"The fascinating news for me is Google, a private company standing up to the fascist tyranny of the US government."
No, the US govt. wants anonymous data, but Google doesn't want to give up any data that might reveal how they do search algorithms. Google isn't looking out for your privacy. It's just a coincidence.
"The Internet is cheap, it's just a bunch of wires and switches. I'd much rather see the ISPs concentrate on building fat pipes and get out of the content business."
Right, so they should invest in fat pipe that generate no revenue under the network neutrality model. Why would they? They'll provide the last mile solution to get their subscribers and let someone else worry about the backbone, since it's free.
"Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' "
So you don't want network neutrality? Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue. You only get revenue for getting someone to subscribe to some service at the end of some pipe with the network neutrality model.
"So much for "acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force; we work to better humanity..."//The Federation surrenders"
Who decides who gets the beach front property in the Star Trek Universe? If there's no aquisition of wealth, who decides how wealth is distributed since not all things are available to all people? Is it some socialist system where leaders are elected who reward people for doing a good job for the Federation? Who decides who gets a transport ship, or is interplanetary travel free? Why would I work in such a boring job as a pilot for an interplanetary transport firm when I can do something creative and spend more time with my family? Who decides what my job is if there is no aquisition of wealth? etc.
1. Saying other people don't support free speech does not make it right for Muslims to do the same. Austria jailing a person for saying the gas chambers at Auswitch was a hoax is just as bad.
2. "Not only that, but you try to justify it by saying christians don't act the same way." I never said that. I never claimed a large number of people acted violently or endorsed violence. They simply want to censor free speech that is at odds with their religious beliefs. You seem confused.
3. "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical Muslim cleric, has said the cartoonist behind caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked outrage across the Arab world should be tried and executed under Islamic law." Therefore literal interpretation of Muslim laws means executing those for dissent. This means that a moderate Muslim is one who does not follow the practices of his faith to the letter, much like a moderate Christian, or Jew.
"Nah muslims are poor. They can afford petrol bombs and IED's. Christians on the otherhand, fund companies like lockheed martin and then bomb whole countries into submission with their weapons. Who needs to raze an embassy when you can bomb whole regions and torture the ones that survive? "
By your reason, atheists are the biggest killers of all since the Soviet Union and China have killed far more of their own citizens than any countries in history.
"The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
How many millions of people need to attack freedom of speech before you understand that it's not just a few bad apples but a fundamental conflict between their beliefs and the right to freedom of speech. They blame all of Denmark for the actions of one newspaper, and expect laws passed to restrict freedom of speech because they don't like dissent from their beliefs.
"I'm sure they will come up with them, but I fail to see any valid arguments against IP-enviromentalism that Joe Blow could be convinced of, just the same there are no arguments of that ilk for the opposition of the physical environmentalists either."
Right, because people will still make films like the LOTR series for a hundred million or so even when there's no copyright law to protect their investment.
Some environmental groups use donations to actually buy land they want preserved. If it's so important to have copyrighted works in the public domain, use donations to buy the works and release them to the public domain yourself.
Or you could just use trusted computing to secure your data from people on-site with iPods and other portable storage device. Oh wait. I guess that's evil, never mind.
"Oh, by the way, a Mac can be bought for $500 that will use your existing display and (USB) keyboard-- it always cracks me up when you guys try to prop up your anti-Apple arguments by bitching about the price of their top-of-the-line hardware while conveniently ignoring their low-end machines."
Who in their right mind would buy that thing. It was obsolete the day it came out.
"Apple's just doing what any company would. It's an unfortunate side effect of the world we are living in, but the fact is that companies have different ethics than individuals. A company's loyalty must lie with thier investors. Anything that potentially threatens thier bottom line must be fought with any and all legal means (and in this country where so many lawmakers are influenced by big buisnesses they get away with alot). I don't see the point in arguing with a company for doing what it is lawfully allowed (and encouraged) to do. What needs changed are the laws that are designed to allow companies to walk all over the individual's freedoms."
That still doesn't explain why Apple is "good" and the recording industry is "evil". They're doing the same thing.
"Awesome! Then, I guess you'd have no concerns with me completely ignoring the GPL as I see fit if I have no intention of ever using OSS "support?""
The GPL is supported by copyright, since it only concerns how software can be copied. This is more like Lexmark saying you can't use third party ink cartridges in their printers.
"Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience. The only way that they can guarantee a stable, secure, and performant environment is to assert control over their hardware."
Or they could just publish a list of hardware that is guaranteed to work so we can build our own machines that run MacOS as they intended.
"Apple's margin on iTMS purchases is, for all intents and purposes, zero. Not much profit there."
You're saying that with a billion dollars in revenue, they haven't been able to turn a good profit on iTMS. All it is is some servers and some software. It's not like they actually need to write the songs. They would need to be completely incompetent to not be able to make money on iTMS.
"The problem is, I don't trust it anymore. I won't trust it with my data, I won't trust it with my files, I won't trust it with my time."
No what you mean is that you no longer trust the software you run on your computer. Have you ever? It's amazing how otherwise intelligent people turn into raving lunatics at the mention of trusted computing.
"I don't believe that for a second. They are responding to arm-twisting by Microsoft and Adobe (,etc.) and working *against* customer interests. Consumers have no interest in DRM at all. "
Companies who use Microsoft and Adobe software often have data under NDA and would love to use this technology to help secure their data.
"Why not leverage nearly ubiquitous wireless access points (and possibly ad hoc wireless card settings) to create a completely wireless mesh that doesn't even connect to the Internet at all?"
Because it's slow unreliable and unmanageable. Only a local govt. would be stupid enough to waste money on such an idea.
"Sorry, big publishers and the federal government will make what you want impossible. That's why your 802.11 power is so low you can't see further than your neighbor's house,"
Slashdot Mirror
"The fascinating news for me is Google, a private company standing up to the fascist tyranny of the US government."
No, the US govt. wants anonymous data, but Google doesn't want to give up any data that might reveal how they do search algorithms. Google isn't looking out for your privacy. It's just a coincidence.
"The Internet is cheap, it's just a bunch of wires and switches. I'd much rather see the ISPs concentrate on building fat pipes and get out of the content business."
Right, so they should invest in fat pipe that generate no revenue under the network neutrality model. Why would they? They'll provide the last mile solution to get their subscribers and let someone else worry about the backbone, since it's free.
"Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' "
So you don't want network neutrality? Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue. You only get revenue for getting someone to subscribe to some service at the end of some pipe with the network neutrality model.
"when was the last time you heard of a ISP going out of business?"
Do you know anything about the Telcom bust in 2001-2002
"So much for "acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force; we work to better humanity..." //The Federation surrenders"
Who decides who gets the beach front property in the Star Trek Universe? If there's no aquisition of wealth, who decides how wealth is distributed since not all things are available to all people? Is it some socialist system where leaders are elected who reward people for doing a good job for the Federation? Who decides who gets a transport ship, or is interplanetary travel free? Why would I work in such a boring job as a pilot for an interplanetary transport firm when I can do something creative and spend more time with my family? Who decides what my job is if there is no aquisition of wealth? etc.
1. Saying other people don't support free speech does not make it right for Muslims to do the same. Austria jailing a person for saying the gas chambers at Auswitch was a hoax is just as bad.
2. "Not only that, but you try to justify it by saying christians don't act the same way." I never said that.
I never claimed a large number of people acted violently or endorsed violence. They simply want to censor free speech that is at odds with their religious beliefs. You seem confused.
3. "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical Muslim cleric, has said the cartoonist behind caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked outrage across the Arab world should be tried and executed under Islamic law." Therefore literal interpretation of Muslim laws means executing those for dissent. This means that a moderate Muslim is one who does not follow the practices of his faith to the letter, much like a moderate Christian, or Jew.
"Nah muslims are poor. They can afford petrol bombs and IED's. Christians on the otherhand, fund companies like lockheed martin and then bomb whole countries into submission with their weapons. Who needs to raze an embassy when you can bomb whole regions and torture the ones that survive?
"
By your reason, atheists are the biggest killers of all since the Soviet Union and China have killed far more of their own citizens than any countries in history.
"The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
How many millions of people need to attack freedom of speech before you understand that it's not just a few bad apples but a fundamental conflict between their beliefs and the right to freedom of speech. They blame all of Denmark for the actions of one newspaper, and expect laws passed to restrict freedom of speech because they don't like dissent from their beliefs.
"I'm sure they will come up with them, but I fail to see any valid arguments against IP-enviromentalism that Joe Blow could be convinced of, just the same there are no arguments of that ilk for the opposition of the physical environmentalists either."
Right, because people will still make films like the LOTR series for a hundred million or so even when there's no copyright law to protect their investment.
"Just shorten it to "free-hugger.""
Yeah, bunch of people who want to get stuff for free.
Some environmental groups use donations to actually buy land they want preserved. If it's so important to have copyrighted works in the public domain, use donations to buy the works and release them to the public domain yourself.
ok, so I didn't actually deprive the owner of second base.
Or you could just use trusted computing to secure your data from people on-site with iPods and other portable storage device. Oh wait. I guess that's evil, never mind.
"Oh, by the way, a Mac can be bought for $500 that will use your existing display and (USB) keyboard-- it always cracks me up when you guys try to prop up your anti-Apple arguments by bitching about the price of their top-of-the-line hardware while conveniently ignoring their low-end machines."
Who in their right mind would buy that thing. It was obsolete the day it came out.
"Apple's just doing what any company would. It's an unfortunate side effect of the world we are living in, but the fact is that companies have different ethics than individuals. A company's loyalty must lie with thier investors. Anything that potentially threatens thier bottom line must be fought with any and all legal means (and in this country where so many lawmakers are influenced by big buisnesses they get away with alot). I don't see the point in arguing with a company for doing what it is lawfully allowed (and encouraged) to do. What needs changed are the laws that are designed to allow companies to walk all over the individual's freedoms."
That still doesn't explain why Apple is "good" and the recording industry is "evil". They're doing the same thing.
And how all those American web sites got sued for posting links to it.
"Awesome! Then, I guess you'd have no concerns with me completely ignoring the GPL as I see fit if I have no intention of ever using OSS "support?""
The GPL is supported by copyright, since it only concerns how software can be copied. This is more like Lexmark saying you can't use third party ink cartridges in their printers.
"It's immoral when you buy a product agreeing to certain conditions, then decide you don't like them so ignore them."
You mean like buying a CD and ripping it for your iPod? Or is the RIAA good now too.
"Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience. The only way that they can guarantee a stable, secure, and performant environment is to assert control over their hardware."
Or they could just publish a list of hardware that is guaranteed to work so we can build our own machines that run MacOS as they intended.
"Apple's margin on iTMS purchases is, for all intents and purposes, zero. Not much profit there."
You're saying that with a billion dollars in revenue, they haven't been able to turn a good profit on iTMS. All it is is some servers and some software. It's not like they actually need to write the songs. They would need to be completely incompetent to not be able to make money on iTMS.
"The problem is, I don't trust it anymore. I won't trust it with my data, I won't trust it with my files, I won't trust it with my time."
No what you mean is that you no longer trust the software you run on your computer. Have you ever? It's amazing how otherwise intelligent people turn into raving lunatics at the mention of trusted computing.
"You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point."
So explain to me why Linux runs on systems with trusted computing now if your statement is true.
"I don't believe that for a second. They are responding to arm-twisting by Microsoft and Adobe (,etc.) and working *against* customer interests. Consumers have no interest in DRM at all. "
Companies who use Microsoft and Adobe software often have data under NDA and would love to use this technology to help secure their data.
"Why not leverage nearly ubiquitous wireless access points (and possibly ad hoc wireless card settings) to create a completely wireless mesh that doesn't even connect to the Internet at all?"
Because it's slow unreliable and unmanageable. Only a local govt. would be stupid enough to waste money on such an idea.
"Sorry, big publishers and the federal government will make what you want impossible. That's why your 802.11 power is so low you can't see further than your neighbor's house,"
No, it's so you don't jam everyone elses signals