In a perfect world the FCC will rip Comcast apart. Seriously. When Comcast is looking to buy a content provider like Vivendi or Disney, rather than investing money into infrastructure improvements, then something is entirely, completely off kilter and needs to be corrected. First, while I know that big companies are in business to make money, Comcast should not be in a financial situation to buy a company the size of Disney nor Vivendi. Second, and more importantly, if they are going to operate as a service provider, they should invest profits into ensuring they are able to be the best service provider they can. But, of course, they don't have to because they don't really compete with anyone so they can be a sub-par service provider who over charge for their service and make stupid amounts of money.
With luck, the FCC will get pissed and make an example of Comcast. I know it won't happen, but I can hope.
Ok, comparing them to the Wachowski brothers probably isn't the compliment the submitter intended. I would assume...
The first Matrix movie was superb. I remember literally leaping out of my seat in the theater while watching it. It was incredible. The second movie suggested some fantastic things but really hinged on the third movie to determine whether it was great or not - were those hinted elements executed properly or were those hints just me reading into things? And the third movie sucked so hard that it actually dragged down the first movie's greatness while simultaneously revealing just how terrible the second movie really was. In the second movie, they hinted at and suggested some elements which would have created a wonderful lore for the franchise but their complete lack of ability to craft a story (it's now widely known that the first movie's plot was actually stolen from another author, Sophia Stewart) and their inability to subtly finesse a plot showed through in glaring detail when the third movie came out. Their special effects and fight sequences have had a profound impact on action/sci-fi movies since but, as storytellers, they are enormously subpar, to say the least.
Actually, given that the other comparison the submitter makes is to George Lucas (another absolute master of the visual art but novice of storytelling and script writing...), I'm now forced to wonder if District 9 is just pretty pictures and cool fight scenes with a piss-poor plot and an infantile script... Regardless, I know I'm going to see it but the comparisons to Lucas and the Wachoskis makes me wonder...
Would you be outraged if your boss tracked your every move, posted your life's details on the internet, and otherwise did what this woman has done to the police? I think you would be incensed and probably 1) call the police and file charges and 2) call a lawyer and sue. So, if you would be moved to act against your boss if he/she did what this woman has done, why are you defending what she's done?
Here's a secret - we're not talking about generic children. We can probably visit this woman's site and, in short order, have the names (if not pictures) of the specific children we're talking about. We're not talking about "the children" - we're talking about "their children." One is a blanket statement meant to neuter the other side of an argument because who would argue against something like that while the other is a reference to very specific people who just happen to be children and thus, when referring to them, one must call them "children." Huge difference.
Police officers, on a daily basis, deal with dangerous threats to their lives. Members of the drug enforcement task force, even more so. Significantly more so. They do this knowingly and willingly and they should be respected for the dangerous jobs they do.
The actions of this woman have put the lives of these officers at risk. More so, and the reason I am glad she's been arrested and I hope she is convicted, is that she has also put the lives of the officers' families at risk as well - the wives (or husbands) and children of these officers. Anyone who attempts to justify putting the lives of spouses and children at risk as acceptable is daft, pure and simple.
Lest people forget, drug dealers can often be violent and vindictive. This woman has made it very easy for these drug dealers to directly target the officers families, putting their lives at risk.
It would be really nice if people remembered that the officers have a right to privacy (if we demand it for ourselves, then we should demand it for them as well) and, more importantly, their FAMILIES have a right to safety and privacy. People who willingly and knowingly put the lives of other citizens at risk should be stopped.
I'm glad she got arrested and I hope she serves a significant period of time for her actions.
Presumably Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyers will bring this to the Court's attention.
While I would love to agree with you, given their conduct thus far, I am forced to wonder if they will do so. They've done, in the lay opinion of many armchair lawyers here on slashdot as well as many of the actual lawyers here, a piss-poor job of defending their client. It does not help that their client is almost certainly guilty but there are so many things that her lawyers should have done (or at least attempted) but have failed to do which makes me (and probably many others) wonder just what they are doing... I am hopeful that they have a master plan and this is all just one part of it but I am wondering more and more as I watch things unfold (and unravel...)
I would imagine that their claim is that, by attending the event, you have agreed to the terms, namely signing over the rights to the footage. I think it's bullshit and, at some point, people are going to fight against this crap and put an end to it but, currently, they can put something like this on their ticket stubs and, if you attend the event, it's legally assumed you've agreed to those terms.
Total bullshit though. People keep fighting for the "rights of the artist" but I have yet to see anyone actually fighting for the rights of the people who create creative material...
I wrote my MP, the leader of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister. Several times. And my letters to them were far more professional than my/. post but the core point remained the same.
I demand that my members of parliament, regardless of party affiliation, stand up to these greed-interested lobby groups and champion the best interests of the people they serve - the people who elected them to their positions.
As a voting Canadian, I assure the people in power that I do have influence over their job security should my demands not be met. Given that I am confident that my demands are not dissimilar to the demands of other Canadians, I would strongly suggest that the decision-makers of Canada pay close attention to my demands lest they find themselves out of work and replaced with someone who _is_ willing to represent the best interests of the people of my great nation.
Further, I, as a proud Canadian, demand that lobby groups that do not serve the best interests of the people of my great nation fuck the hell off.
Not worth it. Unlike the Mac, which I feel has held up very well over time, the PC has fallen behind, dramatically, over less time. It was a very good machine (not leading edge, but certainly not a bargain purchase) when I got it but it's now notably behind the times. Whereas my Mac doesn't leave me thinking "I need to upgrade this" my PC most certainly does. I want more RAM, a better video card, a faster CPU, etc., etc., etc. Upgrading each piece, individually, is certainly doable and relatively easy (it's not like PC hardware is some obscure puzzle...) but, the money I would spend to get it to a point where I found it acceptable would get me half way towards a new computer that is superior. Eventually, I'll get a new one but, given that it was purchased as a gaming rig and, currently, my gaming needs are being fulfilled by my Mac (thank you Blizzard...), I don't feel an urgent need to replace it.
...but I don't have $600 I can just spend on a desktop that will quickly go obsolete...
Ok, therein lies the biggest misconception of a Mac. It doesn't "quickly go obsolete." I'm using a Mac Pro that is... six years old and it's still working damn well. Not "adequately" - it's working incredibly well. Photoshop, Warcraft, Final Cut, Soundtrack Pro, and more. I would love to upgrade to a newer computer (namely something with an Intel chip) but I just can't justify upgrading because what I have now is more than sufficient. Upgrading now would be buying a new toy just because - there's no real justification for getting a new computer because I don't _need_ to upgrade. Short of a catastrophic failure of hardware, I see it remaining more than adequate for several more years. I will not be the least bit surprised if I'm still using it a full decade after it was bought and still using it at a high level. Now, call me crazy, but in the realm of computers, getting a decade worth of use out of a computer is FAR from it quickly going obsolete... I challenge you to get the same sort of life out of a PC, to be blunt (and I say that having a newer-but-dead PC sitting beside my Mac, it's power supply having given up, rendering the newer PC nothing more than a large and expensive paper weight...).
Thanks for the link. I read the article and I confuse I didn't find anything there to be sufficiently motivating to jailbreak my iPod. I'm sure many people will feel some (or many) of those reasons are sufficient, and great for them. More importantly, I'm sure some/many people will feel the philosophical reason of "I want freedom and control to use my device the way I want" is justification enough. I don't disagree with that (because I agree with the core belief) but it isn't enough motivation for me because I don't feel my freedom nor control is hampered enough. I know, the fact that it's hampered at all should be enough of a reason to oppose it but, for me, I just find there are more important issues to rage against.:)
Anyhow, thanks for the link.
(Still hoping someone opens my eyes to something vital I've been missing...)
I don't disagree with having the choice to use it as I want. I don't disagree with that at all. My question is "what am I missing?" Telling me I'm missing something wonderful by not jailbreaking my iPod but failing to tell me what I'm missing doesn't help me at all... I agree with the freedom and control but, currently, under the restrictions Apple has implemented, I don't feel constrained or, well, restricted. Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong. Please.
The app you're looking for (from the iTunes store) is Air Sharing. It allows you to connect your computer to your iPod Touch (or iPhone) via wifi and use it just like a harddrive. I have this app, have used it, and love it. Easy and does exactly what you're looking for. Apple is just fine with it (they've offered it for quite some time now).
Really? I haven't jailbroken my iPod Touch and I'm quite happy with it. The only complaint that I have with it is that it's a first gen and not a second gen (and thus lacks the hardware that the second gen has). On the software side, it's doing everything I want it to do, quite nicely. So, I'm curious (and not trying to be a smartass even though it comes easily to me), what am I missing? Beyond "freedom" and "control of my device" since I feel free to use it and control it as I want already - what am I missing that jailbreaking my device could offer?
Yesterday, he was the target of a DDoS attack. Today? The target of the Slashdot Effect. Poor guy will never have a functioning social networking page again...
Ok, I'm going to say something that I'm certain will be enormously unpopular here - what he was doing is a crime and he almost certainly knew it was. Sorry. He got caught breaking the law.
Now, should it be a crime? Should it be a crime with a possible 10 year penalty? Should law enforcement resources be wasted on inane garbage like this while there are real, serious criminals out there that are still walking free? I think the answers to all those questions are obvious (at least I hope they are...) but the reality is what he was doing is a crime and thus he broke the law. I would hope people will be sufficiently bothered by this situation (and the ten year sentence for something so insignificant while people who commit violent crimes get much less time...) that they will be motivated to write their government and demand a change. If enough people raise their voice, maybe, just maybe, the government will pay attention. As it is, the only voice they hear are those of lobbyist for major media companies who want laws like this on the books. They got their way and now this guy is (presumably) guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime, but currently is...
I would think one would buy beef jerky or discount goods from a place called The Shack. They might want to hire a new marketing firm because the one they are using is giving them very bad advice...
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to my own post to correct something - Viacom, not Vivendi. Mixed up my big "V" content providers... Point remains the same though.
In a perfect world the FCC will rip Comcast apart. Seriously. When Comcast is looking to buy a content provider like Vivendi or Disney, rather than investing money into infrastructure improvements, then something is entirely, completely off kilter and needs to be corrected. First, while I know that big companies are in business to make money, Comcast should not be in a financial situation to buy a company the size of Disney nor Vivendi. Second, and more importantly, if they are going to operate as a service provider, they should invest profits into ensuring they are able to be the best service provider they can. But, of course, they don't have to because they don't really compete with anyone so they can be a sub-par service provider who over charge for their service and make stupid amounts of money.
With luck, the FCC will get pissed and make an example of Comcast. I know it won't happen, but I can hope.
Ok, comparing them to the Wachowski brothers probably isn't the compliment the submitter intended. I would assume...
The first Matrix movie was superb. I remember literally leaping out of my seat in the theater while watching it. It was incredible. The second movie suggested some fantastic things but really hinged on the third movie to determine whether it was great or not - were those hinted elements executed properly or were those hints just me reading into things? And the third movie sucked so hard that it actually dragged down the first movie's greatness while simultaneously revealing just how terrible the second movie really was. In the second movie, they hinted at and suggested some elements which would have created a wonderful lore for the franchise but their complete lack of ability to craft a story (it's now widely known that the first movie's plot was actually stolen from another author, Sophia Stewart) and their inability to subtly finesse a plot showed through in glaring detail when the third movie came out. Their special effects and fight sequences have had a profound impact on action/sci-fi movies since but, as storytellers, they are enormously subpar, to say the least.
Actually, given that the other comparison the submitter makes is to George Lucas (another absolute master of the visual art but novice of storytelling and script writing...), I'm now forced to wonder if District 9 is just pretty pictures and cool fight scenes with a piss-poor plot and an infantile script... Regardless, I know I'm going to see it but the comparisons to Lucas and the Wachoskis makes me wonder...
Would you be outraged if your boss tracked your every move, posted your life's details on the internet, and otherwise did what this woman has done to the police? I think you would be incensed and probably 1) call the police and file charges and 2) call a lawyer and sue. So, if you would be moved to act against your boss if he/she did what this woman has done, why are you defending what she's done?
Here's a secret - we're not talking about generic children. We can probably visit this woman's site and, in short order, have the names (if not pictures) of the specific children we're talking about. We're not talking about "the children" - we're talking about "their children." One is a blanket statement meant to neuter the other side of an argument because who would argue against something like that while the other is a reference to very specific people who just happen to be children and thus, when referring to them, one must call them "children." Huge difference.
I think she did right.
I could not disagree with you more if I tried.
Police officers, on a daily basis, deal with dangerous threats to their lives. Members of the drug enforcement task force, even more so. Significantly more so. They do this knowingly and willingly and they should be respected for the dangerous jobs they do.
The actions of this woman have put the lives of these officers at risk. More so, and the reason I am glad she's been arrested and I hope she is convicted, is that she has also put the lives of the officers' families at risk as well - the wives (or husbands) and children of these officers. Anyone who attempts to justify putting the lives of spouses and children at risk as acceptable is daft, pure and simple.
Lest people forget, drug dealers can often be violent and vindictive. This woman has made it very easy for these drug dealers to directly target the officers families, putting their lives at risk.
It would be really nice if people remembered that the officers have a right to privacy (if we demand it for ourselves, then we should demand it for them as well) and, more importantly, their FAMILIES have a right to safety and privacy. People who willingly and knowingly put the lives of other citizens at risk should be stopped.
I'm glad she got arrested and I hope she serves a significant period of time for her actions.
Presumably Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyers will bring this to the Court's attention.
While I would love to agree with you, given their conduct thus far, I am forced to wonder if they will do so. They've done, in the lay opinion of many armchair lawyers here on slashdot as well as many of the actual lawyers here, a piss-poor job of defending their client. It does not help that their client is almost certainly guilty but there are so many things that her lawyers should have done (or at least attempted) but have failed to do which makes me (and probably many others) wonder just what they are doing... I am hopeful that they have a master plan and this is all just one part of it but I am wondering more and more as I watch things unfold (and unravel...)
Congress established a scheme...
Truer words have never been spoken...
If this becomes popular I can see yahoo charging for all their mail services.
Don't worry. It won't become popular.
I would imagine that their claim is that, by attending the event, you have agreed to the terms, namely signing over the rights to the footage. I think it's bullshit and, at some point, people are going to fight against this crap and put an end to it but, currently, they can put something like this on their ticket stubs and, if you attend the event, it's legally assumed you've agreed to those terms.
Total bullshit though. People keep fighting for the "rights of the artist" but I have yet to see anyone actually fighting for the rights of the people who create creative material...
It's nice to see laws that are encouraging innovation in the tech industry.
Oh. Wait...
I wrote my MP, the leader of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister. Several times. And my letters to them were far more professional than my /. post but the core point remained the same.
I demand that my members of parliament, regardless of party affiliation, stand up to these greed-interested lobby groups and champion the best interests of the people they serve - the people who elected them to their positions.
As a voting Canadian, I assure the people in power that I do have influence over their job security should my demands not be met. Given that I am confident that my demands are not dissimilar to the demands of other Canadians, I would strongly suggest that the decision-makers of Canada pay close attention to my demands lest they find themselves out of work and replaced with someone who _is_ willing to represent the best interests of the people of my great nation.
Further, I, as a proud Canadian, demand that lobby groups that do not serve the best interests of the people of my great nation fuck the hell off.
Not worth it. Unlike the Mac, which I feel has held up very well over time, the PC has fallen behind, dramatically, over less time. It was a very good machine (not leading edge, but certainly not a bargain purchase) when I got it but it's now notably behind the times. Whereas my Mac doesn't leave me thinking "I need to upgrade this" my PC most certainly does. I want more RAM, a better video card, a faster CPU, etc., etc., etc. Upgrading each piece, individually, is certainly doable and relatively easy (it's not like PC hardware is some obscure puzzle...) but, the money I would spend to get it to a point where I found it acceptable would get me half way towards a new computer that is superior. Eventually, I'll get a new one but, given that it was purchased as a gaming rig and, currently, my gaming needs are being fulfilled by my Mac (thank you Blizzard...), I don't feel an urgent need to replace it.
...but I don't have $600 I can just spend on a desktop that will quickly go obsolete...
Ok, therein lies the biggest misconception of a Mac. It doesn't "quickly go obsolete." I'm using a Mac Pro that is ... six years old and it's still working damn well. Not "adequately" - it's working incredibly well. Photoshop, Warcraft, Final Cut, Soundtrack Pro, and more. I would love to upgrade to a newer computer (namely something with an Intel chip) but I just can't justify upgrading because what I have now is more than sufficient. Upgrading now would be buying a new toy just because - there's no real justification for getting a new computer because I don't _need_ to upgrade. Short of a catastrophic failure of hardware, I see it remaining more than adequate for several more years. I will not be the least bit surprised if I'm still using it a full decade after it was bought and still using it at a high level. Now, call me crazy, but in the realm of computers, getting a decade worth of use out of a computer is FAR from it quickly going obsolete... I challenge you to get the same sort of life out of a PC, to be blunt (and I say that having a newer-but-dead PC sitting beside my Mac, it's power supply having given up, rendering the newer PC nothing more than a large and expensive paper weight...).
Thanks for the link. I read the article and I confuse I didn't find anything there to be sufficiently motivating to jailbreak my iPod. I'm sure many people will feel some (or many) of those reasons are sufficient, and great for them. More importantly, I'm sure some/many people will feel the philosophical reason of "I want freedom and control to use my device the way I want" is justification enough. I don't disagree with that (because I agree with the core belief) but it isn't enough motivation for me because I don't feel my freedom nor control is hampered enough. I know, the fact that it's hampered at all should be enough of a reason to oppose it but, for me, I just find there are more important issues to rage against. :)
Anyhow, thanks for the link.
(Still hoping someone opens my eyes to something vital I've been missing...)
I don't disagree with having the choice to use it as I want. I don't disagree with that at all. My question is "what am I missing?" Telling me I'm missing something wonderful by not jailbreaking my iPod but failing to tell me what I'm missing doesn't help me at all... I agree with the freedom and control but, currently, under the restrictions Apple has implemented, I don't feel constrained or, well, restricted. Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong. Please.
The app you're looking for (from the iTunes store) is Air Sharing. It allows you to connect your computer to your iPod Touch (or iPhone) via wifi and use it just like a harddrive. I have this app, have used it, and love it. Easy and does exactly what you're looking for. Apple is just fine with it (they've offered it for quite some time now).
Really? I haven't jailbroken my iPod Touch and I'm quite happy with it. The only complaint that I have with it is that it's a first gen and not a second gen (and thus lacks the hardware that the second gen has). On the software side, it's doing everything I want it to do, quite nicely. So, I'm curious (and not trying to be a smartass even though it comes easily to me), what am I missing? Beyond "freedom" and "control of my device" since I feel free to use it and control it as I want already - what am I missing that jailbreaking my device could offer?
Yesterday, he was the target of a DDoS attack. Today? The target of the Slashdot Effect. Poor guy will never have a functioning social networking page again...
Or reduce prices when they no longer need to subsidize fraudulent warranty claims...
Won't somebody please think of the geeks...
Ok, I'm going to say something that I'm certain will be enormously unpopular here - what he was doing is a crime and he almost certainly knew it was. Sorry. He got caught breaking the law.
Now, should it be a crime? Should it be a crime with a possible 10 year penalty? Should law enforcement resources be wasted on inane garbage like this while there are real, serious criminals out there that are still walking free? I think the answers to all those questions are obvious (at least I hope they are...) but the reality is what he was doing is a crime and thus he broke the law. I would hope people will be sufficiently bothered by this situation (and the ten year sentence for something so insignificant while people who commit violent crimes get much less time...) that they will be motivated to write their government and demand a change. If enough people raise their voice, maybe, just maybe, the government will pay attention. As it is, the only voice they hear are those of lobbyist for major media companies who want laws like this on the books. They got their way and now this guy is (presumably) guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime, but currently is...
Wow. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is someone missing the joke in a big way...
I would think one would buy beef jerky or discount goods from a place called The Shack. They might want to hire a new marketing firm because the one they are using is giving them very bad advice...