The only part of those restrictions that has changed from the original announcement is that key checks will now happen every time you update instead of every 10 days.
The 3 install limit and no cd-requirement were already present.
It is probably hidden and invisible due to the insanely bad implementation of threaded comments with hiding that Slashdot has. Often a comment will be hidden with no way to even tell it's there except that the thread doesn't make sense. (More than usual.) You have to click the "parent" link to find it.
Thank you for your post. I'd mod it if I had the points, but failing that, I'll just be glad that we got above level of Digg commentary, if only for a moment.
99% of PCs are NOT: 1) Turned on AND 2) Connected to the internet at the ANY one time. It doesn't matter if it's 1 packet or 150 packets if the computer is off or not currently connected.
I'm a huge proponent of REASONABLE accommodations. Expecting a double-cost change is silly. Expecting simple, standard practices is community-beneficial and because we do not live in isolation; perfectly ethical IMHO.
That's doing things the hard & wrong way. What your form SHOULD do (and no, I am not perfect on this either) is detect which part of the world the IP originates from and display a language option with an appropriate default.
For browsers that support that. Of course, the nice thing about a printer-friendly link is that people KNOW IT IS THERE and can preview the print version without having to find the print-preview feature.
No. They're useability sites, not design sites. There's no rule that sites can't be both. Of course, it is somewhat of a stumbling block to convince people of this BECAUSE of useit.com. However, the information there is very useful -- even in spite of the ugly.
They may be addressing the problem of gaming being a very synchronous activity, and thus very difficult to address in multiple threads. But if they didn't explain it, who knows what they meant.:)
Just how "legacy" are we talking here? I don't much care about the software I was running 10 years ago. Oh sure, the stuff from last year I care about.
Of course, I suspect that I'm the minority even there. Most people just want a current version of word, internet explorer, itunes, and maybe something to touch-up their photos.
What they REALLY want is a way to transfer to the new computer painlessly.
>Share it and another potential customer hears the song.
Not unless you are broadcasting it in open air. Again, the point of the article was that PIRATES AREN'T CUSTOMERS. So the guy who pirates it -- or the guy who pirates it from him, or the guy who pirates it 100 guys down the line ARE NOT CUSTOMERS.
You aren't advertising to customers, you're advertising to OTHER PIRATES who ARE NOT CUSTOMERS.
Now the article doesn't really address the fact that SOME pirates BECOME customers -- but that is a discussion aside, not going more in-depth.
I should have specified. The setup wizard that all the NEW routers I've seen make you run is geared to guiding users to set up a decently secure configuration. That includes generally WPA (now-a-days) -- as a default.
I've never seen one that doesn't support at MINIMUM WEP. ANY sort of access limitation (including SSID broadcasting) is enough (IMHO) to indicate intent to make private.
Additionally, pretty much every wireless router that is sold these days has a setup wizard that you have to run before you get connected. If you choose the (not suggested) option of not running the wizard, aren't you pretty much saying that you WANT it open?
I hardly think he's advocating using Apache to write his webapp. You'd have to do some really bizarre plugin-type-thingy to do that. Perhaps you meant PHP on Apache or something?:)
I'm against this because it's a waste of public resources. SOMEONE will have to be paid to certify these ISPs. It may be a LOT of someones. This is a case of government wanting to take the appearance-of-doing-good road to votes. (Or possibly just plain old corruption.)
Are the people of Utah really so stupid that they feel they need government intervention to follow their own professed morals? Do they lack any sort of character?! Have our problem-solving skills atrophied to the point that we turn to the government for solutions to all our problems? It's absolutely sickening to see people acting like pets of the state.
(Disclaimer, I live in Utah, and am a member-in-good-standing of the LDS church.)
I can understand limiting certain protocols. I don't like it, but I can understand it. Network neutrality though, as I understand it, is more about not promoting traffic to or from certain destinations. It's common practice to put certain types of information (as you mentioned) at higher priority. The problem is when NBC gets higher priority the Small News Channel because NBC paid off Comcast.
Slashdot Mirror
This one is a bigger deal in the US than in other countries.
Someone sharing a file should not be fined their entire life's savings. Slap them with a small fine and let them go in peace.
We'd call it wroshyyr's law, but no one could remember that. :P
The only part of those restrictions that has changed from the original announcement is that key checks will now happen every time you update instead of every 10 days.
The 3 install limit and no cd-requirement were already present.
It is probably hidden and invisible due to the insanely bad implementation of threaded comments with hiding that Slashdot has. Often a comment will be hidden with no way to even tell it's there except that the thread doesn't make sense. (More than usual.) You have to click the "parent" link to find it.
What would you do about prejudice? Complete democracy does not lead to equal rights.
Even better. (As I said, isn't something I have worked with too much -- not that I've really needed to.)
Again, use that as the default and let them select differently if need be.
Thank you for your post. I'd mod it if I had the points, but failing that, I'll just be glad that we got above level of Digg commentary, if only for a moment.
99% of PCs are NOT:
1) Turned on
AND
2) Connected to the internet
at the ANY one time. It doesn't matter if it's 1 packet or 150 packets if the computer is off or not currently connected.
I'm a huge proponent of REASONABLE accommodations. Expecting a double-cost change is silly. Expecting simple, standard practices is community-beneficial and because we do not live in isolation; perfectly ethical IMHO.
That's doing things the hard & wrong way. What your form SHOULD do (and no, I am not perfect on this either) is detect which part of the world the IP originates from and display a language option with an appropriate default.
For browsers that support that. Of course, the nice thing about a printer-friendly link is that people KNOW IT IS THERE and can preview the print version without having to find the print-preview feature.
No. They're useability sites, not design sites. There's no rule that sites can't be both. Of course, it is somewhat of a stumbling block to convince people of this BECAUSE of useit.com. However, the information there is very useful -- even in spite of the ugly.
They may be addressing the problem of gaming being a very synchronous activity, and thus very difficult to address in multiple threads. But if they didn't explain it, who knows what they meant. :)
Just how "legacy" are we talking here? I don't much care about the software I was running 10 years ago. Oh sure, the stuff from last year I care about.
Of course, I suspect that I'm the minority even there. Most people just want a current version of word, internet explorer, itunes, and maybe something to touch-up their photos.
What they REALLY want is a way to transfer to the new computer painlessly.
I wood half thought that a slash-dotter would under stand how a spell checker works.
I'd self-report for $5. In fact, I'd self-report multiple times!
>Share it and another potential customer hears the song.
Not unless you are broadcasting it in open air. Again, the point of the article was that PIRATES AREN'T CUSTOMERS. So the guy who pirates it -- or the guy who pirates it from him, or the guy who pirates it 100 guys down the line ARE NOT CUSTOMERS.
You aren't advertising to customers, you're advertising to OTHER PIRATES who ARE NOT CUSTOMERS.
Now the article doesn't really address the fact that SOME pirates BECOME customers -- but that is a discussion aside, not going more in-depth.
I should have specified. The setup wizard that all the NEW routers I've seen make you run is geared to guiding users to set up a decently secure configuration. That includes generally WPA (now-a-days) -- as a default.
>I would take it one step further and say that piracy is a form of free advertising.
You missed the point of the article. You don't advertise to people who aren't potential customers.
I've never seen one that doesn't support at MINIMUM WEP. ANY sort of access limitation (including SSID broadcasting) is enough (IMHO) to indicate intent to make private.
Additionally, pretty much every wireless router that is sold these days has a setup wizard that you have to run before you get connected. If you choose the (not suggested) option of not running the wizard, aren't you pretty much saying that you WANT it open?
I hardly think he's advocating using Apache to write his webapp. You'd have to do some really bizarre plugin-type-thingy to do that. Perhaps you meant PHP on Apache or something? :)
I'm against this because it's a waste of public resources. SOMEONE will have to be paid to certify these ISPs. It may be a LOT of someones. This is a case of government wanting to take the appearance-of-doing-good road to votes. (Or possibly just plain old corruption.)
Are the people of Utah really so stupid that they feel they need government intervention to follow their own professed morals? Do they lack any sort of character?! Have our problem-solving skills atrophied to the point that we turn to the government for solutions to all our problems? It's absolutely sickening to see people acting like pets of the state.
(Disclaimer, I live in Utah, and am a member-in-good-standing of the LDS church.)
You forgot mandatory managed copy.
I can understand limiting certain protocols. I don't like it, but I can understand it. Network neutrality though, as I understand it, is more about not promoting traffic to or from certain destinations. It's common practice to put certain types of information (as you mentioned) at higher priority. The problem is when NBC gets higher priority the Small News Channel because NBC paid off Comcast.
Yes, yes I did laugh. :)