of the printing presses (capitalists with the means of production) that lobbied for protection and exclusive rights to print a particular work.
So things haven't really changed that much. The artists just want their work available, and they are exploited by the elite.
Perhaps that's true in the short term, but it's not in the long term. Assuming you've made the copies legally (i.e. copyright law doesn't exist), the value of Vista will go down due to supply and demand. If people can get Windows for free, no one (except the ignorant and those needing support contracts) would pay for it.
No, I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Diminishing returns only works on real goods, not state-supported monopolies. That's because in a free market the producers are "price-takers" - they accept the price the market sets based on supply and demand. Goods protected by copyright exist in monopoly markets, not free markets. Microsoft owns the monopoly on Vista, and thus are the "price-setter". If they say it's $400, it's $400.
Sorry, but this is just economics 101.
There needs to be a way for people to be compensated for the content they create. They may not be creating a tangible good, but you can't deny that they've put a lot of time into their creations. I'm a big fan of open source projects; many of them have been successful at earning their creators decent livings while they give away their code for free. Not every piece of intellectual property can work this way, however - you're not going to sell a support contract on a work of art or a musical composition, for example.Let's face it - copyrights are necessary if we want the arts to continue to be a career option. While there are certainly many ways that the law is flawed, the underlying concept is not.
No, this is also wrong. People do *not* have a right to be compensated. Let's say I go out into a field (designated as a public resource) and dig a hole. A really big hole. I work 10 hours a day in the blazing sun and now there is a hole big enough for 2 or 3 olympic sized swimming pools.
I've put a *lot* of work into that hole. Who is going to pay me? Probably nobody, because nobody wants that hole. Just because you work hard on something doesn't mean it has value.
There was never an "industry" for things like books and recorded music for most of history, yet music and writing have existed for thousands of years. Cavemen painted on the walls of their caves. Nobody paid them, but it was still done.
Frankly, I think music in general would be a lot better if there weren't a bunch of corporations making widgets out of it.
This is spot-on. The lack of long-term investment in communications infrastructure is slowing down progress. Fix that and everything will take off.
Well now you're just being an ass. We were discussing "Hate Crime", not anti-discrimination. But go ahead and act like you don't know WTF the debate was about if you want to. But it really makes you look like an ass.
No - that was *your* point. I said:
it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections and privileges for their group ad infinitum.and you said:
I'm unaware of any laws setting hair length as a prohibited basis for discrimination. Could be added, thoughdemonstrating my point. Get it now?
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
So certain people get "special" protection. Because they are "special"? Because it's really difficult to determine motivation in these circumstances. If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?
Oh, wait... bald people are part of a "special", "protected" class. Well, that's just wrong, and it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections and privileges for their group ad infinitum.
The Constitution also expressly forbids this type of thing - in fact the principle of equal protection is even older. Everyone should get "Equal protection under the law". Period. Anything else is just a variation of "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
Not at all. I'm claiming that the overall market, regulatory scheme, and planning are more efficient. The struggle over corporate acquisitions, wrangling for exclusive right-of-ways, and navigating (and manipulating) the FCC policies and congressional regulations adds a lot of overhead. There's a lot more to it than just running some lines.
Neither one of us really has any data to back up our claimsSpeak for yourself. The evidence is clear. Check out the charts here. This article points out a number of issues that are causing the US to drop further behind the rest of the world in broadband deployments (and overall efficiency, BTW). There have been a number of studies that demonstrate that population density is *not* a significant factor.
There are other companies out there. Where I live the incumbent cable company is Cox. I have no trouble with them. I pay a bit less than $45/mo (not this $55/mo comcast bullshit) without purchasing any other services from them except cable modem service. I use an antenna to get broadcast TV and I have a cell phone.Oh, cool, I'll just switch to Cox. Oh... wait. I *can't*. Where is this "competition" you refer to? Doesn't really seem to be working for most of us.
That's ridiculous. About 10 years ago you could as an average person get at best a dial-up connection that might (theoretically) be able to download at up to 56kbps (actually 53). If you wanted a little better you could pay for ISDN. If you wanted better than that you could pay for a T1.
Ok, that much is true. I had ISDN 10 years ago, and it was not real cheap. I paid $30/month, but with limited connection time (I don't remember my limit, but I never went over). Whenever I connected, though, I used the maximum bandwidth available. Why wouldn't I? I was charged by the minute.I know for a fact they were making a profit. Same old copper lines that had been in the ground since 1962, and I had to pay $100 for the connection!
Today you can get a cable modem or DSL for not much more than you'd have paid for dial-up and probably less if you had a second phone line dedicated to your internet access. Technology advanced. The providers improved their infrastructure. Costs came down.
No - this is bullshit. More bandwidth, sure. But it's more expensive, too, and we paid for it in myriad ways (check out the $200 Billion Ripoff for example). I could get dial up for $10 a month (yea, plus phone line). Now I pay like $55/month, and it would be $15 more if I also didn't buy their "cable TV" service.
The sad fact is that what we have now is more or less what we can collectively afford. It's easy to point to more socialized states and say that a handful of them have faster internet connections. What you seem to fail to consider is that those faster connections were paid for. Most likely it costs the average person in one of those states a lot more for their internet connection, they just don't see it as a separate internet bill. If they do get an internet bill it's not really reflecting the true cost of providing the service.
This is speculative and complete bullshit. Just because other countries don't have schizophrenic policies ("it's a phone - no it's a data service - no it falls under this other rule") and corporations writing the laws so they favor their own monopolistic pricing doesn't mean they are subsidizing the costs. Those countries are just more *efficient*. The US is falling behind in data communication infrastructure - and it's not just anecdotal evidence that demonstrates it - it's a troubling trend.Comcast alone makes about $1.2 Billion dollars in profit a year. Billion with a "B". Not revenue - *PROFIT*. I think they're doing just fine - maybe they should invest in a little more infrastructure instead of bitching about having to keep up with demand.
I'm no socialist - but Internet infrastructure needs to be either regulated or state supported. It's too critical to be left to these corporations that just want to slow everybody down!! If there was real competition, it might work to motivate these guys to make their customers happy. But there's not, so it doesn't.
If you can live with forcing everyone to pay several times what they're paying now for internet access we can do this too. But don't sit there and spout that we could do better without pointing out that it does actually cost more to do so. I personally find that my cable modem is fast enough and I don't want to pay more than I do per month. I especially don't want to have the money effectively hidden in a bunch of federal budget documents.
As if... Look - this is critical infrastructure we are talking about. Everybody says that when they talk about "security measures" to make sure anybody that tries to cut a trunk line will get put under the ground for the rest of their lives. But we have these clowns running it that think it's okay to just put the brakes on innovation and new business models and growth of the economy so they can squeeze more profit out of the infrastructure that really needs constant upgrades.
Sorry, but in this case Comcast's actions aren't defensible as QoS. They aren't queuing the bittorrent traffic giving it a lower priority - they are killing the connections entirely, and they are forging packets to do it. Not ok.
Maybe it was the reference to "Mak" and "MakOz"? The only thing missing was "Mak f@nboiz SUXRZ!".
North America's largest MSO [Comcast] said it plans to spend a record $5.7 billion on cable plant upgrades and new service launches in 2007
This is not like putting a new line card in a router. This is upgrading or adding thousands of devices in hundreds of miles of physical infrastructure in a single system.
So how is that a problem when they are raking in $13 billion a year?
No, the problem is that they are limiting traffic based on content, rather than something more deterministic like sustained bandwidth demand, protocol, etc. ISPs must be content agnostic - anything else is unacceptable. I note in their statement that they are purposefully trying to confuse the issue, by talking about bandwidth and traffic shaping on one hand, then turning around and admitting that the type of traffic they target "includes music and video".
Worse, they talk about traffic between their users - so they even admit to using prejudicial shaping based on the source and destination, which is even more egregious.
There are many ways to manage network traffic that do not discriminate against users and content, but Comcast is not interested in QOS or other acceptable control measures. And they are intentionally blurring the line between these things. From the article:
Of course this doesn't really wash, because while the control light stops everyone. But while they are there the Comcast cops have each one roll down their window and present their papers, and they check around in the car with their flashlight. And if they don't like what they see, some cars are sent to a siding and made to wait further while the rest of the traffic slides through. They have absolutely no right to do that and remain immune from liability. If they want to be the content cops, then they should be liable for the accident that occurred 50 miles up the road because they let somebody through with a bottle of vodka under the seat.
Well, why can't they just make up an interpretation like they did for the Commerce Clause, and just say "Well, this will have a substantial effect on the cases and controversies that may arise, and that's our interpretation of that clause, so we're going to rule on this right out of the gate..."
Give it time - they'll get to you.
I used to do the same thing (using exim instead of sendmail), until I got this letter from Comcast claiming that I was sending spam. They claimed to have proof:
I knew this to be bogus, as there is only one way out of my home network and every email is logged. Despite this, they stuck to their guns and refused to unblock port 25, and refused to even discuss the possibility of sending me the proof they claimed to have, or even reveal anything about the email, the IP in question, etc.The worst part of this was not the block on outgoing. I just had to use a different port and authenticate each time, which was a pretty simple configuration change in Exim. A lot of ISPs refused email directly from me anyway, indicating that they don't accept email from a network unless it's from an "official" email relay on that network. The list of host names that I had to send through Comcast was getting rather long.
The worst part was that they also blocked port 25 for all incoming traffic. What is that supposed to do for anybody? How is it even justified? But of course their TOS already prohibits "servers", so they felt justified to block mail from reaching me. I had to set up a RollerNet account to get around it. Very annoying.
Yea, yea, I know "switch providers if they treat you like that" you say. Well my only other option is Verizon FIOS (can't even get DSL), and they block 25 by default as well as any incoming port 80 traffic. So that's just a non-starter.
I don't see, why TW's reasoning must be rejected immediately by all.
Well, let me spell it out for you, since you seem confused about what TW is proposing. This is all about more. Less is never considered. To wit (as an example):
Well, you know, rate increases and all. Plus, gotta pay for all that equipment and software upgrades to make sure everybody is charged fairly. Get it now?
Piracy HAS to go back underground. It's not an invincible jedi skill people.
What does this have to do with piracy?
As it stands, they OWN all the communication mediums we are using and they are going to be able to filter those as some point to pretty much any degree they like.
So, we justify setting them up by saying "well, since your serving the public, you can have a monopoly for this area and we'll protect your business". But then when they start crippling the services to improve their profits we just say "well, they own it so they can do anything they like". Sure, that sounds fair.
I guess at least you will have pushed the technology, but doesn't it stand that on a mass scale, the ISP, as decentralized hubs, have an extreme potential to be used against us ?
Yar - which is why we are trying to stop them from doing this
You know, if we were all rich, we probably wouldn't bother to pirate. That being the case, I think the whole public piracy concept is a bad idea. It suggests some forced socialism on any intellectual property maker or just some consumer anarchy. You know, most of the time, the public isn't exactly fair and balanced. I think we are more like children crying for attention, politician's interpret that how they what, and they impose laws to change our behavior/make things fair with corporate advice of course, ehm. It's a reaction based system. Supporting piracy openly is like declaring war on terrorism because there there is no logical victory. You can't give away people's property for them and expect that to work on a global scale without AT least watering down the quality of that product via lost profit and moral to the manufacturing market of that product.
Not sure why you are talking about piracy, here, it seems a little off-topic. But it started because it offered a convenience that the manufacturers did not want to offer at any price. So, no, being rich would not have given you that convenience.
You can't steal their shit without it hurting the industry... eventually. Unless you want to just embed advertising right into the CPU architecture and compilers you have to pay for products somehow. Right ?
That's why it's not WORTH the few resources the average p2per adds to the mix compared to the many resources and quality collection a more elite p2per brings. And that's why public p2p networks aren't worth the trouble.
You have to realize who your hurting the most. Your not simply stealing money from mega-corporations you're preventing new artists from getting opportunities and new films from getting made. Instead of new artists a similar elitism is practiced in Hollywood and record studios where they bet heavily on the best bets for profit pushing the same artists and ideas with little innovation and yes, even less than before.
Then you ground all that up and fed it to your children. Now sure, you download a lot of free games and apps for them, but your culture may be suffering from a disposable and convenience driven mentality. The same mentality than can so easily justify piracy and not realize the public was better off without knowing how to steal trillions in copyrighted shit.
Well, that is just a load of Hollywood propaganda you are spouting, there. I think our "culture" would be much better off without most of the crap that Hollywood spends big bucks producing. Most of the "independent" films with small budgets are much better. Oh, and it's not stealing you are talking about - it's copyright infringement.
I say, cut off the moochers ! I bet more than 50% of the shit that's downloaded on p2p networks gets deleted by the average user within a month and hardly used if used at all. It also has insane potential to spread hand made GOD KNOWS WHAT kind of malware and you can only hope that it's detectable. Cut em off. If you can't follow releases and such, you shouldn't download. I