I wouldn't think of going to a newspaper's website for news - it'll probably be out of date in comparison.
There are many good news sites out there that deal with news on a national and global level. What's needed are good local 'newspaper' websites. I can't find out what is going on around my town from cnn.com unless we have a natural disaster. I have actually toyed with the idea of running a local news site for my town. Hire some college kids to write some articles, get some freelancers, run some google ads to pay for it. Not sure if it would work, but we only have one local newspaper and I think some varying points of view would be good for the community.
We don't need examples of abuses to make it wrong. The patriot act allows for a variety of activities that, at least in my estimation, are blatently unconstitutional. It allows for potential abuses and that should be enough to get any self-respecting citizen of this country to vote against it, and any president that has SWORN to uphold the constitution to veto it. The argument that it makes it easier to catch terrorists may be true. I know there are many members of the law enforcement community that say the similar things about many of our other laws. If it wasn't for all of the criminals rights it would me much easier to prosecute and convict criminals. The reason criminals have rights is so that law abiding citizens aren't harrassed, intimidated or otherwise mistreated by law enforcement. We don't need constant examples of infringements on a law abiding citizen's rights to prove the validity of our constitution.
They want to allow your state to require a retailer out of state to collect sales tax on your purchases for payment to your state.
Thing is, that's a little tricky to enforce. If the retailer isn't in the purchaser's state does the purchaser's state have jurisdiction to go after the retailer? How many items will the retailer have to sell in the offended state before the state goes after him/her? How much is that going to cost the state? How is this going to effect ebay, amazon and other sites helping the individual sell items on the Internet. What's to keep the retailer from going to a location where this "can't" be enforced, like the gp suggested, either to a state that passes a no Internet sales tax law, or as an offshore dummy corporation that just happens to ship their products out of New Jersey?
Sounds like a real mess to me. Looks like this is going to cost the government way more than they are going to make in taxes.
I would pefer if nobody buys it. I like Opera, it's a good product and I would like to see it remain an independent product. Appearantly they are making money. It would be nice if the big boys didn't come along and ruin it just because they can.
The FCC only has the "power to stop people from saying shit on ABC" for one reason - because people give it to them. Look at the public outcry over the whole 'wardrobe malfunction' fiasco. Many people, probably the majority of people considering our demographics, in this country won't stand for nudity or profanity on TV. Violence and mayhem are fine, just no sex or really dirty words. What I find interesting about this is that most cable channels refrain from this type of content as well - and they aren't subject to FCC regulations. Look at shows like Nip/Tuck. Way too racy to be on network TV and there's currently a public outcry against it large enough that one major advertiser has pulled it's ads. All of the exclusively cable channels could run any show they want, but the vast majority of them keep the shows very 'family safe', appearantly to appeal to their markets.
And how can there be proposals to regulate the internet and cable when none of the "justifications" for censorship exist in these mediums?
I agree with this absolutely. People have the ability to control what comes in to their homes. They aren't restricted to 3 or 4 websites, there are literally millions, go to sites that you find acceptable and leave the others alone. The Internet isn't using a public medium and isn't forcing any content on anyone, so why censor it?
Remember one of the reasons 9/11 happened is because the different agencies had no legal means of doing some of the necessary investigation they wanted to do...I'm only speaking facts.
I doubt that has anything to do with why it happened. May have had something to do with why it wasn't prevented, but even that is doubtful. In a perfectly totalitarian world we would all just sit around investigating each other so nobody did anything bad. Sure, if all of the different agencies had unlimited funds and a legal means of doing all of the investigating they wanted it might have stopped 9/11. Would it have been worth it? Absolutely not. Many millions have died since this countries inception to protect it's freedoms. Their sacrifice should not be negated due to the tragedy of 9/11.
You are right of course - which explains why Microsoft wants to use it. They have never been one to pick something simple when there is something obscure and confusing that can take it's place.
What's amazing is the geniuses at BusinessWeek can't figure this out. Amazing that a business writer can't figure out how retail works at Christmas. I bet Christmas day is HUGE at iTMS - and I bet their sysadmins are sweating bullets over it.
Although it appears that imperial measurements break down into simple fractions easier... this only seems convenient to you because you have them memorized.
Perhaps, but bottom line is a base 12 system does have more factors than a base 10. I find it difficult to believe that a system that evolved over such a long time period as the imperial system did doesn't have some inherent benefits.
Canada was in the same boat, and we had no problem switching to metric. It's not nearly as hard as people seem to think.
I don't think it's so much the difficulty, it's more just the idea. The average American still has a very patriotic and independent view of the world. We want to be different, changing to the metric system would make us more uniform with the rest of the world and we don't want that. I doubt the US will ever make a full conversion, our politicians are too concerned about the support of their constituency. The first guy that says we should change football from 10 yards for a first down to 10 meters is NOT going to get re-elected. So, ultimately we have changed in the areas that work significantly better in the metric system and have kept the imperial system where it impacts everyone's daily lives.
Actually, I was watching 60 minutes last night and there's a congressman that wants to spend $20 Billion to fence off the whole mexico/US border. That's why I brought it up.
That's exactly the problem. After spending so much in Iraq, on homeland security, and securing our borders from the dangerous Mexican population that just wants to come over and work in slaughterhouses we won't have anything left for the IPv6 conversion.
Exactly the same kind of foolishness that keeps the US from going metric.
Cost has VERY little to do with the reasons US hasn't went metric. There are two reasons we aren't metric, first is familiarity. Everyone in the country has a good idea of how fast 30 mph is, but has little concept of what the corresponding speed in kph would be. Likewise, most people know approximately how much a gallon is, but only have the concept of a liter from a bottle of soda.
Second, and probably more important, is that the metric system is not always more convenient. I disagree that the only reason we measure thing is so we can perform mathematical operations on them. We measure things so we know what to charge, if they will fit in a particular space and for any other number of reasons. Your point aside, there are many practical mathematical operations that are easier in the standard system than in the metric. How much, in whole measurements, is 1/3 of a meter, 2/3s of a meter, 1/64th of a meter. For everyday uses like construction or cooking the metric system can be difficult to work with.
Getting back to topic, an IPv6 conversion is much different. There aren't that many people in the world that actually understand IP addresses at all, only a very small percentage have any idea how it works. Most people think you just type in google.com and it magically works. IPv6 requires a rework of most of our infrastructure, and more importantly to businesses, could result in the alienation fo some of the valuable customers that now support the Internet. I think the people that see the damage of Hurricane Katrina are just being optomistic. It happened, lets try to make the best of a terrible situation. Opponents of IPv6 are just trying to avoid the difficulty before it happens.
Not only that, but the biggest reason McDonalds can sell happy meals at all is it comes with a toy that keeps the kids entertained for a few minutes. If they start providing a useless item that requires multiple visits to entertain a child it looks like it will decrease the value of the Happy Meal and result in fewer sales.
McDonalds really needs to quit trying to be the high tech fast food chain - I don't think it will ever work out for them.
You are exactly right. I can think of many other examples. Nike now owns Converse (and my beloved Chuck Taylors), Harmann Kardon owns JBL, Maytag is selling out to the highest bidder and the list goes on. Difference probably is it's much easier to put up a website claiming to be an independent reviewer of services that's completely biased and make it difficult for anyone to find out. That's when it becomes unethical and even fraudulent.
If it means cooking yourself, from basic ingredients, no way.
Depends on what you cook. If you live on beans and rice it's cheaper. If you buy quality fresh fruits, vegetables and meat it can be very expensive. Of course this all depends on where you live and what you buy.
A good businessman has people available that help him from making an idiot out of himself. This guy is probably not a good businessman because he both doesn't have a handle on tech, but doesn't have an advisor he listens to that does.
Actually, it's quite easy: have an original patent last for a short period of time (3 years, 5 years? 7 years?). And then charge A LOT (100Ks) for patent extensions. This will make unused patents simply go away...
No, this will just discriminate against the little guy. Only large companies like Microsoft, Google or IBM would be able to afford patents. The average Joe inventor that can barely afford a patent now could patent an invention for three years, but why bother unless your invention is going to net 100k in those first three years. If it's worth patenting it's going to take a competitor some time to reverse engineer and implement a large scale production run anyway and probably chew up most of that 3 year term.
One of my current frustrations with the patent system right now is that I couldn't start my own manufacturing business, for ANYTHING, without either spending thousands of dollars with a patent lawyer to do a patent search, determine if I was violating any patents and file any patents I might need, or just run the risk of getting sued out of existence like RIM. I don't think raising the prices is going to help this situation and thusly not help promote innovation, inventiveness or anything other than higher lawyer fees.
Now the reason the patent system is broken is the huge number of patents covering ideas that did not require investment to come up with.
That's definitely not the only reason the patent system is broken. It's also broken because:
It's so expensive to register and enforce a patent that small companies often don't even try it
Patents are good from the date of application filing, even if the idea was many years previous
Patents are given for a term of 20 years. In our society product lifecycles have declined, but patent terms have increased
New patents can be applied for with minimal changes in the products. Pharamecutical companies do this all the time. When a patent is nearly up they will tweak the process for creating the drug and file a new patent.
Everyone says patents are to promote innovation, but I can't see one area where this is true. All they do is stifle innovation, make lawyers rich and allow big companies to maximize profits.
Here's what I don't understand. It sounds like the patent office is going to invalidate all of NTP's patents anyway. Why doesn't RIM just pay them whatever the heck they want and sue them for all their money back in 6 months when the patent office gets off their lazy ass?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't think of going to a newspaper's website for news - it'll probably be out of date in comparison.
There are many good news sites out there that deal with news on a national and global level. What's needed are good local 'newspaper' websites. I can't find out what is going on around my town from cnn.com unless we have a natural disaster. I have actually toyed with the idea of running a local news site for my town. Hire some college kids to write some articles, get some freelancers, run some google ads to pay for it. Not sure if it would work, but we only have one local newspaper and I think some varying points of view would be good for the community.
when you get to the end of your life, are you going to wish you spent More Time Watching TV ?
God! I hope not, but if you think there's a danger I could get a couple more hours a day in.
We don't need examples of abuses to make it wrong. The patriot act allows for a variety of activities that, at least in my estimation, are blatently unconstitutional. It allows for potential abuses and that should be enough to get any self-respecting citizen of this country to vote against it, and any president that has SWORN to uphold the constitution to veto it. The argument that it makes it easier to catch terrorists may be true. I know there are many members of the law enforcement community that say the similar things about many of our other laws. If it wasn't for all of the criminals rights it would me much easier to prosecute and convict criminals. The reason criminals have rights is so that law abiding citizens aren't harrassed, intimidated or otherwise mistreated by law enforcement. We don't need constant examples of infringements on a law abiding citizen's rights to prove the validity of our constitution.
They want to allow your state to require a retailer out of state to collect sales tax on your purchases for payment to your state.
Thing is, that's a little tricky to enforce. If the retailer isn't in the purchaser's state does the purchaser's state have jurisdiction to go after the retailer? How many items will the retailer have to sell in the offended state before the state goes after him/her? How much is that going to cost the state? How is this going to effect ebay, amazon and other sites helping the individual sell items on the Internet. What's to keep the retailer from going to a location where this "can't" be enforced, like the gp suggested, either to a state that passes a no Internet sales tax law, or as an offshore dummy corporation that just happens to ship their products out of New Jersey?
Sounds like a real mess to me. Looks like this is going to cost the government way more than they are going to make in taxes.
I would preffer if Google buys it.
I would pefer if nobody buys it. I like Opera, it's a good product and I would like to see it remain an independent product. Appearantly they are making money. It would be nice if the big boys didn't come along and ruin it just because they can.
The FCC only has the "power to stop people from saying shit on ABC" for one reason - because people give it to them. Look at the public outcry over the whole 'wardrobe malfunction' fiasco. Many people, probably the majority of people considering our demographics, in this country won't stand for nudity or profanity on TV. Violence and mayhem are fine, just no sex or really dirty words. What I find interesting about this is that most cable channels refrain from this type of content as well - and they aren't subject to FCC regulations. Look at shows like Nip/Tuck. Way too racy to be on network TV and there's currently a public outcry against it large enough that one major advertiser has pulled it's ads. All of the exclusively cable channels could run any show they want, but the vast majority of them keep the shows very 'family safe', appearantly to appeal to their markets.
And how can there be proposals to regulate the internet and cable when none of the "justifications" for censorship exist in these mediums?
I agree with this absolutely. People have the ability to control what comes in to their homes. They aren't restricted to 3 or 4 websites, there are literally millions, go to sites that you find acceptable and leave the others alone. The Internet isn't using a public medium and isn't forcing any content on anyone, so why censor it?
Remember one of the reasons 9/11 happened is because the different agencies had no legal means of doing some of the necessary investigation they wanted to do...I'm only speaking facts.
I doubt that has anything to do with why it happened. May have had something to do with why it wasn't prevented, but even that is doubtful. In a perfectly totalitarian world we would all just sit around investigating each other so nobody did anything bad. Sure, if all of the different agencies had unlimited funds and a legal means of doing all of the investigating they wanted it might have stopped 9/11. Would it have been worth it? Absolutely not. Many millions have died since this countries inception to protect it's freedoms. Their sacrifice should not be negated due to the tragedy of 9/11.
Maybe he doesn't buy froot loops (but I do of course - the maze rocks).
You are right of course - which explains why Microsoft wants to use it. They have never been one to pick something simple when there is something obscure and confusing that can take it's place.
What's amazing is the geniuses at BusinessWeek can't figure this out. Amazing that a business writer can't figure out how retail works at Christmas. I bet Christmas day is HUGE at iTMS - and I bet their sysadmins are sweating bullets over it.
Although it appears that imperial measurements break down into simple fractions easier... this only seems convenient to you because you have them memorized.
Perhaps, but bottom line is a base 12 system does have more factors than a base 10. I find it difficult to believe that a system that evolved over such a long time period as the imperial system did doesn't have some inherent benefits.
Canada was in the same boat, and we had no problem switching to metric. It's not nearly as hard as people seem to think.
I don't think it's so much the difficulty, it's more just the idea. The average American still has a very patriotic and independent view of the world. We want to be different, changing to the metric system would make us more uniform with the rest of the world and we don't want that. I doubt the US will ever make a full conversion, our politicians are too concerned about the support of their constituency. The first guy that says we should change football from 10 yards for a first down to 10 meters is NOT going to get re-elected. So, ultimately we have changed in the areas that work significantly better in the metric system and have kept the imperial system where it impacts everyone's daily lives.
we do nothing to secure the borders
Actually, I was watching 60 minutes last night and there's a congressman that wants to spend $20 Billion to fence off the whole mexico/US border. That's why I brought it up.
-
Construction - lumber is still purchased in feet
-
Bakeries - Donuts are still sold by dozens
-
Daries - Milk is still sold in Gallons and half Gallons
-
Agregates (one of the largest industries in the US) - Rock is still sold by the standard ton of 2000 lbs
-
Oil - still measured by the gallon, quart and barrel
Seems like there are still quite a few people using standard measurements.Is that warranty good from the time you start the work, or in 10 years when you actually get it done.
That's exactly the problem. After spending so much in Iraq, on homeland security, and securing our borders from the dangerous Mexican population that just wants to come over and work in slaughterhouses we won't have anything left for the IPv6 conversion.
Exactly the same kind of foolishness that keeps the US from going metric.
Cost has VERY little to do with the reasons US hasn't went metric. There are two reasons we aren't metric, first is familiarity. Everyone in the country has a good idea of how fast 30 mph is, but has little concept of what the corresponding speed in kph would be. Likewise, most people know approximately how much a gallon is, but only have the concept of a liter from a bottle of soda.
Second, and probably more important, is that the metric system is not always more convenient. I disagree that the only reason we measure thing is so we can perform mathematical operations on them. We measure things so we know what to charge, if they will fit in a particular space and for any other number of reasons. Your point aside, there are many practical mathematical operations that are easier in the standard system than in the metric. How much, in whole measurements, is 1/3 of a meter, 2/3s of a meter, 1/64th of a meter. For everyday uses like construction or cooking the metric system can be difficult to work with.
Getting back to topic, an IPv6 conversion is much different. There aren't that many people in the world that actually understand IP addresses at all, only a very small percentage have any idea how it works. Most people think you just type in google.com and it magically works. IPv6 requires a rework of most of our infrastructure, and more importantly to businesses, could result in the alienation fo some of the valuable customers that now support the Internet. I think the people that see the damage of Hurricane Katrina are just being optomistic. It happened, lets try to make the best of a terrible situation. Opponents of IPv6 are just trying to avoid the difficulty before it happens.
Not only that, but the biggest reason McDonalds can sell happy meals at all is it comes with a toy that keeps the kids entertained for a few minutes. If they start providing a useless item that requires multiple visits to entertain a child it looks like it will decrease the value of the Happy Meal and result in fewer sales.
McDonalds really needs to quit trying to be the high tech fast food chain - I don't think it will ever work out for them.
You are exactly right. I can think of many other examples. Nike now owns Converse (and my beloved Chuck Taylors), Harmann Kardon owns JBL, Maytag is selling out to the highest bidder and the list goes on. Difference probably is it's much easier to put up a website claiming to be an independent reviewer of services that's completely biased and make it difficult for anyone to find out. That's when it becomes unethical and even fraudulent.
Thank God we have GPS. At least we don't have to rely on stupid compasses while the north pole is having a jaunt.
If it means cooking yourself, from basic ingredients, no way.
Depends on what you cook. If you live on beans and rice it's cheaper. If you buy quality fresh fruits, vegetables and meat it can be very expensive. Of course this all depends on where you live and what you buy.
I'm sure the guy is a good businessman
A good businessman has people available that help him from making an idiot out of himself. This guy is probably not a good businessman because he both doesn't have a handle on tech, but doesn't have an advisor he listens to that does.
We can't get the powers that be to adopt IPv6 and this guy thinks he's going to be able to change routing protocols and charge for priority routes?
Actually, it's quite easy: have an original patent last for a short period of time (3 years, 5 years? 7 years?). And then charge A LOT (100Ks) for patent extensions. This will make unused patents simply go away...
No, this will just discriminate against the little guy. Only large companies like Microsoft, Google or IBM would be able to afford patents. The average Joe inventor that can barely afford a patent now could patent an invention for three years, but why bother unless your invention is going to net 100k in those first three years. If it's worth patenting it's going to take a competitor some time to reverse engineer and implement a large scale production run anyway and probably chew up most of that 3 year term.
One of my current frustrations with the patent system right now is that I couldn't start my own manufacturing business, for ANYTHING, without either spending thousands of dollars with a patent lawyer to do a patent search, determine if I was violating any patents and file any patents I might need, or just run the risk of getting sued out of existence like RIM. I don't think raising the prices is going to help this situation and thusly not help promote innovation, inventiveness or anything other than higher lawyer fees.
That's definitely not the only reason the patent system is broken. It's also broken because:
- It's so expensive to register and enforce a patent that small companies often don't even try it
- Patents are good from the date of application filing, even if the idea was many years previous
- Patents are given for a term of 20 years. In our society product lifecycles have declined, but patent terms have increased
- New patents can be applied for with minimal changes in the products. Pharamecutical companies do this all the time. When a patent is nearly up they will tweak the process for creating the drug and file a new patent.
Everyone says patents are to promote innovation, but I can't see one area where this is true. All they do is stifle innovation, make lawyers rich and allow big companies to maximize profits.Here's what I don't understand. It sounds like the patent office is going to invalidate all of NTP's patents anyway. Why doesn't RIM just pay them whatever the heck they want and sue them for all their money back in 6 months when the patent office gets off their lazy ass?