OK... so guns and violence are bad. We create a.GUN TLD and force all the "pro gun / pro violence" content into that system.
Uh, yeah. There's the slight difference that providing access to pr0n to minors is illegal, whereas showing pictures of firearms is not.
Does the.xxx subject just make you so emotional you lose focus?
Speaking of losing focus, the last line of my post said that I didn't support forcing a system like that, just that it was technically possible given the current control situation. But that's for the hamfisted reply, dumbass.
And what exactly are you going to do. Force everyone who serves up porn to move the.xxx domain, under penalty of law? If so, then who gets to decide what's porn? The U.S. religious right? Iran? Me?
Well... since we have control of the master DNS servers couldn't we do that? Just take away the domains from all the "adult entertainment" sites and give them new.xxx ones to use if they wish to continue business, allow forwarding to the new domain for a transition period as well?
If it's a foreign domain, people can just choose to filter any webistes from outside the U.S. TLD's, so those countries can run hand out their domains as they wish. I'm sure there are many people who don't even visit websites outside the.com and.net domains, and wouldn't be bothered by filtering them out.
"...the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [MPAA] got too much protection at the expense of consumers and it won't work well on PCs."
Then why are all the major PC manufacturers backing Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD?
If nuclear fuel just replaces fossil fuels, and ends up creating the same problems in another 100 years, then we really should be thinking of a solution that works out better in the long term. Like wind, geothermal, and other types of clean, renewable, energy.
PESSIMIST MODE ON
The problem with renewable energy sources is they aren't as easy to control as non-renewable ones. There's no "reserves" to have possession of. You think the power companies would give a hoot about other energy sources if there was still plenty of what we had been using before? They're just looking for a new type of well to buy since the ones they have are drying up.
Wind and Solar are too exploitable by the common man with the right equipment. The power companies are looking to maintain their continuous revenue generating service instead of having to change to a product-based business model of selling people solar panels. It's just like the record companies trying to change from selling the music to renting it. They all want to maintain their comfortable oligarchy in their respective business, at least for their time in the big chair. Nuclear power allows that, the long term isn't considered because the board members will be pushing up daisies by the time it becomes an issue. Geothermal might allow this control too but the setup costs for the business is scaring them away.
First of all, the PDA is dying because of usability. Most people don't have an address book or calandar large enough to justify needing electronically assited organization of it. It takes less time to add phone numbers/meeting to a paper DayRunner adn suits most people's needs, at far lower cost.
Secondly, the PDA's functionality is being superceded by new features of cell phone and digital music players. When you can store you address book in your iPod/cell phone and the cell phone/web portal has calendaring functions is there any reason to pay for a dedicated device to do the same things?
If the cable companies introduce latency on purpose to disrupt VoIP I could see that it could result in a litigation, but what if it just happens to be inherent in the network? Or could be made inherent? With high latency, you don't break the internet, you just cripple time dependant communications.
It's been pointed out that as broadband providers tag packets with different "priority" codes this could happen. The provider's own phone service would be tagged this way for voice call quality, the result is everything else (like normal "internet" tagged packets that happen to be also used for VoIP) would therefore be treated as "lesser" packets and their latancy would increase.
What happens if it's inherent in the network?
Well, they just have to put up with the lousy call quality then. Eventually either market forces will cause providers to deliver better service, or VoIP will find a way to improve the technology so it is bothered less by network latancy.
You don't have to pay for Quicktime Pro to save trailers from the site. I've done it before and I can't recall how, but you have to poke around in the source code of the page to get the url of the actual movie file.
He's got a point. Quicktime Pro is a $30 upgrade no user should have to pay for just to do this job. iTunes can easily convert between MP3, AAC, WAV or AIFF -- it ought to do the same for MPG and MOV videos.
Keep in mind codes are patented and people expect licencing fees. This is probably part of the reason Apple charges for QuickTime Pro. If it gave away the encoding ability in the downloadable version of iTunes they would have to pay licencing fees on every download, whether the person used the features or just used iTunes as an mp3 player/encoder.
I think they should include a version of iTunes that can convert video files with the iPod, but it would pop up on piracy rings so fast...
Set you browser to ask for you approval before accepting cookies, now delete cookies that go with any major copanies you've visited recently.
Go to google and search for a company name.
Ex: Type in "microsoft"
What happens when the results come up? You're prompted to accept a cookie from microsoft.com.
Now, I never even clicked the first link (which is microsoft's homepage).
Why is it that a company is now allowed to add cookies to my machine (and potentially track my web browsing) simply because I looked them up on google?
This is company name specific. I tried "k-mart" and it didn't work. But "kmart" did trigger a request to add a cookie from kmart.com
Whereas leveragin the ipod monopoly to force ipod users to use itunes is ok?
I assume you mean the iTunes Music Store, and not iTunes itself.
Nobody has to use the iTMS, if that were true there would be no market for iPods ouside of the countries where the iTMS is. Also, you can use other music services, like Audio Lunchbox, ect. But I guess you don't count those as "real" music stores since they don't use DRM.
If you're going to say Apple "forces" people to use the iTMS, then I'm going to point out TiVo forcing TiVo owners to use their programming service, instead of a free service, even though they own their TiVo boxes. There seems to be no outrage over that.
But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?
The same people who pay $5-10 a month for program guide info so they can use their TiVo and record the show, instead of using a VCR for free?
The same people who spend $20 a season to own it on DVD (note: these same people could rip the DVD and convert to a format/resolution for use on their iPod, without having to purchase it again)?
It's not the content, it's the ease of getting the content.
Hey, here's an idea, let's pretend the iPod can't play video...
Mock Press Snippit:
CUPERTINO- This week, Steve Jobs unvieled an update to Apple Computers popular iPod, currently the world's highest selling digital music player, at a special invitation-only press event. The new models are slightly thinner than the previous generation and have larger color screens. They also boast five hours more estimated battery life, and for the first time are now available in black as well as the original white. Prices are unchanged from the previous models, with the 30GB model priced at $299.95, and 60GB for $399.95.
What if, for example, I was to send you an email contained a corrupted file that crashed your system? Is that tresspass too?
Well, when you send an email, you don't send it to the recipient's computer. You send it to their email account. The recipient downloads it to their PC, so they can't claim they never gave the file permission to download. Especially given that many mail programs allow you to block attachment downloads.
I will not agree that the government has any business or hope of improving the situation by requiring licenses and bonds for such a simple business. These requirements don't prevent fraud. Punishing fraudulet behavior prevents fraud.
Yup, but this law isn't about preventing fraud. It's really about bringing more revenue to the state.
Wouldn't it be nice if you realized you weren't making enough money for what you were spending and could just make your employer suddenly give you a raise? maybe the state of North Dakota just needs to learn to "live within its means."
With audio control brought to an application level, I am hoping that I could 'mute' the ouput from messenger while leaving the other media player alone.
Like you can do right now with the prefrences in MSN Messenger?
Come on everyone. This is obviously a result of Yahoo's inpending network merger with MSN Messenger. Remember Microsoft closing all those chat rooms citing safety of children. Micorsoft doesn't want any liability if a MSN messenger user gets involved in something they shouldn't in a Yahoo chat room.
The winds of change are blowing, and Yahoo's already starting to lean.
Slashdot Mirror
OK... so guns and violence are bad. We create a .GUN TLD and force all the "pro gun / pro violence" content into that system.
.xxx subject just make you so emotional you lose focus?
Uh, yeah. There's the slight difference that providing access to pr0n to minors is illegal, whereas showing pictures of firearms is not.
Does the
Speaking of losing focus, the last line of my post said that I didn't support forcing a system like that, just that it was technically possible given the current control situation. But that's for the hamfisted reply, dumbass.
And what exactly are you going to do. Force everyone who serves up porn to move the .xxx domain, under penalty of law? If so, then who gets to decide what's porn? The U.S. religious right? Iran? Me?
.xxx ones to use if they wish to continue business, allow forwarding to the new domain for a transition period as well?
.com and .net domains, and wouldn't be bothered by filtering them out.
Well... since we have control of the master DNS servers couldn't we do that? Just take away the domains from all the "adult entertainment" sites and give them new
If it's a foreign domain, people can just choose to filter any webistes from outside the U.S. TLD's, so those countries can run hand out their domains as they wish. I'm sure there are many people who don't even visit websites outside the
Not saying we should, be we have the ability, no?
Microsoft: Where do you want to get out of today?
"...the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [MPAA] got too much protection at the expense of consumers and it won't work well on PCs."
Then why are all the major PC manufacturers backing Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD?
You could have posted a Coral Cache with your post instead of asking someone else to make a mirror.
The team today was sporting their new all-blue uniforms.
If space sex were mandatory, we'd be on Alpha Centauri by now.
Really...
If GAO sex were manditory, we'd have a balanced budget by now.
If lease agreement sex were manditory, there's be no geeks living in Mom's basement by now.
and what I was originally going to say until I realized you said "we'd" and not "I'd":
I'm sure you'd take any career field that had manditory sex.
If nuclear fuel just replaces fossil fuels, and ends up creating the same problems in another 100 years, then we really should be thinking of a solution that works out better in the long term. Like wind, geothermal, and other types of clean, renewable, energy.
PESSIMIST MODE ON
The problem with renewable energy sources is they aren't as easy to control as non-renewable ones. There's no "reserves" to have possession of. You think the power companies would give a hoot about other energy sources if there was still plenty of what we had been using before? They're just looking for a new type of well to buy since the ones they have are drying up.
Wind and Solar are too exploitable by the common man with the right equipment. The power companies are looking to maintain their continuous revenue generating service instead of having to change to a product-based business model of selling people solar panels. It's just like the record companies trying to change from selling the music to renting it. They all want to maintain their comfortable oligarchy in their respective business, at least for their time in the big chair. Nuclear power allows that, the long term isn't considered because the board members will be pushing up daisies by the time it becomes an issue. Geothermal might allow this control too but the setup costs for the business is scaring them away.
PESSIMIST MODE OFF
First of all, the PDA is dying because of usability. Most people don't have an address book or calandar large enough to justify needing electronically assited organization of it. It takes less time to add phone numbers/meeting to a paper DayRunner adn suits most people's needs, at far lower cost.
Secondly, the PDA's functionality is being superceded by new features of cell phone and digital music players. When you can store you address book in your iPod/cell phone and the cell phone/web portal has calendaring functions is there any reason to pay for a dedicated device to do the same things?
If the cable companies introduce latency on purpose to disrupt VoIP I could see that it could result in a litigation, but what if it just happens to be inherent in the network? Or could be made inherent? With high latency, you don't break the internet, you just cripple time dependant communications.
It's been pointed out that as broadband providers tag packets with different "priority" codes this could happen. The provider's own phone service would be tagged this way for voice call quality, the result is everything else (like normal "internet" tagged packets that happen to be also used for VoIP) would therefore be treated as "lesser" packets and their latancy would increase.
What happens if it's inherent in the network?
Well, they just have to put up with the lousy call quality then. Eventually either market forces will cause providers to deliver better service, or VoIP will find a way to improve the technology so it is bothered less by network latancy.
You don't have to pay for Quicktime Pro to save trailers from the site. I've done it before and I can't recall how, but you have to poke around in the source code of the page to get the url of the actual movie file.
He's got a point. Quicktime Pro is a $30 upgrade no user should have to pay for just to do this job. iTunes can easily convert between MP3, AAC, WAV or AIFF -- it ought to do the same for MPG and MOV videos.
Keep in mind codes are patented and people expect licencing fees. This is probably part of the reason Apple charges for QuickTime Pro. If it gave away the encoding ability in the downloadable version of iTunes they would have to pay licencing fees on every download, whether the person used the features or just used iTunes as an mp3 player/encoder.
I think they should include a version of iTunes that can convert video files with the iPod, but it would pop up on piracy rings so fast...
Here's something for you to try:
Set you browser to ask for you approval before accepting cookies, now delete cookies that go with any major copanies you've visited recently.
Go to google and search for a company name.
Ex: Type in "microsoft"
What happens when the results come up?
You're prompted to accept a cookie from microsoft.com.
Now, I never even clicked the first link (which is microsoft's homepage).
Why is it that a company is now allowed to add cookies to my machine (and potentially track my web browsing) simply because I looked them up on google?
This is company name specific. I tried "k-mart" and it didn't work. But "kmart" did trigger a request to add a cookie from kmart.com
Whereas leveragin the ipod monopoly to force ipod users to use itunes is ok?
I assume you mean the iTunes Music Store, and not iTunes itself.
Nobody has to use the iTMS, if that were true there would be no market for iPods ouside of the countries where the iTMS is. Also, you can use other music services, like Audio Lunchbox, ect. But I guess you don't count those as "real" music stores since they don't use DRM.
If you're going to say Apple "forces" people to use the iTMS, then I'm going to point out TiVo forcing TiVo owners to use their programming service, instead of a free service, even though they own their TiVo boxes. There seems to be no outrage over that.
In Soviet Russia, Article translates you!
If you're going to meme, at least meme properly.
No, the problem is you didn't get what my joke was really about.
In Mother Russia, articles translated by YOU!
Our new rocket science overlords welcome I do!
But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?
The same people who pay $5-10 a month for program guide info so they can use their TiVo and record the show, instead of using a VCR for free?
The same people who spend $20 a season to own it on DVD (note: these same people could rip the DVD and convert to a format/resolution for use on their iPod, without having to purchase it again)?
It's not the content, it's the ease of getting the content.
Hey, here's an idea, let's pretend the iPod can't play video...
Mock Press Snippit:
CUPERTINO- This week, Steve Jobs unvieled an update to Apple Computers popular iPod, currently the world's highest selling digital music player, at a special invitation-only press event. The new models are slightly thinner than the previous generation and have larger color screens. They also boast five hours more estimated battery life, and for the first time are now available in black as well as the original white. Prices are unchanged from the previous models, with the 30GB model priced at $299.95, and 60GB for $399.95.
Yeah, that has failure written all over it.
So much for "plenty of bed rest" being the cure to what ails you.
Think of all the elderly who are bedridden. We only accelate their remaining time keeping them on a bed of fungus.
What if, for example, I was to send you an email contained a corrupted file that crashed your system?
Is that tresspass too?
Well, when you send an email, you don't send it to the recipient's computer. You send it to their email account. The recipient downloads it to their PC, so they can't claim they never gave the file permission to download. Especially given that many mail programs allow you to block attachment downloads.
I will not agree that the government has any business or hope of improving the situation by requiring licenses and bonds for such a simple business. These requirements don't prevent fraud. Punishing fraudulet behavior prevents fraud.
Yup, but this law isn't about preventing fraud. It's really about bringing more revenue to the state.
Wouldn't it be nice if you realized you weren't making enough money for what you were spending and could just make your employer suddenly give you a raise? maybe the state of North Dakota just needs to learn to "live within its means."
And they also need to fall back to printed paper for people without computers. And spoken word for people who can't read.
Well, it should be able to fall back to spoken word actually. It should be readbale with a screen reader for people who can't see.
With audio control brought to an application level, I am hoping that I could 'mute' the ouput from messenger while leaving the other media player alone.
Like you can do right now with the prefrences in MSN Messenger?
Don't make a person who wants to use Linux have to leave behind a method or style of communication
I promise not to make them stop using LOTR refrences, and I like the Yoda voice bits.
Mod this post funny, you will.
Come on everyone. This is obviously a result of Yahoo's inpending network merger with MSN Messenger. Remember Microsoft closing all those chat rooms citing safety of children. Micorsoft doesn't want any liability if a MSN messenger user gets involved in something they shouldn't in a Yahoo chat room.
The winds of change are blowing, and Yahoo's already starting to lean.