Most open source software is free. Not all, but most.
To use a program, like OpenOffice versus Microsoft Office, OpenOffice is sooo much cheaper.
I use open source programs for that purpose alone. If I can afford it, I buy commercial, as it's generally a lot nicer and most widely accepted. At home I have Microsoft Office only because I could afford it, but my family generally uses OpenOffice on the other systems..
Honestly guys..
I worked as an Assistant Administrator for an ISP in Michigan. AOL's block list is not that bad. I had a very aggressive list of spam. We actively sent letters to our users telling them to forward us spam, and if legit spam, we added the address to our spam filter.
The ONLY ISP that ever affected us by blocking us, was MSN, when MSN.com and Hotmail.com blocked our ISP when their software was messing up. We got our domain unblocked and everything was fine.
I support Aggressive blocklists.
Our legal system has already tested it's power abroad. Anyone offering our citizens something that is illegal in this country can be tried in the US.
As well, if you are a US citizen, and are currently living in the US, you can not host a website on a, say Australian server, that hosts content that is illegal in the US, since you yourself are uploading the data from the US as an origin.
Could someone explain why people are comparing the Talaban to Al Queda?
Because not only did the Taliban "harbor" them in their country, but they funded them in exchange for protection.
To my knowledge, the Talaban was a ruling party of a country that had a military as well as all other aspects of governmental control. This would make individuals who helped and served under them solders or agents (spies, commandos, ect...)
The NAZI Party was in control of Germany.. and that was JUST a government. But they did very many things wrong, attacked people for no reason but personal interest and killed thousand of people cuz they "didn't like them". Starting to understand?
I have just been wondering, those guys don't care about the US, the just want to make sure they don't alow their kids to eat pork or their wives to be seen in public,
They hate us here, in the U.S. They support the jihad against America.
The Talaban is not a Terrorist Organization.
Ok, let's say you have a friend. You drive him to the liquor store. He goes in, comes back out in minutes with 5 bags of alcohol. He just robbed the store. Now as long as you knew he was going in to rob the store, you are just as guilty as he is, here in the United States. Understand that comparison?
But knowing how to make a bomb and posessing instructions on how to make a bomb and even sharing those instructions/knowledge does not cause direct damage to other people. A person would have to choose to make that bomb and then use it to hurt others. Let me highlight that special word: choose. Having knowledge or sharing it is not the same as hurting someone directly.
Let us compare this to MODERN law. The way you are assuming law works is, that if you provide something, and someone else uses it, you are not liable.
Napster, a popular file swapping program. It provided millions of people the ability to share their files online. Now, granted, it was your CHOICE to download files and break the laws. But Napster was held liable for providing the means to do it.
Now, if you are a bartender, serving someone beer at night. It is the other person's choice to drink or not. And it is your choice to drive after drinking. Now it may be against the law to drive while intoxicated, and it may not have been the bartenders wishes. But if that drunken man gets into a car accident and kills someone, the bar and bartender are liable for the death of the third party.
Choice is no longer a term that exists in our law system anymore. Because the person who gave the chooser the choice to make that decision, is not ultimately liable in our law.
correct. But fastmobile.com has an ability called fast chat that allows you to direct connect with people on other services as long as they support the phone.
My neighbor just moved in, we have Verizon, and when she called up for service she told them she doesn't want Verizon cuz it's to expensive, the lady on the phone told her not to worry because Verizon wasn't gonna be in this area for much longer cuz of a buyout.
calls are getting so cheap and minutes so plentiful
Wow.. well in a corporation who relies on
communication, you can never have "enough"
minutes. Direct Connect cuts down on minute
usage by allowing no time to connect calls
(which is included in your time of call),
and the second or two after you are done talking to hit the end button.
Because Yes, a second or two in a corporation (possibly ten to a hundred or hundreds of people using a cell account) per call
would drive a bill up SKY HIGH. Especially
after going above your minute limit.
You have to remember it is only comparable to a walkie talkie in the sense that it's not full duplex. Only one person talks at a time. Other then that, with Nextel's next upgrade, it is completely nationwide over their entire IP network, so it is nothing like a walkie talkie.
What I don't understand is.. that Verizon, Sprint PCS and AT&T Wireless are ALL coming out with versions of Direct Connect for their phones.. all modeled after Nextel's with a few hundred mile range..
And Nextel is releasing their new Nationwide version which will allow people to direct connect with anyone across the entire United States.. so what reason does Nextel have to worry and spy on Verizon? And why VERIZON of all people? AT&T is the one with the GLOBAL impact, not Verizon.
I think this is just a way to impose negative thoughts onto Nextel so that Verizon will have a chance of selling their phones with DirectConnect technology.
A Elected Offical trying to protect consumers as opposed to corp. rights. what a nice idea
What's even better is that the bill limits the FCC's authority on the issue.
Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from forcing companies that make or sell PCs or digital video products to include specific copy-protection technology in them.
It's about time that they aren't required to include copy-protection.. it's a waste of money.. ANY ONE CAN BREAK COPY PROTECTION!
Adam Thierer, an analyst at the free-market group Cato Institute, applauded parts of Brownback's bill--such as limiting the FCC's power--but said it was a mistake to involve the federal government in regulating DRM technology.
Anytime you bring the federal government into technology it is a bad thing.. that's why I wish they'd make a law mandating everything now and not leaving anything to be decided later.. government or individual.. stop leaving parts out to be decided later.
I think that Justin Frankel would cash out big time no matter what happens.
As Founder of the company I'm sure he got some big amount of money from AOL for retirement no matter when he leaves.
Slashdot Mirror
The word sponsor represents what Congressman brought the act before congress. Every bill has a sponsor, or someone who introduced it.
Most open source software is free. Not all, but most.
To use a program, like OpenOffice versus Microsoft Office, OpenOffice is sooo much cheaper.
I use open source programs for that purpose alone. If I can afford it, I buy commercial, as it's generally a lot nicer and most widely accepted. At home I have Microsoft Office only because I could afford it, but my family generally uses OpenOffice on the other systems..
Honestly guys.. I worked as an Assistant Administrator for an ISP in Michigan. AOL's block list is not that bad. I had a very aggressive list of spam. We actively sent letters to our users telling them to forward us spam, and if legit spam, we added the address to our spam filter. The ONLY ISP that ever affected us by blocking us, was MSN, when MSN.com and Hotmail.com blocked our ISP when their software was messing up. We got our domain unblocked and everything was fine. I support Aggressive blocklists.
Unfortunately that is not completely accurate.
Our legal system has already tested it's power
abroad. Anyone offering our citizens something
that is illegal in this country can be tried in the US.
As well, if you are a US citizen, and are
currently living in the US, you can not host a
website on a, say Australian server, that hosts
content that is illegal in the US, since you
yourself are uploading the data from the
US as an origin.
yeah, and when people governments fund terrorist groups, and encourage them to kill citizens, they themselves become terrorists.
correct. But fastmobile.com has an ability called fast chat that allows you to direct connect with people on other services as long as they support the phone.
no where to the impact of AT&T
My neighbor just moved in, we have Verizon, and
when she called up for service she told them she
doesn't want Verizon cuz it's to expensive, the
lady on the phone told her not to worry because
Verizon wasn't gonna be in this area for much longer
cuz of a buyout.
yeah but it still requires dialing.
which requires a pick up.
that time is included in your bill.
BitTorrent has nothing to do with a DIRECT CONNECT call.
BitTorrent is all about swarming a network and
having distributed networking where everyone chips in..
In which case, BitTorrent would only SLOW the
direct connect process...
lol that so was not there when I posted.
and I am getting it on my phone via my phone number
Actually you are not getting it through your phone #, you are getting it through an email.
why? because someone always needs more minutes.
PTT is just a way to make calling quicker and take
up less time.
Plus, if you can afford to only need 500 minutes
using PTT, you don't need the 800 minute plan or
whatever the next step up on your service is.
calls are getting so cheap and minutes so plentiful
Wow.. well in a corporation who relies on
communication, you can never have "enough"
minutes. Direct Connect cuts down on minute
usage by allowing no time to connect calls
(which is included in your time of call),
and the second or two after you are done
talking to hit the end button.
Because Yes, a second or two in a corporation
(possibly ten to a hundred or hundreds of
people using a cell account) per call
would drive a bill up SKY HIGH. Especially
after going above your minute limit.
Looking at the page I don't see any trademark or
copyright information or markings anywhere.
But in any case, it is actually referred to as
Push-To-Talk or PTT, and Direct Connect is how
it is referred to.
You have to remember it is only comparable to a
walkie talkie in the sense that it's not full
duplex. Only one person talks at a time. Other
then that, with Nextel's next upgrade,
it is completely nationwide over their entire
IP network, so it is nothing like a walkie talkie.
but in all actuality, Verizon, Sprint PCS, and
AT&T Wireless PTT service is all gonna go live
soon.
What I don't understand is.. that Verizon,
Sprint PCS and AT&T Wireless are ALL coming out
with versions of Direct Connect for their phones..
all modeled after Nextel's with a few
hundred mile range..
And Nextel is releasing their new Nationwide
version which will allow people to direct connect
with anyone across the entire United States..
so what reason does Nextel have to worry and
spy on Verizon? And why VERIZON of all people?
AT&T is the one with the GLOBAL impact,
not Verizon.
I think this is just a way to impose negative
thoughts onto Nextel so that Verizon will have a
chance of selling their phones with DirectConnect
technology.
But maybe I am wrong, and Nextel got dumb.
I never anyone can do it themselves.
But ANYONE can get ahold of the means to BREAK copy protection.
HAHA..
any admin who sets production servers to be
"automatically updated" deserves to be terminated
with prejudice.
Now this patch has been out for 2 years.. that is
PLENTY of time to realize the patch is worth
it, ESPECIALLY after the first bug bear fiasco.
A Elected Offical trying to protect consumers as opposed to corp. rights. what a nice idea
.. government or individual..
What's even better is that the bill limits the FCC's authority on the issue.
Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from forcing companies that make or sell PCs or
digital video products to include specific copy-protection technology in them.
It's about time that they aren't required to include copy-protection.. it's a waste of money..
ANY ONE CAN BREAK COPY PROTECTION!
Adam Thierer, an analyst at the free-market group Cato Institute, applauded parts of
Brownback's bill--such as limiting the FCC's power--but said it was a mistake to involve the
federal government in regulating DRM technology.
Anytime you bring the federal government into technology it is a bad thing.. that's why I wish
they'd make a law mandating everything now and not leaving anything to be decided later
stop leaving parts out to be decided later.
I think that Justin Frankel would cash out big time no matter what happens.
As Founder of the company I'm sure he got some big amount of money from AOL for
retirement no matter when he leaves.