Snail mail spam aka junk mail does not pay its own way - the first class subsidizes it. And it overloads the system badly several days a month, just like internet spam.
WHO CARES IF YOU you YOU get to pay $2.00 - or if I do. That's an artifact of how the local government has decided to get the Telco network paid for - won't be truely decent until the local governments loose or give up control of telco pricing... it's not caused by Spam.
If anyone is to have the freedom to publish whatever they want, then NO ONE can have their publications blocked due to content. Not even spam or junk mail.
As to being charged for what ya don't want: (a) that happens all the time too, get used to it; (b)maybe ya need to look for a ISP that provides an unmetered connection, or an opportunity to filter out all large items, or an opportunity to filter in only items from pre-approved addrsses, or whatever - would deal with the cost without going to the content.
Weenies. It's "ideas belong to everyone" for mp3 but "private property!" when one has to put up with a little spam. Suggest you loose that illusion of control.
Free net access like free speach has some minor irritations. Being bombarded by information one does not want is part of the price of modern life. I suggest you get used to it.
Mega dittos. To use a phrase I don't often admit to.
As part of the wild life and as a lover of the wilderness, I'm so glad to see a post here without the anarchist-paranoid party line. Without the general public's support, both direct and indirect (through firms they patronize as well as through policies adopted by the government), there would probably have been no Internet and certainly there would have been no world wide web.
If people with good to excellent understanding ignore these net reliability issues, then people of little to no understanding will deal with them. Perhaps ending privacy and annonymity as we know it.
Personally I suspect that securing 10,000 networks belonging to corporations, universities, and others with big fat pipes would go a LONG ways to denying the average script kiddie any base for these DDoS attacks.
Taking the fear of corporatism with a grain of salt, I went to DoubleClick's privacy policy page http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/privacy. htm . So I clicked "for Opt Out info" to opt out.
That took me here: http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/default.asp This page told me I had "NOT opted out", that my ID was ae6062b8, and to "click here" in order to Opt Out. I did.
I got to this URL next: http://www.doubleclick.net/cgi-bin3/optout/check2. pl. It told me I could NOT get to the Opt Out page! Error 401.
Being neither young nor particularly adept with computer technology and knowing 'only what I read' about Linux, my rare comments sometimes get flamed.
Of course I don't like being flamed but it usualyy would be when my ignorance was showing, even more than it usually does.
Three points:
I think "can't stand the heat - stay out of the kitchen" applies here, as far as indiviuals go.
/. via moderation makes it easy to avoid petrified firtposted grits if you want; I find those boring unending off-topic things far more annoying than comments about my IQ.
Finally I am stunned that you can talk about fredom and the rights of "groups" such as women in the same breath. Groups don't have rights, people do.
Katz has no cornerstone & builds on sand
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
"The cornerstone of anti-trust law -- and the idea behind a free press -- is that the individual citizen/consumer benefits from openness, choice and diversity of expression and opinion."
Baloney. The idea behind a free press is that the person who wants to speak and publish has a right to do so, regardless of the affect on the audience. The cornerstone of anti-trust law is freedom for the competitor to compete.
Rights come from the gut instinct of the individual or are divinely given to the indiviual - same source actually. Groups such as the general public or the government don't have any rights.
If it should turn out that everyone in the country except Katz prefers to get their news & entertainment from Orlando, or from Time/Warner, this is NOT a problem. Diversity has no virtue in itself, although diversity may have a utilitarian value in its being adaptable.
The virtue comes in the freedom to be different if you want to be. As long as ludicrous tiny little concepts like the original Slashdot can grow into medium-sized Andovers, we have nothing to fear from America-On-Time.
Television dead oh boy, how wonderful. I think it's great that technology has got to where people will no longer trust their TV screens.
There never has been ANY reason to believe that video told truth - it's just like an eye witness, only one totally biased point of view. And now an eye witness with selective/editable recall!
Marketers & Capitalists + Freedom
on
The Timekeeper
·
· Score: 1
Hoorah for the marketeers and the venture capitalists, more power to 'em. Unlike vitually any other kind of power-holder - and most especially unlike a democratically elected power holder - these people are ACCOUNTABLE.
I have at times been elected with power over 18,000 people by very small margins. My competitors and those voting for them had no influence over me, there was no reason whatever for me to care about either their interests or their opinions.
On the other hand, each customer and each transaction matters - at least to some extent - to the marketeer and the venture capitalist. We may think that other people make stupid choices about what to do with their money - for example, to visit Orlando like you did - but the point is that the choice is theirs.
I may vote out of anger or for little reason but how I spend my money is deadly serious in this sense: I tend to buy what I want, not what someone else thinks I should want. If you can make something I actually am willing to pay for, you have done a rare thing indeed.
It really amazes me how head-in-the-sand most/. posters are, all for liberty in the let-me-do-exactly-as-I-please sense, but ranting against the one system that actually guarantees a measure of that sort of freedom to us all: the capitalist system.
Under Capitalism, capital flows to those who do things people willingly spend money on. So there tends over time to be more of what more people want, and less of what minorities think we should want.
Get with the future Mr Katz, you are in great danger of being left in the dustbin of history.
Privacy regulation is almost a contadiction in terms itself. No doubt the majority would favor some sort of regulation, majorities being made of people and people tending to be cautious. A pro-regulation bunch is highly unlikely to respect the risk-taking and innovation that are the web's gifts to us all.
that's who altavista gets first; is he being sued too? If not why not - i think he should have been sued for inflicting that icky role on that otherwise acceptable movie about the sinking boat.
Thanks for bringing this down to earth. Nut cases and crowd mentality predictably ran amuck.
Perhaps its for the best - that the anti-WTO crowd may be classed as one with the few true loonies in their midst.
Free trade in ideas is what open source in general and/. in particular are all about.
Yet most posters behave as Balkan ethnics: we aren't big corporations, so the big corporations must be the evil enemy.
Sorry to spoil your fantasy with a fact: the WTO by encouraging Governments to allow "their" corporations and organized workers to be exposed to world competition, are one of the few forces actually empowering individuals against the most dangerous "over-powerful organizations": the local ones.
Free trade will begin to subject all these big organizations to some real popular sovereignity: not to fraudulently assembled vote blocks, but to individuals, buying or not buying, one penny at a time.
Thank God no one votes for the chair of the WTO or Red Hat. Voluntary cooperation is fine - government enforced support of some so-called national position is a form of theft.
The multi-national corporations as well as the multi-national institutions mostly have to act in accountability to the people of this planet, AS INDIVIDUALS, who either support their activities one at a time, with purchases or with action, or don't.
In contrast, Governments - especially in mass democracies - can pretty much do as they please unless the overwhelming majority becomes completely outraged. Making governments especially the so-called democratic ones the fiercest enemies of individual rights and of progress.
For example, small numbers of consumers wanting paper sacks for their purchases or not wanting genetic-modified foods cause the sacks to appear and the GM foods to disappear - economics & voluntarism wins cheaply.
On the other hand to get a government to end apartheidt or discrimination against gay soldiers is almost impossible.
World trade is the ultimate in OPen Source - people can go with what works fir them, one at a time.
Surprising to see many on/. taking the part of the yahoos in the anti-WTO crowd. Personally I'm glad to see the anarchist few tar the not-much-more respectable message of the majority of the protesters.
Luddites is what they are.
The WTO helps keep special interests from using vote-based so-called democracy to preserve their past advantages against progess and the future.
Free trade is about the only counter against power run amuck in the form of big groups getting governments to protect them against the non-group individuals who actually form the vast majority.
Alan has the mutual self-interest or public benefit of Open Source down pat & well said. His piece falls however: it rests on the assumption that Software is "Mature", that the basics are known. The basics are NOT known. Look at user interfaces. For comparison, a car driver need know very little, compared to a car mechanic or even a service station attendant, and still get great use from the car. You don't have to be a software engineer to use a computer, but you do have to become 'computer literate' - way closer to the technical side.
The zillions concentrated by Microsoft, Oracle, SAP et al are deserved, as long as they are the main innovative force on the basic, what can it do & how little need I know to use it level.
But let Linux seruiously invade the desktop market (I hate phrases like 'desktop space', space is four dimensional at least...) and things may finally change.
I am skeptical of Gartner, especially how precise they claim to be in guestimating costs of big-corpoation software adoptions. For example I don't think windows 2k would cost as much to bring in as they say.
So I'm skeptical of their put-down of Linux, too.
But I didn't see ANY debunking here - merely inuendo that Microsoft wrote or suborned the report. Maybe they did, who cares.
The point should be, note the facts and conclusions that are wrong, and tell us the correct ones, and show us some evidence. That is debunking.
Quoting from "The QWERTY myth": "Economists adore a nice case of market failure. The dogged persistence of the standard typewriter keyboard, held to be a technological anachronism, is a great favourite. Yet the charges against QWERTY were long ago disproved"
see http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/3-4- 99/fn7745.html
Hope most realize this is humor (or overstatement). Sure windows systems can and do crash. But on the desktop side, I don't see windows crash more than 2 or 3 times a year.
The collumn claims daily on average and 2 hours to recover on average. never seen that - don't for a minute believe anyone would tolerate MS siftware if that was really their experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Snail mail spam aka junk mail does not pay its own way - the first class subsidizes it. And it overloads the system badly several days a month, just like internet spam.
WHO CARES IF YOU you YOU get to pay $2.00 - or if I do. That's an artifact of how the local government has decided to get the Telco network paid for - won't be truely decent until the local governments loose or give up control of telco pricing... it's not caused by Spam.
If anyone is to have the freedom to publish whatever they want, then NO ONE can have their publications blocked due to content. Not even spam or junk mail.
As to being charged for what ya don't want: (a) that happens all the time too, get used to it; (b)maybe ya need to look for a ISP that provides an unmetered connection, or an opportunity to filter out all large items, or an opportunity to filter in only items from pre-approved addrsses, or whatever - would deal with the cost without going to the content.
Weenies. It's "ideas belong to everyone" for mp3 but "private property!" when one has to put up with a little spam. Suggest you loose that illusion of control.
Free net access like free speach has some minor irritations. Being bombarded by information one does not want is part of the price of modern life. I suggest you get used to it.
Mega dittos. To use a phrase I don't often admit to.
As part of the wild life and as a lover of the wilderness, I'm so glad to see a post here without the anarchist-paranoid party line. Without the general public's support, both direct and indirect (through firms they patronize as well as through policies adopted by the government), there would probably have been no Internet and certainly there would have been no world wide web.
If people with good to excellent understanding ignore these net reliability issues, then people of little to no understanding will deal with them. Perhaps ending privacy and annonymity as we know it.
Personally I suspect that securing 10,000 networks belonging to corporations, universities, and others with big fat pipes would go a LONG ways to denying the average script kiddie any base for these DDoS attacks.
Taking the fear of corporatism with a grain of salt, I went to DoubleClick's privacy policy page http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/privacy. htm . So I clicked "for Opt Out info" to opt out.
. pl.
That took me here: http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/default.asp
This page told me I had "NOT opted out", that my ID was ae6062b8, and to "click here" in order to Opt Out. I did.
I got to this URL next: http://www.doubleclick.net/cgi-bin3/optout/check2
It told me I could NOT get to the Opt Out page! Error 401.
I'm a new convert to paranoia about corporatism.
Being neither young nor particularly adept with computer technology and knowing 'only what I read' about Linux, my rare comments sometimes get flamed.
Of course I don't like being flamed but it usualyy would be when my ignorance was showing, even more than it usually does.
Three points:
I think "can't stand the heat - stay out of the kitchen" applies here, as far as indiviuals go.
/. via moderation makes it easy to avoid petrified firtposted grits if you want; I find those boring unending off-topic things far more annoying than comments about my IQ.
Finally I am stunned that you can talk about fredom and the rights of "groups" such as women in the same breath. Groups don't have rights, people do.
"The cornerstone of anti-trust law -- and the idea behind a free press -- is that the individual citizen/consumer benefits from openness, choice and diversity of expression and opinion."
Baloney. The idea behind a free press is that the person who wants to speak and publish has a right to do so, regardless of the affect on the audience. The cornerstone of anti-trust law is freedom for the competitor to compete.
Rights come from the gut instinct of the individual or are divinely given to the indiviual - same source actually. Groups such as the general public or the government don't have any rights.
If it should turn out that everyone in the country except Katz prefers to get their news & entertainment from Orlando, or from Time/Warner, this is NOT a problem. Diversity has no virtue in itself, although diversity may have a utilitarian value in its being adaptable.
The virtue comes in the freedom to be different if you want to be. As long as ludicrous tiny little concepts like the original Slashdot can grow into medium-sized Andovers, we have nothing to fear from America-On-Time.
Television dead oh boy, how wonderful. I think it's great that technology has got to where people will no longer trust their TV screens.
/editable recall!
There never has been ANY reason to believe that video told truth - it's just like an eye witness, only one totally biased point of view. And now an eye witness with selective
Hoorah for the marketeers and the venture capitalists, more power to 'em. Unlike vitually any other kind of power-holder - and most especially unlike a democratically elected power holder - these people are ACCOUNTABLE.
/. posters are, all for liberty in the let-me-do-exactly-as-I-please sense, but ranting against the one system that actually guarantees a measure of that sort of freedom to us all: the capitalist system.
I have at times been elected with power over 18,000 people by very small margins. My competitors and those voting for them had no influence over me, there was no reason whatever for me to care about either their interests or their opinions.
On the other hand, each customer and each transaction matters - at least to some extent - to the marketeer and the venture capitalist. We may think that other people make stupid choices about what to do with their money - for example, to visit Orlando like you did - but the point is that the choice is theirs.
I may vote out of anger or for little reason but how I spend my money is deadly serious in this sense: I tend to buy what I want, not what someone else thinks I should want. If you can make something I actually am willing to pay for, you have done a rare thing indeed.
It really amazes me how head-in-the-sand most
Under Capitalism, capital flows to those who do things people willingly spend money on. So there tends over time to be more of what more people want, and less of what minorities think we should want.
Get with the future Mr Katz, you are in great danger of being left in the dustbin of history.
Privacy regulation is almost a contadiction in terms itself. No doubt the majority would favor some sort of regulation, majorities being made of people and people tending to be cautious. A pro-regulation bunch is highly unlikely to respect the risk-taking and innovation that are the web's gifts to us all.
You can't get there from here.
that's who altavista gets first; is he being sued too? If not why not - i think he should have been sued for inflicting that icky role on that otherwise acceptable movie about the sinking boat.
Thanks for bringing this down to earth. Nut cases and crowd mentality predictably ran amuck.
/. in particular are all about.
Perhaps its for the best - that the anti-WTO crowd may be classed as one with the few true loonies in their midst.
Free trade in ideas is what open source in general and
Yet most posters behave as Balkan ethnics: we aren't big corporations, so the big corporations must be the evil enemy.
Sorry to spoil your fantasy with a fact: the WTO by encouraging Governments to allow "their" corporations and organized workers to be exposed to world competition, are one of the few forces actually empowering individuals against the most dangerous "over-powerful organizations": the local ones.
Free trade will begin to subject all these big organizations to some real popular sovereignity: not to fraudulently assembled vote blocks, but to individuals, buying or not buying, one penny at a time.
Thank God no one votes for the chair of the WTO or Red Hat. Voluntary cooperation is fine - government enforced support of some so-called national position is a form of theft.
The multi-national corporations as well as the multi-national institutions mostly have to act in accountability to the people of this planet, AS INDIVIDUALS, who either support their activities one at a time, with purchases or with action, or don't.
In contrast, Governments - especially in mass democracies - can pretty much do as they please unless the overwhelming majority becomes completely outraged. Making governments especially the so-called democratic ones the fiercest enemies of individual rights and of progress.
For example, small numbers of consumers wanting paper sacks for their purchases or not wanting genetic-modified foods cause the sacks to appear and the GM foods to disappear - economics & voluntarism wins cheaply.
On the other hand to get a government to end apartheidt or discrimination against gay soldiers is almost impossible.
World trade is the ultimate in OPen Source - people can go with what works fir them, one at a time.
Surprising to see many on /. taking the part of the yahoos in the anti-WTO crowd. Personally I'm glad to see the anarchist few tar the not-much-more respectable message of the majority of the protesters.
Luddites is what they are.
The WTO helps keep special interests from using vote-based so-called democracy to preserve their past advantages against progess and the future.
Free trade is about the only counter against power run amuck in the form of big groups getting governments to protect them against the non-group individuals who actually form the vast majority.
Alan has the mutual self-interest or public benefit of Open Source down pat & well said. His piece falls however: it rests on the assumption that Software is "Mature", that the basics are known. The basics are NOT known. Look at user interfaces. For comparison, a car driver need know very little, compared to a car mechanic or even a service station attendant, and still get great use from the car. You don't have to be a software engineer to use a computer, but you do have to become 'computer literate' - way closer to the technical side.
The zillions concentrated by Microsoft, Oracle, SAP et al are deserved, as long as they are the main innovative force on the basic, what can it do & how little need I know to use it level.
But let Linux seruiously invade the desktop market (I hate phrases like 'desktop space', space is four dimensional at least...) and things may finally change.
I am skeptical of Gartner, especially how precise they claim to be in guestimating costs of big-corpoation software adoptions. For example I don't think windows 2k would cost as much to bring in as they say.
So I'm skeptical of their put-down of Linux, too.
But I didn't see ANY debunking here - merely inuendo that Microsoft wrote or suborned the report. Maybe they did, who cares.
The point should be, note the facts and conclusions that are wrong, and tell us the correct ones, and show us some evidence. That is debunking.
Quoting from "The QWERTY myth": "Economists adore a nice case of market failure. The dogged persistence of the standard typewriter keyboard, held to be a technological anachronism, is a great favourite. Yet the charges against QWERTY were long ago disproved"
- 99/fn7745.html
see http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/3-4
Not necessarily. Ms didn't invent Hotmail, probably did not improve it, and may not even have changed it.
Hope most realize this is humor (or overstatement). Sure windows systems can and do crash. But on the desktop side, I don't see windows crash more than 2 or 3 times a year.
The collumn claims daily on average and 2 hours to recover on average. never seen that - don't for a minute believe anyone would tolerate MS siftware if that was really their experience.