This happens with all kinds of media. The other day me and some friends went to watch Office Space on a legally purchased DVD, but every time we set it to full screen it gave some bizarre copy protection error. Now, this is probably Windows Media Player's fault - I'm not sure, but I do know when one guy went and got his pirated copy, it played fine..
...just as long as they don't try to restrict what I can access on mine.
That's exactly what happens when you live in the country getting blocked. For individual's computers this probably isn't an issue, and is their right, but what about for a hosting provider?
Perhaps I was a bit too hasty to use the C word for this particular case, but I don't think that a government created child-do-not-email list is the equivalent of a no trespassing sign. There's all kinds of ways that broad language and for-the-children hysteria can end up causing more damage than good.
I think the only way spam can be effectively fought is through technological and economic means. Spam filters, and growing technological savvy will do more to fight spam than a few well intentioned laws.
In the end there'll probably always be somebody stupid enough to send money to nigerian kings to 3nl4rge their pen15 or whatever, and there will always be somebody willing to send them emails, and no government action will stop it. On the other hand, there will probably be some silly laws that cause some pretty bad injustice.
I just wish the spammers had a "not an idiot" list, so they could stop wasting their resources sending the stuff to me.
.. that doesn't beleive that heavy-handed government intervention is the solution to every problem? Especially when the solution involves censoring (for whatever reason) email communications?
So, what your saying is, we need some sort of surgically implanted electrode in their head that will SHOCK them if they watch tv, no matter where they try to watch it? I like your thinking!
The government can coerce you with force, like by throwing you in jail if you don't do what it wants. If a company gets the ability to do this it is a problem, but nowadays they mostly do it by influencing the government.
Also, in the absence of government intervention, companies must be productive to survive. Corruption, waste, and the tendancy to tread on those it should serve tend to kill a private company, whereas government suffers from no such limitation.
This is why demmocracy is so important: because government is in such a position of power, and even so giving it too much free reign can be disastrous.
Get the government out of the marriage business, period.
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Why can't more people take a commun sense stand like this? Getting the federal government's nose out of the whole issue is a solution that should be appreciated across the political spectrum.
Yes, and after we ban hunting we should ban baseball. After all, it's quite possible to kill somebody by swinging a baseball bat at their head with great force and accuracy, is it not? Also, anybody who can drive a car at all well can drive it INTO people. Clearly this is a menace to society.
I don't understand the irrational thinking that the mere mention of guns so often triggers. I learned how to file a rifle at a young age, but was taught proper discipline at the same time and to this day I feel uncomfortable if somebody even points a toy gun in an unsafe direction. If anything, teaching people about firearms makes them less likely to do stupid things with them, just as better drivers are less likely to kill pedestrians.
The problem is with people who actually want to kill, and that desire is rooted deeper than a little bit of training.
I wouldn't be surprised if the browser were add-free, but was instead used to collect information, (spyware) much as your gmail messages are parsed to direct adds. Perhaps this is above the threshold of what people will tolerate (if so I imagine google will know this) but there would certainly be an advantage in it for them if, say, a reasonable portion of browsers identified themself as "middle-aged male in X country/timezone" or gave some other demographic information when it visited google's ad generators. This would mean no adds in the browser itself, but rather the browser giving general information resulting in better directed adds from pages that serve adds anyway.
Of course i'm just speculating wildly, but my point is that there's ways google could capitalize on a popular browser other than simply sticking adds into it. Even simpler, it might just be a good way to integrate people's browsing even more with the other google tools.. who knows.
Thank you, I was starting to think if I was the only one that thought this. We shouldn't be trying to figure out how the government can best make lots of money, but how we can get it to run on as little as possible so that people can be as prosperous as possible.
the inevitable result of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Yes that's why everybody in the U.S. is so poor, and all those wealthy communist countries are laughing at them. I mean just look at all those countries that have succesfully implemented central planning on a large scale; they don't even have poor people!
The fact is that capitalism makes the poor richer, and the rich much richer. This is a net gain. In the end it doesn't matter if the rich in a country are a million times richer than the poor, instead of a thousand, if those poor now have more. More to feed themselves, clothe themselves, more opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo.
Yeah, that would really sell.
This happens with all kinds of media. The other day me and some friends went to watch Office Space on a legally purchased DVD, but every time we set it to full screen it gave some bizarre copy protection error. Now, this is probably Windows Media Player's fault - I'm not sure, but I do know when one guy went and got his pirated copy, it played fine..
Hidden video screens?
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of video screens?
As Jerry Seinfeld decribes it, "men hunt, women nest".
Because linux is too mainstream now GOD even my mother can use it. To be a REAL geek now you have to use OS/2 and/or punchcards.
Perhaps I was a bit too hasty to use the C word for this particular case, but I don't think that a government created child-do-not-email list is the equivalent of a no trespassing sign. There's all kinds of ways that broad language and for-the-children hysteria can end up causing more damage than good.
I think the only way spam can be effectively fought is through technological and economic means. Spam filters, and growing technological savvy will do more to fight spam than a few well intentioned laws.
In the end there'll probably always be somebody stupid enough to send money to nigerian kings to 3nl4rge their pen15 or whatever, and there will always be somebody willing to send them emails, and no government action will stop it. On the other hand, there will probably be some silly laws that cause some pretty bad injustice.
I just wish the spammers had a "not an idiot" list, so they could stop wasting their resources sending the stuff to me.
.. that doesn't beleive that heavy-handed government intervention is the solution to every problem? Especially when the solution involves censoring (for whatever reason) email communications?
laziness is a good enough reason to do anything.
So, what your saying is, we need some sort of surgically implanted electrode in their head that will SHOCK them if they watch tv, no matter where they try to watch it? I like your thinking!
Absolutely. I agree that the idea of the one big company was terrible. Having a monopoly like that would give them crushing power.
I was just responding to the implication that there is no meaningfull distinction between private companies and government.
The government can coerce you with force, like by throwing you in jail if you don't do what it wants. If a company gets the ability to do this it is a problem, but nowadays they mostly do it by influencing the government.
Also, in the absence of government intervention, companies must be productive to survive. Corruption, waste, and the tendancy to tread on those it should serve tend to kill a private company, whereas government suffers from no such limitation.
This is why demmocracy is so important: because government is in such a position of power, and even so giving it too much free reign can be disastrous.
Whatever the lawyers are, I don't think they're "idiots"; let's remember that they're the ones getting rich here.
Yes, sorry I was agreeing and elaborating. I think you hit the nail on the head, and just felt like throwing my own few cents in :D
Yes, and after we ban hunting we should ban baseball. After all, it's quite possible to kill somebody by swinging a baseball bat at their head with great force and accuracy, is it not? Also, anybody who can drive a car at all well can drive it INTO people. Clearly this is a menace to society.
I don't understand the irrational thinking that the mere mention of guns so often triggers. I learned how to file a rifle at a young age, but was taught proper discipline at the same time and to this day I feel uncomfortable if somebody even points a toy gun in an unsafe direction. If anything, teaching people about firearms makes them less likely to do stupid things with them, just as better drivers are less likely to kill pedestrians.
The problem is with people who actually want to kill, and that desire is rooted deeper than a little bit of training.
I wouldn't be surprised if the browser were add-free, but was instead used to collect information, (spyware) much as your gmail messages are parsed to direct adds. Perhaps this is above the threshold of what people will tolerate (if so I imagine google will know this) but there would certainly be an advantage in it for them if, say, a reasonable portion of browsers identified themself as "middle-aged male in X country/timezone" or gave some other demographic information when it visited google's ad generators. This would mean no adds in the browser itself, but rather the browser giving general information resulting in better directed adds from pages that serve adds anyway.
Of course i'm just speculating wildly, but my point is that there's ways google could capitalize on a popular browser other than simply sticking adds into it. Even simpler, it might just be a good way to integrate people's browsing even more with the other google tools.. who knows.
Thank you, I was starting to think if I was the only one that thought this. We shouldn't be trying to figure out how the government can best make lots of money, but how we can get it to run on as little as possible so that people can be as prosperous as possible.
the inevitable result of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Yes that's why everybody in the U.S. is so poor, and all those wealthy communist countries are laughing at them. I mean just look at all those countries that have succesfully implemented central planning on a large scale; they don't even have poor people!
The fact is that capitalism makes the poor richer, and the rich much richer. This is a net gain. In the end it doesn't matter if the rich in a country are a million times richer than the poor, instead of a thousand, if those poor now have more. More to feed themselves, clothe themselves, more opportunity.
I'm not sure where i'm going with this...
Ahh so unlike REAL pirates, these aren't all nice people? Thanks for helping me get my perspective straightened out.
HAAAPY NEW YEAR RAAAAAAAAQWR
I'm not sure how that makes me feel about supporting this company.. I wonder how much of what I spend on electronics already ends up there.
Of course, only one person has to be un-lazy enough to rip it, and it can be all over various p2p networks in a matter of hours...