That's what nice about Firefox: extensions. They wouldn't shove Clippy on everyone; instead those who wanted it could load the extension. User choice, what a concept. If only Microsoft could grasp it.
This sounds much more effective than the current IP based blacklists which block entire address spans just because of one spammer. Yes, some spammers will have multiple authenticated servers set up, but it will be a lot harder for them to switch quickly. Bot nets will also be incapable of sending spam, which is a major source of spam today.
Outlawing (or severely restricting) recordable media is likely going to be a lot harder for the RIAA than it was for them to buy laws against online file trading.
It's easy to convince a bunch of middle aged senators that those evil computer hackers are stealing the labels' music because they typically don't have the greatest understanding of computers. But I'd be surprised to find even one US senator who has never copied an album onto a tape or received a copy from a friend. They will see that recording onto CD is the same thing, and will be a lot more reluctant to try to outlaw an activity that they know people have been doing for a long time.
Since the home tape recorder did not kill the music industry and in fact helped it, legislators will have a much harder time buying the argument that recordable CDs will kill the industry.
Most employers wouldn't think twice about hiring spammers. Why would they care?
Because somebody who has as little morals and ethics as spammers do will extend their beliefs into other aspects of life. A spammer wouldn't think twice about stealing from their employer if they think they wouldn't get caught. A spammer wouldn't hesitate to get the company in trouble over some shady deal if it means personal profit for them. When you hire a spammer, you can guarantee some sort of damage will be done due to this persons' complete disregard for other people. Some companies may not care about things like this, but many do.
There are still people who are just getting their first computer. Most of those will at least start out with IE, since it's already there, and might later use something else such as Firefox. It's too early to say that Firefox has lost ground with people like this, since it will take a while for them to become aware of alternative browsers, much less feel comfortable switching.
Your car is dangerous to use, which is why you have insurance. Does that mean you don't use it? This is the purpose of insurance: mitigating known risks. Few things are truly risk free; insurance makes the risks manageable and less catastrophic.
Not coding to standards is the main cause of web sites not working in different browsers. Usually this is done by someone who doesn't really know how to properly create a site but just keeps messing with the code until they get it the way they want in their own browser (usually IE). They don't bother to test it in other browsers and are not even aware of how badly it performs.
OK, it can get annoying to read stories you have read before, but some people did not see it the first time around. If something is really interesting, sometimes it is a good idea to deliberately post it more than once to increase the chance that more people will see it.
For all you whiners who constantly complain about dupes, quit wasting your time on them. Once you realize you've seen it before, hit the back button and go on to the next article. Jesus Christ, it's not that complicated. How many times have you seen a "dupe" on TV?
MSN doesn't have original material. Every "article" is either from a wire service or is an advertisement disguised as a news article. This is why I never use the garbage site MSN as my start page.
Nowdays you're more likely to be charged with abuse FOR parenting your child. In some areas, overzealous child welfare authorities will have parents charged with a crime if they physically discipline their kids in ANY way, even if it results in no visible harm. A harsh lecture would be considered emotional abuse. Other than the "time out corner", what options do they have left? Oh wait, that would be considered imprisonment, can't do that either.
Interpreters for the rules are called lawyers, and they've been around since the beginning of the legal system. It's not just patent law that is this complex. A simple but effective legal system which could be understood by the common person is a nice idea, but would not actually work for many reasons.
The millions of users who don't patch are the problem. Sometimes these exploits turn their computers into zombies that send spam or spread viruses, making them other peoples' problems as well.
The economy is not a zero-sum game. In order for me to become rich, I do not have to make someone else poor. Economic activity generates wealth. There is not a fixed-size "pie" that must be distributed in chunks. When the economy is booming, everybody is better off (in theory). During a recession, everybody loses money. By encouraging economic activity, everybody will benefit. Sure, there are situations where people can and will be exploited, and some are too greedy and too willing to take advantage of these people. But a free market economy requires individuals to take responsibility for their own situation and find something they can do to make money to support themself. Waiting around for someone else to hand you a well paying job is a losing strategy.
There's a reason why competition worked for long distance: local phone companies were not allowed to sell long distance. If they were, you would still be paying AT&T $0.50 per minute to call into the next county. The baby bells had no real reason to favor one provider over another.
Currently in some markets, other phone companies have sprung up to provide bundled local and long distance service. This only works in areas big enough to allow for independent lines for the competing companies. When they try to lease lines from the local monopoly they are competing against, see the grandparent post where I explain what happens.
DSL provided by a third party over the local phone monopoly's lines, while the local monopoly itself is selling the same service, is not competition. It would be no different for cable. All the monopoly has to do is price competitors out of the market, and provide exceptionally poor service to the competitors' customers, and they will be the only game in town.
Competition among broadband providers will only happen when wireless internet is cheap and readily available. Each provider will have their own network and will not be at the whims of a competitor. It's worked pretty well for cellphones; even monopoly phone companies have not been able to dominate cellphones in a decent sized market.
FedEx could very easily solve the free box problem by charging a small fee for each box, but then deducting the amount from your bill when you ship them. That way legitimate customers are basically getting the boxes free while preventing leeches from using FedEx as a free supply of moving boxes.
The way U-Haul makes up for cheap rates is to simply not have any trucks on hand. I have yet to experience or even hear about a move with a U-Haul truck that didn't somehow get screwed up. From now on, I pay a little more to rent from a reputable company.
Remember, this case has not gone to court or been ruled on by a judge in any way. Any stooge can send out a cease and decist order. It's not uncommon at all for corporate legal departments to try to intimidate someone for running a website which the company for some reason does not like. The DMCA simply gives them another club to swing.
In this case, it seems like the only reason FedEx is even concerned is due to what he published on the internet, with their trademarked name visible. My guess is that he will make some slight changes to the site, like not prominately displaying the FedEx name, and that will settle the issue.
You got a speeding ticket in Puerto Rico? Shit, you must have been doing 120. Traffic laws there seem to be mere suggestions, not something that actually gets enforced.
There are a couple of reasons why people are accepting of the iPod DRM: First, it's not very restrictive. People can still do what they want to do with their music for the most part. Second, Apple is selling the tracks at what most people consider a reasonable cost. If the iTunes store were selling whole albums that had 2 good songs plus 10 filler songs for $20 and they could only be played on one device, the iPod would have failed miserably.
To look at it another way, not too many people try to counterfeit bus passes and subway tokens even though it wouldn't be too hard. The risk vs. reward ratio is not in their favor. What would they have to gain from it? Saving $2 at a time isn't enough motivation.
I see the future of DRM schemes being like this, those that impose unreasonable and cumbersome restrictions will die, but users will be willing to accept reasonable restrictions to get the content they want.
This would hardly be a perfect system, but I think the best idea for health care in the United States is to have truly competitive health insurance. In other words, employers no longer cover health care and insurance companies sell affordable policies directly to the public. This seems to work for every other form of insurance. The advantage would be that people would have a choice as to which company to use. The down side would be that people have to pay more for their health care, but right now so many health care costs are hidden so really this system would just make them more obvious. There could be special risk pools like with auto insurance. If I'm not subsidizing the auto insurance of a 3-time DUI offender, why should I currently be subsidizing health care for a 4 pack a day smoker?
There are certainly flaws to this system, but I'd rather have choices as opposed to the current system which leaves me little choice. I'd far rather have something like this than national health care, which would basically be like one big HMO. If they deny your care, you're screwed. When consumers can get away from a bad insurance company, it kind of keeps them in line.
Bottom line is, if we expect top quality health care, it won't be free. Not until doctors and nurses start working for free. It would be much better to have at least some control over what and who we pay for health care.
genetic factors that lead drivers to speed and, as a result, have accidents.
Actually, this is the type of testing I would look forward to. It would finally disprove this "speed kills" bullshit. Insurance companies could no longer financially rape drivers who have speeding tickets but have never had accidents. I suspect the insurance industry is aware of this and would never do the study for this reason.
What are you talking about? The opposite is happening. Modern medical care makes it possible to keep people alive who suffer from conditions that would have killed them at a young age just 50 years ago. Also, life is safer now. Cars and other machinery have safeguards that weren't required years ago. People work in safer jobs now and are a lot less likely to get killed at work. Due to all of these things combined, it is now possible for someone who would have previously been a "Darwin award winner" to live a long life. Perhaps this explains why we seem to have more stupid people in society now, since there are fewer ways for them to accidentally kill themselves.
Things could never get this bad and here's why: everybody is genetically predisposed to something. If we're going to discriminate against everybody, it's the same thing as discriminating against nobody. If a company refuses to sell health insurance to someone with any family history of any condition at all, they won't be selling insurance at all.
Not that I'd ever like to see a Gattica-like situation, but I don't think it's really possible even with genetic testing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what nice about Firefox: extensions. They wouldn't shove Clippy on everyone; instead those who wanted it could load the extension. User choice, what a concept. If only Microsoft could grasp it.
This sounds much more effective than the current IP based blacklists which block entire address spans just because of one spammer. Yes, some spammers will have multiple authenticated servers set up, but it will be a lot harder for them to switch quickly. Bot nets will also be incapable of sending spam, which is a major source of spam today.
Outlawing (or severely restricting) recordable media is likely going to be a lot harder for the RIAA than it was for them to buy laws against online file trading.
It's easy to convince a bunch of middle aged senators that those evil computer hackers are stealing the labels' music because they typically don't have the greatest understanding of computers. But I'd be surprised to find even one US senator who has never copied an album onto a tape or received a copy from a friend. They will see that recording onto CD is the same thing, and will be a lot more reluctant to try to outlaw an activity that they know people have been doing for a long time.
Since the home tape recorder did not kill the music industry and in fact helped it, legislators will have a much harder time buying the argument that recordable CDs will kill the industry.
Most employers wouldn't think twice about hiring spammers. Why would they care?
Because somebody who has as little morals and ethics as spammers do will extend their beliefs into other aspects of life. A spammer wouldn't think twice about stealing from their employer if they think they wouldn't get caught. A spammer wouldn't hesitate to get the company in trouble over some shady deal if it means personal profit for them. When you hire a spammer, you can guarantee some sort of damage will be done due to this persons' complete disregard for other people. Some companies may not care about things like this, but many do.
There are still people who are just getting their first computer. Most of those will at least start out with IE, since it's already there, and might later use something else such as Firefox. It's too early to say that Firefox has lost ground with people like this, since it will take a while for them to become aware of alternative browsers, much less feel comfortable switching.
Your car is dangerous to use, which is why you have insurance. Does that mean you don't use it? This is the purpose of insurance: mitigating known risks. Few things are truly risk free; insurance makes the risks manageable and less catastrophic.
Not coding to standards is the main cause of web sites not working in different browsers. Usually this is done by someone who doesn't really know how to properly create a site but just keeps messing with the code until they get it the way they want in their own browser (usually IE). They don't bother to test it in other browsers and are not even aware of how badly it performs.
OK, it can get annoying to read stories you have read before, but some people did not see it the first time around. If something is really interesting, sometimes it is a good idea to deliberately post it more than once to increase the chance that more people will see it. For all you whiners who constantly complain about dupes, quit wasting your time on them. Once you realize you've seen it before, hit the back button and go on to the next article. Jesus Christ, it's not that complicated. How many times have you seen a "dupe" on TV?
MSN doesn't have original material. Every "article" is either from a wire service or is an advertisement disguised as a news article. This is why I never use the garbage site MSN as my start page.
Nowdays you're more likely to be charged with abuse FOR parenting your child. In some areas, overzealous child welfare authorities will have parents charged with a crime if they physically discipline their kids in ANY way, even if it results in no visible harm. A harsh lecture would be considered emotional abuse. Other than the "time out corner", what options do they have left? Oh wait, that would be considered imprisonment, can't do that either.
Interpreters for the rules are called lawyers, and they've been around since the beginning of the legal system. It's not just patent law that is this complex. A simple but effective legal system which could be understood by the common person is a nice idea, but would not actually work for many reasons.
The millions of users who don't patch are the problem. Sometimes these exploits turn their computers into zombies that send spam or spread viruses, making them other peoples' problems as well.
The economy is not a zero-sum game. In order for me to become rich, I do not have to make someone else poor. Economic activity generates wealth. There is not a fixed-size "pie" that must be distributed in chunks. When the economy is booming, everybody is better off (in theory). During a recession, everybody loses money. By encouraging economic activity, everybody will benefit. Sure, there are situations where people can and will be exploited, and some are too greedy and too willing to take advantage of these people. But a free market economy requires individuals to take responsibility for their own situation and find something they can do to make money to support themself. Waiting around for someone else to hand you a well paying job is a losing strategy.
There's a reason why competition worked for long distance: local phone companies were not allowed to sell long distance. If they were, you would still be paying AT&T $0.50 per minute to call into the next county. The baby bells had no real reason to favor one provider over another. Currently in some markets, other phone companies have sprung up to provide bundled local and long distance service. This only works in areas big enough to allow for independent lines for the competing companies. When they try to lease lines from the local monopoly they are competing against, see the grandparent post where I explain what happens.
DSL provided by a third party over the local phone monopoly's lines, while the local monopoly itself is selling the same service, is not competition. It would be no different for cable. All the monopoly has to do is price competitors out of the market, and provide exceptionally poor service to the competitors' customers, and they will be the only game in town. Competition among broadband providers will only happen when wireless internet is cheap and readily available. Each provider will have their own network and will not be at the whims of a competitor. It's worked pretty well for cellphones; even monopoly phone companies have not been able to dominate cellphones in a decent sized market.
FedEx could very easily solve the free box problem by charging a small fee for each box, but then deducting the amount from your bill when you ship them. That way legitimate customers are basically getting the boxes free while preventing leeches from using FedEx as a free supply of moving boxes.
The way U-Haul makes up for cheap rates is to simply not have any trucks on hand. I have yet to experience or even hear about a move with a U-Haul truck that didn't somehow get screwed up. From now on, I pay a little more to rent from a reputable company.
Remember, this case has not gone to court or been ruled on by a judge in any way. Any stooge can send out a cease and decist order. It's not uncommon at all for corporate legal departments to try to intimidate someone for running a website which the company for some reason does not like. The DMCA simply gives them another club to swing. In this case, it seems like the only reason FedEx is even concerned is due to what he published on the internet, with their trademarked name visible. My guess is that he will make some slight changes to the site, like not prominately displaying the FedEx name, and that will settle the issue.
You got a speeding ticket in Puerto Rico? Shit, you must have been doing 120. Traffic laws there seem to be mere suggestions, not something that actually gets enforced.
There are a couple of reasons why people are accepting of the iPod DRM: First, it's not very restrictive. People can still do what they want to do with their music for the most part. Second, Apple is selling the tracks at what most people consider a reasonable cost. If the iTunes store were selling whole albums that had 2 good songs plus 10 filler songs for $20 and they could only be played on one device, the iPod would have failed miserably.
To look at it another way, not too many people try to counterfeit bus passes and subway tokens even though it wouldn't be too hard. The risk vs. reward ratio is not in their favor. What would they have to gain from it? Saving $2 at a time isn't enough motivation.
I see the future of DRM schemes being like this, those that impose unreasonable and cumbersome restrictions will die, but users will be willing to accept reasonable restrictions to get the content they want.
Will the public buy a player with BD+ in it?
Yes, as long as it's cheap.
This would hardly be a perfect system, but I think the best idea for health care in the United States is to have truly competitive health insurance. In other words, employers no longer cover health care and insurance companies sell affordable policies directly to the public. This seems to work for every other form of insurance. The advantage would be that people would have a choice as to which company to use. The down side would be that people have to pay more for their health care, but right now so many health care costs are hidden so really this system would just make them more obvious. There could be special risk pools like with auto insurance. If I'm not subsidizing the auto insurance of a 3-time DUI offender, why should I currently be subsidizing health care for a 4 pack a day smoker?
There are certainly flaws to this system, but I'd rather have choices as opposed to the current system which leaves me little choice. I'd far rather have something like this than national health care, which would basically be like one big HMO. If they deny your care, you're screwed. When consumers can get away from a bad insurance company, it kind of keeps them in line.
Bottom line is, if we expect top quality health care, it won't be free. Not until doctors and nurses start working for free. It would be much better to have at least some control over what and who we pay for health care.
genetic factors that lead drivers to speed and, as a result, have accidents.
Actually, this is the type of testing I would look forward to. It would finally disprove this "speed kills" bullshit. Insurance companies could no longer financially rape drivers who have speeding tickets but have never had accidents. I suspect the insurance industry is aware of this and would never do the study for this reason.
What are you talking about? The opposite is happening. Modern medical care makes it possible to keep people alive who suffer from conditions that would have killed them at a young age just 50 years ago. Also, life is safer now. Cars and other machinery have safeguards that weren't required years ago. People work in safer jobs now and are a lot less likely to get killed at work. Due to all of these things combined, it is now possible for someone who would have previously been a "Darwin award winner" to live a long life. Perhaps this explains why we seem to have more stupid people in society now, since there are fewer ways for them to accidentally kill themselves.
Things could never get this bad and here's why: everybody is genetically predisposed to something. If we're going to discriminate against everybody, it's the same thing as discriminating against nobody. If a company refuses to sell health insurance to someone with any family history of any condition at all, they won't be selling insurance at all.
Not that I'd ever like to see a Gattica-like situation, but I don't think it's really possible even with genetic testing.