It is interesting that my post is marked as 'troll'. I am not really sure why, but I can guess it is because my post is not necessarily sympathetic to the article. Slashdot is a small microcosm of why democracy is not best.
There is a legitimate question here about consumers having the right to open up a company that wants to keep their services, technology, and relationships proprietary? Why should a free market do this when there is plenty of choice? The fact people are brand loyal to Apple already creates the situation that Apple consumers will be limited with their choices.
Jailbreaking is about stealing Apple's brand and iPhone's brand because they can't achieve that themselves. There is nothing ground breaking about the iPhone so people should ask why the iPhone must be freed to run any app when there are other less restrictive markets to develop in.
I am not sure what your comment means. Are you saying that iPhone users are complaining because they can't take their phone to other networks? What power is being equalized and at what cost? Forcing a company that has a relationship with another to acquiesce and open up their relationship is not a good precedent. The iPhone is not the only smart phone so people have choice. AT&T is not the only carrier so people have choice. If a person wants an iPhone and not AT&T, too bad. What is wrong with that? In other words, do consumers have a right to demand that a company open up its standards/protocols/relationships etc? I do not think so. There is plenty of choice for the market to work its magic.
I like the news because it seems to be friendly towards the public, but it seems arbitrary and not necessary. Why can't the free market handle this? People are not forced to buy iPhones or support proprietary OSes so I am not sympathetic to those that buy these products and cry for choice. Maybe the price for quality is that the device exists in a walled garden so the producer can recoup costs otherwise the price would be higher.
Shouldn't Apple have the right to make relationships they feel are beneficial? Why are people sympathetic to Apple's consumers if they have bought into a walled garden? Who is really pushing for this rule; could it be Cricket, T-Mobile or other carriers and not consumers?
If the rule is aimed at breaking down walled gardens like Apple's marketplace and carrier agreement, then can we have proprietary anything? Why isn't DirectX forced to open up for PC gaming as that is a marketplace that has to pay royalties to MS twice? Should MPEG be able to maintain its grip on video processing, storage, replay, etc?
To represent how this argument quickly becomes absurd, why not have rules for hardware substitution like putting a Snapdragon in an iPhone? What about replacing the ALU in the processor for alternatives because that interface should also be available to consumers to replace as they feel?
Well, I guess business will change the way it is done. I wonder what the impact will be.
"expectations...MMO should contain" Really?
on
Review: Champions Online
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would never hire this guy. The industry is barely a decade old and according to this guy there are paradigms that have been established that hold forever. Apparently, this guy has not heard of creativity and innovation. Why is there something rather than nothing? Those that know the answer are the ones that will create new paradigms. Too bad some people can't see farther than their nose and make so bold and naive claims.
that IBM is an altruistic company? Of course their comments will be self-serving as the number one patent submitter for years. They have mastered the game of patenting everything and they are not about to let that mountain of assets go.
They have stopped human aging from getting older before it blows up an economy with useless old people. Isn't this part of the US overhaul in health care - get rid of the old and sick because they are holding the herd back?
were stoner bees. Isn't that what the Partnership for a Drug-Free America wants me to believe about lazy bees? Is getting the pollen back to the hive such an urgent matter anyway? If one workers productivity loss will kill a hive, a hive is a fragile place to live. Meh, such is the bee's life to slave away for the greater good.
What is a person and their interests? At what point does Google create a prison for a person by creating a profile that represents your interests you can't break free of? What does it say about "I" if "I" can be quantified? Does "I" ever need to break free of their profile because in reality, we all filter on an implicit profile within ourselves and it never changes. After all, the profile is about opt-out of information as much as opt-in. So, when your profile prevents information from reaching you because it is filtered out, the bars of the prison are realized. In the end, does this make you stupider?
For instance, let's say I am a person that believes that the dark ages were good and the world is flat. Will information to the contrary ever come my way if I am identified as a backward person? How would I ever become enlightened to opposing view points if I am always presented with affirming information on my world perspective.
That is what the title should read now that BT owns the keys to knowledge. I would be worried in a democratic society that a voluntary committee is used to decide what knowledge is appropriate in society.
Isn't democracy about the people deciding and not some secret circle of anointed priests of the Internet? Do they wear robes?
I guess websites get to wear a scarlet letter for being naughty now that we have someone to tell us what is appropriate to consume.
to be used against unscrupulous companies that use offshoring to lower operations costs that are incurred by over-paid US engineers, programmers, and HR(aren't they dirt cheap anyway?).
This post is interesting? The author would worry more about something as obvious as misspellings for the domain. I would be worried more about sub domains masking as coming from the real domain as the author questions. For some reason, I thought the slashdot crowd was a bit above average, but based on the mod points, I have to say that people must not be reading slashdot as this has been covered.
Do not let yourself believe that DNS means security is baked in. DNS's function is to resolve domain names to IPs, not convey authenticity of a domain. For sure, the IP is authentic as it will route to a real server, thus DNS did its job successfully, but the actual service you connect to may not be authentic. So, the trick is to have trusted DNS servers and companies using the correct certs. I would scream at the bank since it should be their priority to generate trust for their customers. Trust is generated through security when it comes to your money.
Justice is a luxury of the winner, I am not so sure about history. Your assertion is silly, "history is written by the winners." So, why is it that there is other material published that suggests differing historical perspective? It must be that the winner is schizophrenic. That is unless you are being cute and trite by suggesting once a winner is established, there is no loser so even a day after the end of the civil war, people of the deep south and their opinions are representative of the winner.
Prove that in modern times that history drowns out the voices of the losers if the losers are not gagged. A strong independent printing press does a lot to disprove your assertion and it does not prevent any version/revision of the history of the civil war. Are you suggesting a conspiracy of all publishers since the civil war to maintain some perspective of the winner? What about publishers in the deep south? Were they not still publishing the South's rhetoric?
What if Google goes to Dagobah, finds master Yoda, fails their test and comes out the other side as Darth Google?
When will the people embrace open technology that is transparent and independent of a vendor. There is no guarantee of Google's altruism aside from some stupid motto that means nothing and really points to naivete.
I concur. It is ridiculous to try to be fair to all ideologies. The fairness doctrine is a joke and a ploy to take the wind out of conservative radio. I happen to be a democrat, but I really enjoy conservative radio.
Jane Q lives in a fantasy world devoid of real economics. And thus, one of the reasons why we see the US failing.
So what if economics restricts speech. That is not what freedom of speech is about. You are allowed to say what you want in the public square. No one says you can't. That is free speech not as in free beer. I read that you believe that free speech is as in free beer. That is ridiculous and is a recipe for being bankrupt. I would speak just to spend other people's money and take everyone to the poor house.
The answer is yes - if you can afford a license to broadcast, you can broadcast. If only conservative programming is successful on the radio, then it is the only programming that will be available. You cannot force an audience.
You can go scream as much as you want in the public square, but if you cannot afford to get to the public square, then no one is going to hear you. Just because the US enjoys freedom of speech, does not mean that you have the right to force others to hear it. I am wondering if you are an American. Capitalism is American - socialism is not. Get it straight. I guess you want to ignore economics. In addition, I suppose you are part of the audience that supports a 3.75 trillion dollar budget on top of an 800 billion stimulus bill with 350 billion left in TARP to spend. You are part of the crowd that wants to force future generations of Americans into economic slavery.
So, who decides the bar for "reasonably sane -- views"? Let me guess, you. Please provide evidence of the "fairness doctrine" working just fine. I think we should agree on what it means to "work fine" first.
In any case, I am a Democrat and I completely disagree with your view point. One, people do own water rights and not everyone has access to water. So, give me a break. Two, economics should rule who broadcasts on the air. If a conservative audience consumes AM radio making it successful, then all the more power to them. If other ideology cannot make it on the radio, then so be it. Socialism is un-American. Let's not force what the market does not want to bear.
Do you want anarchist radio on how to blow up your government? Why not? What about KKK radio, facist radio, PETA radio, or other politically charged ideologies? They should be represented in fairness. To do otherwise is to apply your discretion and I do not want to live in a world shaped by you. I want a world shaped by everyone - not even an oligarchy will suffice and is arguably what the world has.
Why would a content creator/publisher NEED an exclusive internet distributor? Why wouldn't they build out their own delivery channels over the internet and let people subscribe directly?
So, what is the value prop from the cable companies? I wonder if it is quality of service while trampling other internet traffic like P2P, gaming, VPN, music streaming, etc. These guys are your ISP and they are going to prioritize your traffic to their gain. And to think that cable companies try to play that network shaping is because of physical constraints and economics. Cable companies plain and simple have a conflict of interest in making decisions as to what is best for the network as they build out their business model. Let the market determine what apps will win out in the bandwidth wars by people's spending. Let technology adapt - not be artificially shaped by a business plan.
They have the tools to extract the knowledge you are talking about and documenting it. It really is a specialized type skill. That doesn't mean that you could not wing it yourself and do a fine job.
Well, that is not a surprise. But when the OS intentionally downgrades a piece of hardware I purchased, then I am a bit perplexed as to why I would want that OS. Why does an OS have an opinion on how much performance I get from a piece of hardware I purchase. I think hardware manufacturers might have an issue with this. In a sense, MS is setting the bar for how things should operate.
Interesting that you require proof that certain things don't happen but don't provide any proof for your current perspective. Isn't that the definition of an idiot? Isn't the best stance to just watch and listen if you don't otherwise know what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting that my post is marked as 'troll'. I am not really sure why, but I can guess it is because my post is not necessarily sympathetic to the article. Slashdot is a small microcosm of why democracy is not best.
There is a legitimate question here about consumers having the right to open up a company that wants to keep their services, technology, and relationships proprietary? Why should a free market do this when there is plenty of choice? The fact people are brand loyal to Apple already creates the situation that Apple consumers will be limited with their choices. Jailbreaking is about stealing Apple's brand and iPhone's brand because they can't achieve that themselves. There is nothing ground breaking about the iPhone so people should ask why the iPhone must be freed to run any app when there are other less restrictive markets to develop in.
I am not sure what your comment means. Are you saying that iPhone users are complaining because they can't take their phone to other networks? What power is being equalized and at what cost? Forcing a company that has a relationship with another to acquiesce and open up their relationship is not a good precedent. The iPhone is not the only smart phone so people have choice. AT&T is not the only carrier so people have choice. If a person wants an iPhone and not AT&T, too bad. What is wrong with that? In other words, do consumers have a right to demand that a company open up its standards/protocols/relationships etc? I do not think so. There is plenty of choice for the market to work its magic.
I like the news because it seems to be friendly towards the public, but it seems arbitrary and not necessary. Why can't the free market handle this? People are not forced to buy iPhones or support proprietary OSes so I am not sympathetic to those that buy these products and cry for choice. Maybe the price for quality is that the device exists in a walled garden so the producer can recoup costs otherwise the price would be higher.
Shouldn't Apple have the right to make relationships they feel are beneficial? Why are people sympathetic to Apple's consumers if they have bought into a walled garden? Who is really pushing for this rule; could it be Cricket, T-Mobile or other carriers and not consumers?
If the rule is aimed at breaking down walled gardens like Apple's marketplace and carrier agreement, then can we have proprietary anything? Why isn't DirectX forced to open up for PC gaming as that is a marketplace that has to pay royalties to MS twice? Should MPEG be able to maintain its grip on video processing, storage, replay, etc?
To represent how this argument quickly becomes absurd, why not have rules for hardware substitution like putting a Snapdragon in an iPhone? What about replacing the ALU in the processor for alternatives because that interface should also be available to consumers to replace as they feel?
Well, I guess business will change the way it is done. I wonder what the impact will be.
I would never hire this guy. The industry is barely a decade old and according to this guy there are paradigms that have been established that hold forever. Apparently, this guy has not heard of creativity and innovation. Why is there something rather than nothing? Those that know the answer are the ones that will create new paradigms. Too bad some people can't see farther than their nose and make so bold and naive claims.
that IBM is an altruistic company? Of course their comments will be self-serving as the number one patent submitter for years. They have mastered the game of patenting everything and they are not about to let that mountain of assets go.
They have stopped human aging from getting older before it blows up an economy with useless old people. Isn't this part of the US overhaul in health care - get rid of the old and sick because they are holding the herd back?
were stoner bees. Isn't that what the Partnership for a Drug-Free America wants me to believe about lazy bees? Is getting the pollen back to the hive such an urgent matter anyway? If one workers productivity loss will kill a hive, a hive is a fragile place to live. Meh, such is the bee's life to slave away for the greater good.
AIDS is pwned. Good for us and our "junk" DNA. One man's junk is another man's treasure!
What is a person and their interests? At what point does Google create a prison for a person by creating a profile that represents your interests you can't break free of? What does it say about "I" if "I" can be quantified? Does "I" ever need to break free of their profile because in reality, we all filter on an implicit profile within ourselves and it never changes. After all, the profile is about opt-out of information as much as opt-in. So, when your profile prevents information from reaching you because it is filtered out, the bars of the prison are realized. In the end, does this make you stupider?
For instance, let's say I am a person that believes that the dark ages were good and the world is flat. Will information to the contrary ever come my way if I am identified as a backward person? How would I ever become enlightened to opposing view points if I am always presented with affirming information on my world perspective.
That is what the title should read now that BT owns the keys to knowledge. I would be worried in a democratic society that a voluntary committee is used to decide what knowledge is appropriate in society.
Isn't democracy about the people deciding and not some secret circle of anointed priests of the Internet? Do they wear robes?
I guess websites get to wear a scarlet letter for being naughty now that we have someone to tell us what is appropriate to consume.
As Nelson from the Simpson's would say, "Ha! Ha!"
to be used against unscrupulous companies that use offshoring to lower operations costs that are incurred by over-paid US engineers, programmers, and HR(aren't they dirt cheap anyway?).
This post is interesting? The author would worry more about something as obvious as misspellings for the domain. I would be worried more about sub domains masking as coming from the real domain as the author questions. For some reason, I thought the slashdot crowd was a bit above average, but based on the mod points, I have to say that people must not be reading slashdot as this has been covered.
Do not let yourself believe that DNS means security is baked in. DNS's function is to resolve domain names to IPs, not convey authenticity of a domain. For sure, the IP is authentic as it will route to a real server, thus DNS did its job successfully, but the actual service you connect to may not be authentic. So, the trick is to have trusted DNS servers and companies using the correct certs. I would scream at the bank since it should be their priority to generate trust for their customers. Trust is generated through security when it comes to your money.
Justice is a luxury of the winner, I am not so sure about history. Your assertion is silly, "history is written by the winners." So, why is it that there is other material published that suggests differing historical perspective? It must be that the winner is schizophrenic. That is unless you are being cute and trite by suggesting once a winner is established, there is no loser so even a day after the end of the civil war, people of the deep south and their opinions are representative of the winner.
Prove that in modern times that history drowns out the voices of the losers if the losers are not gagged. A strong independent printing press does a lot to disprove your assertion and it does not prevent any version/revision of the history of the civil war. Are you suggesting a conspiracy of all publishers since the civil war to maintain some perspective of the winner? What about publishers in the deep south? Were they not still publishing the South's rhetoric?
Yeah, vendor lock-in is always a good choice.
What if Google goes to Dagobah, finds master Yoda, fails their test and comes out the other side as Darth Google?
When will the people embrace open technology that is transparent and independent of a vendor. There is no guarantee of Google's altruism aside from some stupid motto that means nothing and really points to naivete.
I concur. It is ridiculous to try to be fair to all ideologies. The fairness doctrine is a joke and a ploy to take the wind out of conservative radio. I happen to be a democrat, but I really enjoy conservative radio.
Jane Q lives in a fantasy world devoid of real economics. And thus, one of the reasons why we see the US failing.
No, economics rules. It costs money to broadcast OTA. Where does the money come from?
So what if economics restricts speech. That is not what freedom of speech is about. You are allowed to say what you want in the public square. No one says you can't. That is free speech not as in free beer. I read that you believe that free speech is as in free beer. That is ridiculous and is a recipe for being bankrupt. I would speak just to spend other people's money and take everyone to the poor house.
The answer is yes - if you can afford a license to broadcast, you can broadcast. If only conservative programming is successful on the radio, then it is the only programming that will be available. You cannot force an audience.
You can go scream as much as you want in the public square, but if you cannot afford to get to the public square, then no one is going to hear you. Just because the US enjoys freedom of speech, does not mean that you have the right to force others to hear it. I am wondering if you are an American. Capitalism is American - socialism is not. Get it straight. I guess you want to ignore economics. In addition, I suppose you are part of the audience that supports a 3.75 trillion dollar budget on top of an 800 billion stimulus bill with 350 billion left in TARP to spend. You are part of the crowd that wants to force future generations of Americans into economic slavery.
Wow. What ludicrous dribble?
So, who decides the bar for "reasonably sane -- views"? Let me guess, you. Please provide evidence of the "fairness doctrine" working just fine. I think we should agree on what it means to "work fine" first.
In any case, I am a Democrat and I completely disagree with your view point. One, people do own water rights and not everyone has access to water. So, give me a break. Two, economics should rule who broadcasts on the air. If a conservative audience consumes AM radio making it successful, then all the more power to them. If other ideology cannot make it on the radio, then so be it. Socialism is un-American. Let's not force what the market does not want to bear.
Do you want anarchist radio on how to blow up your government? Why not? What about KKK radio, facist radio, PETA radio, or other politically charged ideologies? They should be represented in fairness. To do otherwise is to apply your discretion and I do not want to live in a world shaped by you. I want a world shaped by everyone - not even an oligarchy will suffice and is arguably what the world has.
Why would a content creator/publisher NEED an exclusive internet distributor? Why wouldn't they build out their own delivery channels over the internet and let people subscribe directly?
So, what is the value prop from the cable companies? I wonder if it is quality of service while trampling other internet traffic like P2P, gaming, VPN, music streaming, etc. These guys are your ISP and they are going to prioritize your traffic to their gain. And to think that cable companies try to play that network shaping is because of physical constraints and economics. Cable companies plain and simple have a conflict of interest in making decisions as to what is best for the network as they build out their business model. Let the market determine what apps will win out in the bandwidth wars by people's spending. Let technology adapt - not be artificially shaped by a business plan.
They have the tools to extract the knowledge you are talking about and documenting it. It really is a specialized type skill. That doesn't mean that you could not wing it yourself and do a fine job.
Well, that is not a surprise. But when the OS intentionally downgrades a piece of hardware I purchased, then I am a bit perplexed as to why I would want that OS. Why does an OS have an opinion on how much performance I get from a piece of hardware I purchase. I think hardware manufacturers might have an issue with this. In a sense, MS is setting the bar for how things should operate.
Interesting that you require proof that certain things don't happen but don't provide any proof for your current perspective. Isn't that the definition of an idiot? Isn't the best stance to just watch and listen if you don't otherwise know what you are talking about.
Does your buddy have this Sony item: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1_vWYQ?