"I have also worked to obtain China's support for stricter enforcement and more severe penalties for piracy and counterfeiting of American ideas and innovations.
Hmmmm, I'm not sure I've ever seen "Hollywood types" come out against the intellectual property stance of this adminstration. Media focuses almost entirely on their stance regarding use of military force, old news since 'Hanoi Jane'. Don't forget it's a third-rate purveyor of second rate pop ditties the Sonny Bono Act is named after.
Also don't forget the second and more monied half of Hollywood, the content distributors. They're the group with the lobbyists and they speak with one voice.
I think the number that's going around for average length of time an unpatched Windows box can be connected to the internet before being owned is 16 minutes. Often faster than it can be patched. Conversely, I've run 2K and XP as 'user', including in small corporate environments where machines are populated or performing automated taskes 24 hours a day, for years without incident.
What you say is true but the emphasis leaves a questionable impression. In my experience if operating under 'user' permissions were the norm it would eliminate almost all the trojan, worm, etc. traffic happening today, not by making an exploit impossible but by rasing the effort required to a sufficiently high level.
It's a great idea but the middle class don't have legions of Washington lobbyists. Should the most clear headed, well intentioned and honest politician, the living embodiment of Mr. Smith, achieve exactly what you suggest within two administrations it will be twisted into "Reagan's trickle down economics" or tax cuts for the rich.
"But you could also argue that since slashdot has become such a major player in internet news..."
One part of my job is providing technical support to a (real world) newsroom. In the past four years I struggle to remember a single occasion they followed up on, or drew as a source, a story from Slashdot. Most don't know what Slashdot is. Stories from Fark on the other hand appear daily for filler.
Slashdot is still first and foremost an online forum focusing mainly on computer technology. The 'editors' don't perform the same function news editors, they link to claims made elsewhere choosen to stimulate conversation, leaving it to contributors to sort out.
Self-pitying bullshit. Petreley's article, which it seems you didn't read, is precisely a close examination of Microsoft's claims and why they shouldn't be accepted wholesale. He deals with them point by point and offers reasonable counter arguments based on independent data. This is not in the same league as the typical MS 'Netcraft sez' one-page ad crap. Now, if Microsoft comes back with an article examining Petreley's arguments with a point by point rebuttal your opinion will be justfied, but to my knowledge we haven't seen this yet. 'Explanations' usually come by way of Redmond's ad agency instead.
Radio spectrum is a limited resource. There are only so many frequencies available in any given area, and where major urban centres are adjacent to one another complex agreements exist to protect one station's air rights against others. In my area, where FMs normally dump 20,000 watts into the antenna, new license applicants are struggling, with much testing and expense, to find frequencies suitable for operation at 400 watts. Limited spectrum is why the airwaves are tightly regulated. It doesn't matter how much money you have if all available frequencies are gone. It's also why radio stations typically sell in the range of ten, maybe twenty by now, times annual earnings when their physical assets might be worth 50% of one year's earnings. The buyer is paying for the license and little else.
The airwaves are public property leased to corporations under a licensing agreement which stipulates they use it to represent the public interest. Businesses distorting content to reflect their interest via payola has no place here, it's antithical to a station's, and when it's acting honestly, the FCC's mandate. Otherwise why not sell news content too (Fox News excluded of course?) "Free market" is an economic notion, not a general do-all principle applicable to all situations.
Some MS representative has publicly stated in the past - Gates I think - that in the future hardware will be free and consumers will only pay for software and software services. In economics it's known as the "Batshit Crazy" theory. This is just more of the same from Balmer following the party line. You also have to question how cagey it really is when every CIO worth his salt knows of the free OS alternatives and MS is being forced to release 'cut price' versions of its OS in Asia.
Consumers own their hardware. They can do anything they want with it. Reload another OS, sell it for a profit, give it away, gut it and line the interior with blankets for the cat. They lease Windows under stringent contstrictions - no resale, one computer, one user. Your post, by bringing tangibility into the picture, implies the value difference is based on peception. It's not that at all, hardware had more value through ownership.
Sinclair nothing, this is the same FCC that engineered such a giveway of public airspace to private corporations it resulted in the worst public backlash in the Commission's history, forcing a repeal. Powell is unquestionably a whore of private media interests and acting in complete, almost criminal neglect of the FCC's mandate. If Powell calls for regulation of VOIP the smart money ignores the 'moral' stance and looks for who will benefit. My guess is he's doing this for his telco buddies.
Absolutely. When Pharma Plus launched a massive launch campaign in Canada along the lines of "if you care about life, shop Pharma Plus" it caught my attention. I found them so abhorent I refused to enter their stores and haven't since. Very effective advertising in my case.
4! I dreamed of a four as a kid, back when radios bragged right on the front panel about the number of silicon devices inside. Mine was stuck with two but it had the side benefit of being a conversation starter. People couldn''t understand how a radio with 2 transistors worked.
They usually back up the argumment with "where are the internment camps?" and "where are the tanks in the street?" type statements, implying a belief that slippery slopes are only proven after hitting rock bottom.
So are oligarchies, I don't see a war on them. Did you collect your CD rebate? If the industry were truly competitive and didn't collude, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Now they want it enshrined in law and backed by the force of the federal government. Work on the big wrong first and then examine the purported losses (proven yet by a neutral third-party?) caused by file sharing.
Hey, the record labels paid Senator Hollings for those rights fair and square! Isn't he working on a bill to change the national anthem to "It's a Small World After All"?
Countries which, along with many others, were fighting the Germans long before the isolationist US entered the war. The latter only occured when Japan directly attacked Pearl Harbour. Trivial, basic historical knowledge. If you'd like more fun facts, GIS about Joseph Kennedy (yes, those Kennedys) and the Nazis or perhaps the history of the relationship between Sadaam and the US. Here's the 30 second Cole's Notes version if that's too much trouble:
Probably stems from that whole wacky "might not agree but defend to the death your right to say it" BS naive old bumpkins once claimed to believe. So very 18th century.
You regulate the politicians, not free speach. The way it was intended.
Conversely, how do stop campaigns from unfairly accusing sites which report unfavourable news, a good one for example being the purported efforts on the part of some Republican groups to harrass or 'lose' voter registrations in areas with strong minority populations who typically vote Dem. For example:
"...then no matter how sarcastic you try to be with "what part of...don't you understand", it doesn't change how the U.S. works."
This argument, and its variants which appear here often, always amazes me. The topic of discussion here is precisely 'how the U.S. works' and proposed changes. Some here, including me, consider the changes bad, others good, but arguing the status quo somehow negates the whole discourse is incomprehensible.
Slashdot Mirror
This message brought to you by Sony. :)
Also don't forget the second and more monied half of Hollywood, the content distributors. They're the group with the lobbyists and they speak with one voice.
What you say is true but the emphasis leaves a questionable impression. In my experience if operating under 'user' permissions were the norm it would eliminate almost all the trojan, worm, etc. traffic happening today, not by making an exploit impossible but by rasing the effort required to a sufficiently high level.
It's a great idea but the middle class don't have legions of Washington lobbyists. Should the most clear headed, well intentioned and honest politician, the living embodiment of Mr. Smith, achieve exactly what you suggest within two administrations it will be twisted into "Reagan's trickle down economics" or tax cuts for the rich.
One part of my job is providing technical support to a (real world) newsroom. In the past four years I struggle to remember a single occasion they followed up on, or drew as a source, a story from Slashdot. Most don't know what Slashdot is. Stories from Fark on the other hand appear daily for filler.
Slashdot is still first and foremost an online forum focusing mainly on computer technology. The 'editors' don't perform the same function news editors, they link to claims made elsewhere choosen to stimulate conversation, leaving it to contributors to sort out.
Self-pitying bullshit. Petreley's article, which it seems you didn't read, is precisely a close examination of Microsoft's claims and why they shouldn't be accepted wholesale. He deals with them point by point and offers reasonable counter arguments based on independent data. This is not in the same league as the typical MS 'Netcraft sez' one-page ad crap. Now, if Microsoft comes back with an article examining Petreley's arguments with a point by point rebuttal your opinion will be justfied, but to my knowledge we haven't seen this yet. 'Explanations' usually come by way of Redmond's ad agency instead.
Radio spectrum is a limited resource. There are only so many frequencies available in any given area, and where major urban centres are adjacent to one another complex agreements exist to protect one station's air rights against others. In my area, where FMs normally dump 20,000 watts into the antenna, new license applicants are struggling, with much testing and expense, to find frequencies suitable for operation at 400 watts. Limited spectrum is why the airwaves are tightly regulated. It doesn't matter how much money you have if all available frequencies are gone. It's also why radio stations typically sell in the range of ten, maybe twenty by now, times annual earnings when their physical assets might be worth 50% of one year's earnings. The buyer is paying for the license and little else.
The airwaves are public property leased to corporations under a licensing agreement which stipulates they use it to represent the public interest. Businesses distorting content to reflect their interest via payola has no place here, it's antithical to a station's, and when it's acting honestly, the FCC's mandate. Otherwise why not sell news content too (Fox News excluded of course?) "Free market" is an economic notion, not a general do-all principle applicable to all situations.
Some MS representative has publicly stated in the past - Gates I think - that in the future hardware will be free and consumers will only pay for software and software services. In economics it's known as the "Batshit Crazy" theory. This is just more of the same from Balmer following the party line. You also have to question how cagey it really is when every CIO worth his salt knows of the free OS alternatives and MS is being forced to release 'cut price' versions of its OS in Asia.
Consumers own their hardware. They can do anything they want with it. Reload another OS, sell it for a profit, give it away, gut it and line the interior with blankets for the cat. They lease Windows under stringent contstrictions - no resale, one computer, one user. Your post, by bringing tangibility into the picture, implies the value difference is based on peception. It's not that at all, hardware had more value through ownership.
Sinclair nothing, this is the same FCC that engineered such a giveway of public airspace to private corporations it resulted in the worst public backlash in the Commission's history, forcing a repeal. Powell is unquestionably a whore of private media interests and acting in complete, almost criminal neglect of the FCC's mandate. If Powell calls for regulation of VOIP the smart money ignores the 'moral' stance and looks for who will benefit. My guess is he's doing this for his telco buddies.
Don't you watch TV? It could hardly cause offense, most young males would confuse the tampons for candy.
Absolutely. When Pharma Plus launched a massive launch campaign in Canada along the lines of "if you care about life, shop Pharma Plus" it caught my attention. I found them so abhorent I refused to enter their stores and haven't since. Very effective advertising in my case.
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
4! I dreamed of a four as a kid, back when radios bragged right on the front panel about the number of silicon devices inside. Mine was stuck with two but it had the side benefit of being a conversation starter. People couldn''t understand how a radio with 2 transistors worked.
http://www.zaurususergroup.com/forums/index.php?s= eb19d321bf6323a973dfc7a271fcd201&showtopic=762 5
Sticking with what's important..
That's 'how', not 'why'.
They usually back up the argumment with "where are the internment camps?" and "where are the tanks in the street?" type statements, implying a belief that slippery slopes are only proven after hitting rock bottom.
Not at all partisan in my case, I despised Clinton almost as much as I do Bush. I just wasn't aware of the Bush family past.
So are oligarchies, I don't see a war on them. Did you collect your CD rebate? If the industry were truly competitive and didn't collude, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Now they want it enshrined in law and backed by the force of the federal government. Work on the big wrong first and then examine the purported losses (proven yet by a neutral third-party?) caused by file sharing.
Hey, the record labels paid Senator Hollings for those rights fair and square! Isn't he working on a bill to change the national anthem to "It's a Small World After All"?
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
Probably stems from that whole wacky "might not agree but defend to the death your right to say it" BS naive old bumpkins once claimed to believe. So very 18th century.
Conversely, how do stop campaigns from unfairly accusing sites which report unfavourable news, a good one for example being the purported efforts on the part of some Republican groups to harrass or 'lose' voter registrations in areas with strong minority populations who typically vote Dem. For example:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=
This argument, and its variants which appear here often, always amazes me. The topic of discussion here is precisely 'how the U.S. works' and proposed changes. Some here, including me, consider the changes bad, others good, but arguing the status quo somehow negates the whole discourse is incomprehensible.