"...who knows, they may just succeed in assuming the fair and honourable dominion over the world's information they so naively set out to achieve eight years ago in their garage."
"To further expand on this, if CA thinks the kernel is unstable because developers are working on game drivers instead of stability, then they should hire some developers themselves. Part of your contract with open source is that you can't tell a guy working for free that he is working on the wrong thing. If you want a certain feature, here is always a price. There are plenty of examples of open source developers being hired by employers to work on feature the employer is specifically interested in."
Isn't CA a founding member of OSDL? I imagine that means they pay OSDL quite a bit of money already.
"I don't care how spectrally efficient these WiMAX systems are, no one is going to get 10mbps per MHz in the real world before 2010."
I believe that using 16 QAM and a 3.5MHz band, you can get 10Mbps, which is competitive with cable and DSL. 802.16revd is not meant for laptops BTW, but for home tranceiver boxes. Like you say, it's not like WiFi, but instead will be offered by telcom providers. It's meant to be an alterntive to cable/DSL and is a cheap solution for areas with no infrastructure already such as in rural areas and developing countries.
"At first I was excited because I thought I was going to get to finally read an enlightening, in-depth article that critically examined the browser. I should have known better. Aside from the usual criticism of open source software, it contains a reference to a Symantec Internet Security Report which claims that more security vulnerabilities in the last six months of 2004 were found in Firefox than IE."
Traslation: his opinion didn't coincide with my preconceived notion that firefox is more secure than ie, so both he and Symantec must be wrong. Of course, this article came out today about firefox
"...at $129 yet again, but I've got the family pack on pre-order, so amortize the $150 after the Amazon rebate across 4 Macs and it's quite the bargain. They should really provide upgrade pricing, but the $129 list is still wayyyyy cheaper than XP Pro, but twice as expensive as my SUSE 9.2 boxed set."
I've gotten my patches to XP for free for 3 years now. $0 beats the hell out of $129/year.
Maybe Apple should have focused on preemptive multitasking and memory management in the 90s instead of producing the crap that they did. MacOS was the worst OS on the market from the mid 90s until OSX
"I don't see why the local government can't compete against DSL and Cable providers."
Because I don't want my tax dollars being spent to give freeloaders free WiFi. What about my rights? Even democracy is totalitarian if you're in the minority.
" Rightwingers call everything communism that involve community effort. This is their cliched 'fire and brimstone' argument for everything. It's an attempt to win over weak minded folk that all government is bad.
Gov. electric utilities= communism. Gov. roads = communism. Gov. gaslines = communism. Gov. water utility= communism. Gov. public works projects(damns,parks,etc)= communism.
Military ????Ahhhhhh , here you will hear the hipocracy by the groveling sycophants proclaiming how great they love the Communist Military ? Could it be because the Corporate Party doesn't have any of their family members serving in this deadly occupation ?"
The govt. is responsible for protecting US citizens' liberty from internal and external threats, which is why they are responsible for police and military. A real libertarian will tell you this, and that yes, all the above you mentioned are socialist. So the distinction is accurate
" Telcos really fear the competition. They really want to keep their current architectures intact so they can gracefully and marginally make changes in service."
No, telcos are dying to sell a broadband wireless service. They're waiting for the right solution, WiMax. These muni wifi projects are poorly thought out, expensive, and doomed to fail
If corporations and the ultr-wealthy run the country, why do we have a progressive tax system that forces them to pay most of the tax bill? You're just spouting typical/. nonsense.
Unfortunately hitting up taxpayers to pay for stuff you think is your right to have has become the American way since the days of FDR. Nothing is free as in beer. If your getting something free, ask yourself at whose expense, and did they give this to you freely, or did the govt. force them to give it to you. The article talks about draconian laws, not bothering to ask whether it is right to force tax payers to pay for non-essential items for others.
because courts aren't overcrowded enough and I don't pay enough in taxes yet to pay for the court system. I want more lawsuits filed by guilty people who want to blame someone else for their problems. I love America.
"I know I've heard of something like this before... There's a word for it... Never given a chance to exonerate herself of the "charges". From acusation to credit damaging collection agency without even a notification... Threat making folks plying her with further threats... "
If the charges were handed over to a debt collection agency, it's probably because she ignored the original letters from the RIAA. She has her day in court if she wants it. If any threat of legal action for a wrong committed is extortion, then your right extortion was committed. Otherwise your comment is more/. bs.
"Too bad I can't just go around and asking debt collection agencies to gather up money for me. I'm sure someone would disagree with me if I randomly decided some poor bastard off the street owed me $3000 or face a very long trial attempting to prove that I don't."
When has anyone been distributing anything you created without your permission?
You can't just say I have a social contract with someone, and make it so. There has to be an agreement by both parties to the terms of the contract. Liberals love the term social contract. They use it to justify "progressive" tax systems to deprive you of what you earn when someone else claims they need it more. In short, unless the govt. tells me I have a social contract with someone, then I don't, unless I actually agreed to the terms.
" Jobs also has refused to license Apple's antipiracy technology, called FairPlay, to rival MP3 player makers, and has blocked music formats from other companies, such as Microsoft, from the iPod. This makes iPods and the iTunes store incompatible with rival digital music devices and stores, fragmenting the market in a way the labels fear ultimately limits sales.
"We hate the current situation," one top record industry executive said, referring to the issue of incompatibility between different companies' music devices and services. "There is one man who's going to decide his...No record company by itself can basically tell Steve Jobs, 'You're not going to get our catalog unless you open up FairPlay to Microsoft.' We can't do it together."
You're so busy kissing Jobs' ass, you can't see he's become an impediment to growth in the mp3 business. It's his personal iPod selling technique. He doesn't give a rats ass about consumers unless they buy an iPod.
" If the Internet does not constitute 'public communication,' what possibly can?"
They're just trying to get themselves out of the hole they dug when they passed the Campaign finance reform laws. Someone pointed out that these laws should apply to the internet as well, so they decided to make up some nonsense about the internet not being a tool for public communication so it is not affected by the campaign finance laws.
" Sorry but... why pass a law to establish the first fucking amendment?"
Because they've already passed laws involving political speech that violate the 1st amendment in the name of "fairness" in political campaign finance. Now they're writing laws to exclude the internet since the older laws would otherwise include the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
"As an aside, would the Free State Project support passing a gay-rights bill in New Hampshire; or, is that not the kind of Liberty you have in mind?"
Libertarians support gay rights, so I see no reason why this group would oppose such a measure.
"...who knows, they may just succeed in assuming the fair and honourable dominion over the world's information they so naively set out to achieve eight years ago in their garage."
I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.
"To further expand on this, if CA thinks the kernel is unstable because developers are working on game drivers instead of stability, then they should hire some developers themselves. Part of your contract with open source is that you can't tell a guy working for free that he is working on the wrong thing. If you want a certain feature, here is always a price. There are plenty of examples of open source developers being hired by employers to work on feature the employer is specifically interested in."
Isn't CA a founding member of OSDL? I imagine that means they pay OSDL quite a bit of money already.
"I don't care how spectrally efficient these WiMAX systems are, no one is going to get 10mbps per MHz in the real world before 2010."
I believe that using 16 QAM and a 3.5MHz band, you can get 10Mbps, which is competitive with cable and DSL. 802.16revd is not meant for laptops BTW, but for home tranceiver boxes. Like you say, it's not like WiFi, but instead will be offered by telcom providers. It's meant to be an alterntive to cable/DSL and is a cheap solution for areas with no infrastructure already such as in rural areas and developing countries.
Here is Intel's press release announcing their WiMax product.
"At first I was excited because I thought I was going to get to finally read an enlightening, in-depth article that critically examined the browser. I should have known better. Aside from the usual criticism of open source software, it contains a reference to a Symantec Internet Security Report which claims that more security vulnerabilities in the last six months of 2004 were found in Firefox than IE."
Traslation: his opinion didn't coincide with my preconceived notion that firefox is more secure than ie, so both he and Symantec must be wrong. Of course, this article came out today about firefox
" ...at $129 yet again, but I've got the family pack on pre-order, so amortize the $150 after the Amazon rebate across 4 Macs and it's quite the bargain. They should really provide upgrade pricing, but the $129 list is still wayyyyy cheaper than XP Pro, but twice as expensive as my SUSE 9.2 boxed set."
I've gotten my patches to XP for free for 3 years now. $0 beats the hell out of $129/year.
Maybe Apple should have focused on preemptive multitasking and memory management in the 90s instead of producing the crap that they did. MacOS was the worst OS on the market from the mid 90s until OSX
"VoIP roaming will be here soon!"
Already here. It's called a cell phone.
I agree, but who do you think will be deploying WiMax? Probably cell phone operators like Verizon.
If she wins, it'll help spammers remain anonymous since ISPs can't hand over info without a court order.
So it's ok to hand over info about a spammer, but not a copyright infringer?
"I don't see why the local government can't compete against DSL and Cable providers."
Because I don't want my tax dollars being spent to give freeloaders free WiFi. What about my rights? Even democracy is totalitarian if you're in the minority.
" Rightwingers call everything communism that involve community effort. This is their cliched 'fire and brimstone' argument for everything. It's an attempt to win over weak minded folk that all government is bad.
Gov. electric utilities= communism.
Gov. roads = communism.
Gov. gaslines = communism.
Gov. water utility= communism.
Gov. public works projects(damns,parks,etc)= communism.
Military ????Ahhhhhh , here you will hear the hipocracy by the groveling sycophants proclaiming how great they love the Communist Military ? Could it be because the Corporate Party doesn't have any of their family members serving in this deadly occupation ?"
The govt. is responsible for protecting US citizens' liberty from internal and external threats, which is why they are responsible for police and military. A real libertarian will tell you this, and that yes, all the above you mentioned are socialist. So the distinction is accurate
" Telcos really fear the competition. They really want to keep their current architectures intact so they can gracefully and marginally make changes in service."
No, telcos are dying to sell a broadband wireless service. They're waiting for the right solution, WiMax. These muni wifi projects are poorly thought out, expensive, and doomed to fail
If corporations and the ultr-wealthy run the country, why do we have a progressive tax system that forces them to pay most of the tax bill? You're just spouting typical /. nonsense.
"Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican?"
Unfortunately hitting up taxpayers to pay for stuff you think is your right to have has become the American way since the days of FDR. Nothing is free as in beer. If your getting something free, ask yourself at whose expense, and did they give this to you freely, or did the govt. force them to give it to you. The article talks about draconian laws, not bothering to ask whether it is right to force tax payers to pay for non-essential items for others.
because courts aren't overcrowded enough and I don't pay enough in taxes yet to pay for the court system. I want more lawsuits filed by guilty people who want to blame someone else for their problems. I love America.
do you see guilty people sue when they get caught. Reminds me of when a burglar sues because he injured himself on your property.
"I know I've heard of something like this before... There's a word for it... Never given a chance to exonerate herself of the "charges". From acusation to credit damaging collection agency without even a notification... Threat making folks plying her with further threats... "
/. bs.
If the charges were handed over to a debt collection agency, it's probably because she ignored the original letters from the RIAA. She has her day in court if she wants it. If any threat of legal action for a wrong committed is extortion, then your right extortion was committed. Otherwise your comment is more
"Too bad I can't just go around and asking debt collection agencies to gather up money for me. I'm sure someone would disagree with me if I randomly decided some poor bastard off the street owed me $3000 or face a very long trial attempting to prove that I don't."
When has anyone been distributing anything you created without your permission?
You can't just say I have a social contract with someone, and make it so. There has to be an agreement by both parties to the terms of the contract. Liberals love the term social contract. They use it to justify "progressive" tax systems to deprive you of what you earn when someone else claims they need it more. In short, unless the govt. tells me I have a social contract with someone, then I don't, unless I actually agreed to the terms.
" Jobs also has refused to license Apple's antipiracy technology, called FairPlay, to rival MP3 player makers, and has blocked music formats from other companies, such as Microsoft, from the iPod. This makes iPods and the iTunes store incompatible with rival digital music devices and stores, fragmenting the market in a way the labels fear ultimately limits sales.
"We hate the current situation," one top record industry executive said, referring to the issue of incompatibility between different companies' music devices and services. "There is one man who's going to decide his...No record company by itself can basically tell Steve Jobs, 'You're not going to get our catalog unless you open up FairPlay to Microsoft.' We can't do it together."
You're so busy kissing Jobs' ass, you can't see he's become an impediment to growth in the mp3 business. It's his personal iPod selling technique. He doesn't give a rats ass about consumers unless they buy an iPod.
" If the Internet does not constitute 'public communication,' what possibly can?"
They're just trying to get themselves out of the hole they dug when they passed the Campaign finance reform laws. Someone pointed out that these laws should apply to the internet as well, so they decided to make up some nonsense about the internet not being a tool for public communication so it is not affected by the campaign finance laws.
" Sorry but... why pass a law to establish the first fucking amendment?"
Because they've already passed laws involving political speech that violate the 1st amendment in the name of "fairness" in political campaign finance. Now they're writing laws to exclude the internet since the older laws would otherwise include the internet.