I'm still waiting for the AjaxBrowser. Then I can dump Internet Explorer, and do all of my browsing, like my word processing, online.
That's a really bad idea. You don't want to be tied to a net connection to depend on the availability of your browser. An online browser will never replace a standalone browser. You're still always going to want to have your Internet stored on your hard drive.;)
I should have clarified. DSL providers do not typically oversell their bandwidth like cable providers do.
Doesn't matter, upstream they still have to add capacity to account for the increased traffic. It's just further upstream than cable.
And whether i'm downloading movies or linux ISOs should be of no importance to you. I pay for the service, I'm just using it to its full capacity. Don't like it? Switch to dialup.
Change "bandwidth" to "electricity" and you might see how stupid that is. Bandwidth costs money, even for DSL. I'm not paying for yours, and no I *don't* want dialup, thanks. People like you are the reason they have to go to a tiered system in the first place, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for what you use. The companies realized this, so now I get my cheap DSL and you pay for what you use. So like it.
The FCC's original charter was to ensure that chaos on airwaves did not happen. Somehow, they wormed their way into completely isolated means of communication like fiber optics or coax cable.
Perhaps becuase they're the Federal *Communications* Commission? You were expecting perhaps the EPA?
And if ANYBODY thinks this will mean lower prices for people who actually use their internet connection, you are in for a big surprise. The internet providers have been dying for a way to charge more for people who do anything other than view a couple text websites and read email and this is their opening.
So that's why DSL prices have dropped like a rock, right?
Expect a minor discount for people who use their internet minimally and expect everybody else to see their bill spike by 20-30 bucks based on how much they download.
If you mean "people downloading movies on bittorrent every day" then I hope they *do* charge more to them. I don't feel like paying for their bandwidth.
Doesn't anyone think the FCC is overstepping its bounds? Maybe just a little?
If the FCC were actually doing this, I'd agree with you, but the idiot blogger got this one completely wrong. Martin's statements to date have been tentatively in favor of network neutrality.
That's not what he said. He said he's in favor of tiered *access*, as in pay-per-speed cable internet like we have now. He did *NOT* say he was against network neutrality, and even said that they have the power to police that and will do so.
Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.
"Market" implies one is selling something. Let's see how many of those $10K rigs they sell.
Kind of like how the big 3 auto manufacturers always have tricked out concept cars they never actually sell. Doesn't mean they're in the same market as Ferrari.
There's something to be said for not necessarily doing something *new*, but doing it *better* than it had been previously, and building a number of disparate products into a cohesive, well-designed whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. See "Apple."
Then there's the old "put up or shut up". Prove that "9 out of 10" people who believe the current system is wrong. If you're going to paint such a broad swath of people with such a negative brush, you're going to need proof of such an accusation.
First, as I mentioned before, I'm *in* the class of people I'm painting. For evidence, read slashdot. Arguments for piracy generally degrade to "stuff costs too much." Also, look at Kazaa. If people were pirating 30 year old works that, under the original definition of copyright should be PD by now, I'd understand. They're not. They're pirating recent pop movies and music. Do I have numbers? No, as I don't really think such a study has been done, and if it has, the RIAA sponsored it. But seriously, pay attention around here.
My point is that, basically, fighting the RIAA is the WRONG front to be attacking copyright because of the natural guilt by association with many pirates whose entire moral stance is they're too cheap to pay for what they want.
I'd love to see someone put "Citizen Kane" on Kazaa, see what the MPAA does.
People tend to be overall honest and have a strong sense of what's fair and what's not
Really. Wow, is *that* naive. Drop a wallet somewhere and see how many times it comes back to you. Yes, there are honest people, but there are a lot of crooks too. See if you still feel the same way in 10 years. And "fair" tends to be a rather relative term, which generally degrades to "fair for me."
"in no event shall Your web site consist of...pages comprised primarily of other advertising".
That tells me that you can't have a *site* that is devoid of content and is basically an ad farm. If you have a site that's full of content with an ad here or there, including on your error pages, that's not a problem as I read the above.
What about all that old stuff from the 30s that's long forgotten by anyone except those who want to use it, to the point where no one even cared to put their name on it when they published it, but which still can't be used for fear of some jerk suing for millions?
And yet none of that is on Kazaa, but you can find a lot of shitty pop. Yes, the copyright situation sucks, I'm not defending it. But most of the arguments made are lame as hell and a thin veil for a philosophy that boils down to "I want shit for free." Quite frankly, these people are only damaging to real copyright reform, which I support myself. No, I'm not in favor of the Sonny Bono "perpetual copyright" act.
Wow, you really are delusional. Either that or you're incapable of reason. Think a little and you could come up with dozens of valid reasons why there is a large "the system needs to be changed" movement!
I'm assuming you're not much for irony, launching into ad hominem attacks and then accusing someone else of being incapable of reason. Think a little and you'll realized that I never in fact defended the copyright system - see above. Rather, I'm attacking 9 out of 10 of the morons who cause people like me, who DO think that the current copyright system is broken, to be tarred with the same brush by the very organizations you mention.
Get used to the clicking noises. If you're going into anything office or IT related, you're going to be hearing them most of your life.
pMaybe if you live in a cube farm.
How many trees do you own? How much oxygen do you use without paying? So, what your saying is that you just willy nilly go around getting stuff for free. Unless you own enough plant life to support your breathing habit, you simply stop breathing, or you start paying for all of your oxygen, makeing the statement of "And a lot of people just want shit for free." as a way of insulting those who don't believe in copyright is simply hypocritical.
1. No one created oxygen, your analogy sucks. 2. Hypocritical doesn't mean what you think it does. 3. Most of the "anti-copyright" movement is people who want shit for free. Not all, but most.
Not "working class mums don't want their husbands looking up porn?" Or, maybe, "working class mums don't want their husbands finding their photos while looking up porn?". Although I'm intrigued by the implication that middle-class parents do want their kids looking up porn.
I think working class still includes middle class, unless there are a lot of people in the middle class who, unlike me, are sitting on trust funds that allow them to party all day.
He wants something consistent, is all. Remember how towards the end of the 2.4 lifespan linux people were saying "ide-scsi is obsolete, move to the new ATAPI: method"? And then in a few months that was old and deprecated and it was all "move to the ATA: method"? And then it was changed around again around 2.6.9 for no discernible reason at all?
I'm reminded of an Emerson quote, "Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblin of small minds." In this case, Schilling wants something that 1) is consistently *bad*, and 2) in general makes life difficult for anyone *not* using a SCSI drive, which 3) is 90%+ of the population. An "elegant" solution that doesn't work isn't a solution.
The sooner people stop their hero-worship of Linus, stop the persecution of Schilling, and start looking at the facts, the sooner something can be done.
I think "persecution" is a tad much, and if there are any ill feelings Schilling has earned them.
Your link is basically a synopsis of the eternal flame war that's been going on since 2.6.8, lengthened by two asshats (Jorg and Linux) who are so set on their way being 'right' that they refuse to cooperate.
It seems impossible to record to an IDE CD burner as non-root users, at least for me, without the ide-scsi crap.
Slightly OT, but have Linux and Schilling decided to let cdrecord work right when acting as an IDE device yet? Last I checked, it's still been broken since 2.6.8.
Basic math skills. Enough to realise that putting on that +6 to armour helm was more rewarding (in the game) than that pretty pink hat with the tassle on top.
Wow. If that counts as "math skills" for your girlfriend, then you should lay off the jailbait. She can't be over 6.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a really bad idea. You don't want to be tied to a net connection to depend on the availability of your browser. An online browser will never replace a standalone browser. You're still always going to want to have your Internet stored on your hard drive. ;)
Doesn't matter, upstream they still have to add capacity to account for the increased traffic. It's just further upstream than cable.
And whether i'm downloading movies or linux ISOs should be of no importance to you. I pay for the service, I'm just using it to its full capacity. Don't like it? Switch to dialup.
Change "bandwidth" to "electricity" and you might see how stupid that is. Bandwidth costs money, even for DSL. I'm not paying for yours, and no I *don't* want dialup, thanks. People like you are the reason they have to go to a tiered system in the first place, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for what you use. The companies realized this, so now I get my cheap DSL and you pay for what you use. So like it.
It's hard enough to get my wife out of the grocery store as it is. Add TV to the mix and I'm going to be a bachelor.
Perhaps becuase they're the Federal *Communications* Commission? You were expecting perhaps the EPA?
So that's why DSL prices have dropped like a rock, right?
Expect a minor discount for people who use their internet minimally and expect everybody else to see their bill spike by 20-30 bucks based on how much they download.
If you mean "people downloading movies on bittorrent every day" then I hope they *do* charge more to them. I don't feel like paying for their bandwidth.
If the FCC were actually doing this, I'd agree with you, but the idiot blogger got this one completely wrong. Martin's statements to date have been tentatively in favor of network neutrality.
Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.
Did you memorize that?
Kind of like how the big 3 auto manufacturers always have tricked out concept cars they never actually sell. Doesn't mean they're in the same market as Ferrari.
There's something to be said for not necessarily doing something *new*, but doing it *better* than it had been previously, and building a number of disparate products into a cohesive, well-designed whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. See "Apple."
First, as I mentioned before, I'm *in* the class of people I'm painting. For evidence, read slashdot. Arguments for piracy generally degrade to "stuff costs too much." Also, look at Kazaa. If people were pirating 30 year old works that, under the original definition of copyright should be PD by now, I'd understand. They're not. They're pirating recent pop movies and music. Do I have numbers? No, as I don't really think such a study has been done, and if it has, the RIAA sponsored it. But seriously, pay attention around here.
My point is that, basically, fighting the RIAA is the WRONG front to be attacking copyright because of the natural guilt by association with many pirates whose entire moral stance is they're too cheap to pay for what they want.
I'd love to see someone put "Citizen Kane" on Kazaa, see what the MPAA does.
People tend to be overall honest and have a strong sense of what's fair and what's not
Really. Wow, is *that* naive. Drop a wallet somewhere and see how many times it comes back to you. Yes, there are honest people, but there are a lot of crooks too. See if you still feel the same way in 10 years. And "fair" tends to be a rather relative term, which generally degrades to "fair for me."
Not what it says, really:
"in no event shall Your web site consist of...pages comprised primarily of other advertising".
That tells me that you can't have a *site* that is devoid of content and is basically an ad farm. If you have a site that's full of content with an ad here or there, including on your error pages, that's not a problem as I read the above.
And yet none of that is on Kazaa, but you can find a lot of shitty pop. Yes, the copyright situation sucks, I'm not defending it. But most of the arguments made are lame as hell and a thin veil for a philosophy that boils down to "I want shit for free." Quite frankly, these people are only damaging to real copyright reform, which I support myself. No, I'm not in favor of the Sonny Bono "perpetual copyright" act.
Wow, you really are delusional. Either that or you're incapable of reason. Think a little and you could come up with dozens of valid reasons why there is a large "the system needs to be changed" movement!
I'm assuming you're not much for irony, launching into ad hominem attacks and then accusing someone else of being incapable of reason. Think a little and you'll realized that I never in fact defended the copyright system - see above. Rather, I'm attacking 9 out of 10 of the morons who cause people like me, who DO think that the current copyright system is broken, to be tarred with the same brush by the very organizations you mention.
Get used to the clicking noises. If you're going into anything office or IT related, you're going to be hearing them most of your life. pMaybe if you live in a cube farm.
1. No one created oxygen, your analogy sucks. 2. Hypocritical doesn't mean what you think it does. 3. Most of the "anti-copyright" movement is people who want shit for free. Not all, but most.
And a lot of people just want shit for free.
Reminds me of a great line...
I think working class still includes middle class, unless there are a lot of people in the middle class who, unlike me, are sitting on trust funds that allow them to party all day.
I'm reminded of an Emerson quote, "Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblin of small minds." In this case, Schilling wants something that 1) is consistently *bad*, and 2) in general makes life difficult for anyone *not* using a SCSI drive, which 3) is 90%+ of the population. An "elegant" solution that doesn't work isn't a solution.
The sooner people stop their hero-worship of Linus, stop the persecution of Schilling, and start looking at the facts, the sooner something can be done.
I think "persecution" is a tad much, and if there are any ill feelings Schilling has earned them.
It seems impossible to record to an IDE CD burner as non-root users, at least for me, without the ide-scsi crap.
I love a good pissing contest...
Slightly OT, but have Linux and Schilling decided to let cdrecord work right when acting as an IDE device yet? Last I checked, it's still been broken since 2.6.8.
Somebody has to edit the NAMBLA newsletter.
What eye strain? Could just turn down the brightness if it's that big a deal to ya.
Wow. If that counts as "math skills" for your girlfriend, then you should lay off the jailbait. She can't be over 6.