No, the problem is that a federal legislator was bribed into thinking that it is the universities' job to play media policeman without funding to do so. The file sharing problem is so small that universities should not be concerning themselves with it. It is a waste of time and resources.
How could everyone in court know anything that has not been proven? The defendant "getting away" is not a bad thing. This is a good thing, and it is certainly not a technicality.
I disagree. Use of QOS should not be allowed. If you are advertising to your customers a certain quality of internet access, then they should receive that quality of internet access for all applications, not based on the ISP's preference.
ummm, okay.... She is apparently guilty of sharing roughly 20 songs on Kazaa which were on a harddrive that did not contain Kazaa... so what the heck is a Wookie doing on Endor?
Okay, but that is not going to fix our judicial system. The root causes of this travesty still exist.
1. Unequal representation of the powerful and weak.
2. Civil lawsuits that require very little proof.
3. Suits in Washington whom sell laws to big business which, in this case, allow for an unreasonable punishment without proof that a crime has actually been committed.
The actions of the RIAA do not bother me so much. I am not surprised that they are a heartless bunch of bullies. But I am ashamed and deeply saddened to be an American today.
Witness testimony showed that the hard drive had actually been broken. And it was not a conviction. This was a civil trial, the fact that she may have been innocent is apparently less and less relevant in this country.
Isn't that sort of the issue? Maybe she did not actually do the crime. Frankly, based on earlier reports, I am stunned that she lost. Every witness that had actually touched her computer, including the RIAA forensics expert, an ex-boyfriend, the repair guy said that their was not evidence or history of Kazaa. And if you have ever had to repair the computer of a person that used Kazaa, you know that it is fairly obvious when it is installed. The only evidence that the RIAA had was log files and screen captures which could have been easily manufactured. Personally, I tend to see actual witness testimony as having more validity then manufacturable log files.
The idea that I could ever end up in front of a jury of peers to stupid to get out of jury duty scares the crap out of me.
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
Well, I have no lobbyists that represent my interests. By all means, if you are represented by lobbyists, then you should support what they do.
I am not a big time investor, but I have owned shares in Navteq for some time. And as a shareholder, I am officially pissed off!!
Am I surprised that someone bought them? No. But I had expected more than a $0.03 premium!! This whole deal stinks of insider collusion, and I for one intend to vote 'No' on this acquisition with my shares.
So explain to me exactly why I should be patting myself on the back? If I wanted to sell at $78, I could have sold it at market price on Friday for that. I and every other shareholder just took it up the butt from the Board of Directors.
That does not make anybody a bigot. If Belgians do not care about how their tax dollars are spent, that is their business. My parents were happy to pay taxes because they knew it was necessary for us to go to school and the previous generation supported them in school. I am happy to pay taxes because my children will be able to go through school. No one country could possibly be expected to bear the education burden for the entire world. Belgium may have been able to fund you, because your tuition was a drop in the bucket. Imagine if countries sent 1000x as many students to Belgium for their nearly free education.... What would happen then?
The bottom line is that education has to be paid for, and while some people may not mind paying more than their fair share because it benefits others, nobody wants to carry an overwhelming portion of the financial burden.
Great point... Come to think of it, when I switched over approx 5 years ago, It all started with not being able to do the things that I wanted in Windows.
They were mandated that they consider open source alternatives. They are not required to use open source alternatives. While they may not be ready to support Linux on every desktop their are advantages to open source in other areas. For example, archive programs. 7-zip versus Winzip -- Support is really not necessary, keeping an renewing contracts costs time and money, and most people really only need to use zip files. 7-zip is the clear winner.
For the next presidential election, the candidates attitudes toward technology and network neutrality is going to heavily sway my vote. Right now, the only candidate that stands out to me as an advocate of network neutrality is Bill Richardson. Unfortunately he is a fringe candidate and unlikely to go very far in the democratic primary. Unfortunately I have little to no faith in Clinton, Obama, or Edwards not to give into industry bribes.
And when they go to Wind River for VXWorks they are going to be offered Wind River's Linux at a lower cost. Why? Because Wind River knows that it cannot stay in the VXWorks business forever. They cannot keep pace with Linux and manage to keep the costs low on VXWorks. Selling embedded Linux solutions is cheap and easy.
According to almost every study out there, married men in a happy marriage have more and better sex than single men. Some people (mostly men) just think they would be happier with more partners.
Were we talking about most other industries, I would agree, but for something like telecom which requires right of way so that lines can be laid on public and private land, it is next to impossible to have unregulated industries.
The telecoms did not become ruled by monopolies in spite of government regulation. They became monopolies because they are built on government regulation. We cannot take a purist view of free market economics in this case and ignore this simple reality. I like McCain, but he is not going to get my vote unless he changes his stances on this and other internet related technology issues.
If Netflix loses, it creates a precedent. Anyone whom files for an obvious patent or a patent in which there is clear and obvious prior art can be sued for exploiting the patent system to create an anti-competitive environment. In the context of software patents, this would be huge because so many software patents are junk.
Wrong question. The question is...Why should anyone be allowed to dictate to me what I can say or what I can own? The basic founding principles of this country imply that someone should have pretty darn good reasons for stripping us of those rights. From that point we can argue that it benefits society as a whole if I give up my right to copy and reproduce certain things for a limited period of time, but it does not benefit society to extend this limitation indefinitely. So copyrights should not extend indefinitely because it is not a fair trade for the sacrifice of my rights.
I agree, this is the easiest to understand for the lay person, especially since you plug your modem into a phone jack. The only thing I would add in for clarification is that both computers talk to each other. A lot of people seem confused with all of the net neutrality and peer-to-peer stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like the pension plan, which pretty soon nobody will be paying into because everyone is a contractor?
No, the problem is that a federal legislator was bribed into thinking that it is the universities' job to play media policeman without funding to do so. The file sharing problem is so small that universities should not be concerning themselves with it. It is a waste of time and resources.
How could everyone in court know anything that has not been proven? The defendant "getting away" is not a bad thing. This is a good thing, and it is certainly not a technicality.
I think the best way to protect our data is to not send it through a series of tubes. Instead send it on a dump truck.
I disagree. Use of QOS should not be allowed. If you are advertising to your customers a certain quality of internet access, then they should receive that quality of internet access for all applications, not based on the ISP's preference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY5yDo4rsEk
Proof the swearing can be useful.
ummm, okay.... She is apparently guilty of sharing roughly 20 songs on Kazaa which were on a harddrive that did not contain Kazaa... so what the heck is a Wookie doing on Endor?
You can still see targets using someone else's radar. :)
1. Unequal representation of the powerful and weak.
2. Civil lawsuits that require very little proof.
3. Suits in Washington whom sell laws to big business which, in this case, allow for an unreasonable punishment without proof that a crime has actually been committed.
The actions of the RIAA do not bother me so much. I am not surprised that they are a heartless bunch of bullies. But I am ashamed and deeply saddened to be an American today.
Witness testimony showed that the hard drive had actually been broken. And it was not a conviction. This was a civil trial, the fact that she may have been innocent is apparently less and less relevant in this country.
Not exactly fair if a person did not actually copy the music. She was right to stand up for herself.
The idea that I could ever end up in front of a jury of peers to stupid to get out of jury duty scares the crap out of me.
Well, I have no lobbyists that represent my interests. By all means, if you are represented by lobbyists, then you should support what they do.
Am I surprised that someone bought them? No. But I had expected more than a $0.03 premium!! This whole deal stinks of insider collusion, and I for one intend to vote 'No' on this acquisition with my shares.
So explain to me exactly why I should be patting myself on the back? If I wanted to sell at $78, I could have sold it at market price on Friday for that. I and every other shareholder just took it up the butt from the Board of Directors.
The bottom line is that education has to be paid for, and while some people may not mind paying more than their fair share because it benefits others, nobody wants to carry an overwhelming portion of the financial burden.
Great point... Come to think of it, when I switched over approx 5 years ago, It all started with not being able to do the things that I wanted in Windows.
Did you actually read the article?
They were mandated that they consider open source alternatives. They are not required to use open source alternatives. While they may not be ready to support Linux on every desktop their are advantages to open source in other areas. For example, archive programs. 7-zip versus Winzip -- Support is really not necessary, keeping an renewing contracts costs time and money, and most people really only need to use zip files. 7-zip is the clear winner.
For the next presidential election, the candidates attitudes toward technology and network neutrality is going to heavily sway my vote. Right now, the only candidate that stands out to me as an advocate of network neutrality is Bill Richardson. Unfortunately he is a fringe candidate and unlikely to go very far in the democratic primary. Unfortunately I have little to no faith in Clinton, Obama, or Edwards not to give into industry bribes.
And when they go to Wind River for VXWorks they are going to be offered Wind River's Linux at a lower cost. Why? Because Wind River knows that it cannot stay in the VXWorks business forever. They cannot keep pace with Linux and manage to keep the costs low on VXWorks. Selling embedded Linux solutions is cheap and easy.
According to almost every study out there, married men in a happy marriage have more and better sex than single men. Some people (mostly men) just think they would be happier with more partners.
The telecoms did not become ruled by monopolies in spite of government regulation. They became monopolies because they are built on government regulation. We cannot take a purist view of free market economics in this case and ignore this simple reality. I like McCain, but he is not going to get my vote unless he changes his stances on this and other internet related technology issues.
If Netflix loses, it creates a precedent. Anyone whom files for an obvious patent or a patent in which there is clear and obvious prior art can be sued for exploiting the patent system to create an anti-competitive environment. In the context of software patents, this would be huge because so many software patents are junk.
Wrong question. The question is...Why should anyone be allowed to dictate to me what I can say or what I can own? The basic founding principles of this country imply that someone should have pretty darn good reasons for stripping us of those rights. From that point we can argue that it benefits society as a whole if I give up my right to copy and reproduce certain things for a limited period of time, but it does not benefit society to extend this limitation indefinitely. So copyrights should not extend indefinitely because it is not a fair trade for the sacrifice of my rights.
I agree, this is the easiest to understand for the lay person, especially since you plug your modem into a phone jack. The only thing I would add in for clarification is that both computers talk to each other. A lot of people seem confused with all of the net neutrality and peer-to-peer stuff.