gonna say it anyway - b/c what you said is soooooo what i think for both men and women.
i too feel too much time is committed to these corporate entities/our own firms/etc. thinking that what matters is $$ and a good job and accumulating more shit.....
don't get me wrong - $$ is good to have, but if you sacrifice your children's lives then you have lost something far more valuable than any worldly good.
people who think like Ketzer need to have several kids, b/c at least we know they will have a life that is taught with some intelligence.
I would say I feel sorry for you, for when you are 65 and alone..
wow. pity?
please. it's called extended family. brothers, sisters, etc.
plus, simply b/c i chose not to procreate doesn't mean i will never have kids...adoption of children that are over the age of 9 (after that they become "unwanted" - what a sad social commentary...) is fine with my wife and i and part of our plan...one that includes being financially stable and independent. my goal is by age 40 (10 years!) i'm on track...and happy.
since i don't hide behind some psuedonym (dingbat hp), i'll wager that each and everything that I post is factual and true - at least in regards to me.
No doubt you also think that all single mothers are also lazy trollops who should have their misbegotten brood dragged off to orphanages.
flamebait. pure and simple.
the quit your job comment comes at the fact that many, many two career families, who are buying filtering software for the PC are in fact as such b/c they have wants not needs. (find me some poor single family mothers and i'll show you that almost 100% are worried about the light bill - not paying the fucking internet bill.)
these families are as such:
they WANT that family vacation to disneyland - both parents work.
they WANT to have that $40,000 Chevy Suburban - both parents work.
they WANT they new HDTV with satellite and TiVo system - both parents work.
what i am fed up with is morons who believe that children are a RIGHT not a fucking PRIVLIDGE.
Don't you think that getting away from their parents some of the time is a good thing for children ?
where'd you pull this shit from? where did i say that i want any kids not interacting with other KIDS. no, what i don't want them interacting with are people like Captain GO, who'll try and cross state lines to have sex with a fucking 13 yr old.
If my son
do us a favor - think long and hard before you have kids...save us all some grief.
We have talked to Akamai about this and have not gotten a response," said Kevin Fink, chief technology officer at N2H2. "We discovered this quite some time ago, but I don't think they did anything about it."
i understand your position and i am not in any way suggesting that parents should not use some filtering software, but at the crux of the matter is whether or not Akamai needs to worry about this. they don't make filtering software. they make search engine software. the matter at hand is looking to me like, "hey, Akamai, you need to kowtow to the filtering software needs b/c people might be harmed."
sorry - i love a free unregulated society for all. and if/when i own my own business, i'll be damed if someone will tell me how to make/sell my product. if it is legal, i'll do it my way.
N2H2 needs to get a grip. i think they are a little upset b/c they too have a product and now it seems that it may work a little less effectively. that hurts their bottom line.
but all in all, what i'd really settle for is parents being parents. right now, i see filtering software as taking some of the responsibilty of parenting and that should not be its purpose. it's a tool - not a crutch.
the whole pulling of the PC and mom-monitoring usage resulted from more than one incident, after repeated warnings and the fear that the web is quite possibly the best tool child molestors have. i have learned that 13 yr old girls can be as stubborn and hard headed as 13 yr old boys. i suggested to my mom some ways to monitor usage surreptitiously (keyboard monitors, web logs, etc.) but ultimately helped my parents arrive at a decsion that was in the same vein as the way i was raised - a little heavy handedness that was up front with a full explaination.
yeah, when i was a kid it was all the rage to find/buy/steal p0rn mags. but i was essentially dealt with the same way. my parents reasoned with me, punished me some, but ultimately THEY tried to teach me right from wrong. i'm glad what they didn't do was try and run Stop N' Rob out of the neighborhood. and that is what most parents want - they want to be less responsible and want some sort of government mandate that will help them with their responsiblities. and that is a sad propisition.
thx for the response! i enjoy the discourse on these matters - now if we can only influence the other 199,990,000 people in the U.S.
This makes about as much sense as a parent going to congress and telling them the networks can't show sexual content because he's afraid his kid might see it.
this was the exact issue that popped in my mind as i read these articles. i don't want to sound like jon katz or get on a stump, but...
is it only me who recognizes that PARENTS today want to use technology to cover the gaps in their role as a parent? ultimately, any control placed to hamper web sites loading can be over come - save one: how about the parents take some responsiblity and turn off the PC?
yeah, yeah. i've heard it before. "we work." "we can't police our children 24/7." "society should set some acceptable norms for all to live by." etc. etc. etc.
look, if you have children, you made a CHOICE to propigate your family linage (and don't give me that bullshit about 'accidents.' there are no accidental births - what did you think the act of sex might result in? free beer?) it is your responsiblity to raise your child. if work gets in the way - well maybe you need to quit your job.
QUIT MY JOB! yeah, wtf do you think is more important - work or family (god, i hate asking that question to some people....)
and before you ask me my wherewithall to rant on this subject - my wife and i chose NOT to have children b/c we have other things we want to accomplish. we made that decsion based on NOT wanting to be part-time parents and full time employees. and also, my 13 year old sis recently got into some adult level chats with some questionable people. the result? no unsupervised PC usage (yeah, my mom actually sits there as she does homework research) and some stearn talk about the world, people, and growing up.
look, sorrry for the rant, but i am sooooo tired of people thinking technology has morals. people have morals. technology is just a means to an end.
MP3Board is itself fighting a lawsuit filed against it by the Recording Industry Association of America, arguing that MP3Board violates copyright laws by assisting consumers in the location of online MP3 music files.
essentially this is MP3Board trying to divert some of the blame/press/damages/etc. to someone/anyone besides themselves.
be assure that the lawyers thought this up, it is a tactic to by them time and was the direct result of the 2600 case.
When you install Napster, it automatically creates an index of every MP3 on your system
at least the version i installed, asked me if i wanted it to search and find my MP3 catalog. it was not automatic in the sense that i did not have a choice.
article comment Combined with data-mining services by which browsers' individual likes, dislikes and purchasing patterns can be relentlessly tracked and analyzed, virtual insertion opens up the ability to shunt personally targeted advertisements over phone lines or cables to Web users and TV viewers. Say you like Pepsi but your neighbor next door likes Coke and your neighbor across the street likes Seven-Up--the kind of data harvestable from supermarket checkout records. It will become possible to tailor the soft-drink image in the broadcast signal to reach each of you with your preferred brand.
poster's comment I would love if information specific to me was able to be incorporated into my everyday sensorium.
truth yeah, right. the truth of the matter is that any chance any moron who chose a career in TV-land gets, they will try and sublimated our wants/desires for some crap that they sell. ads that you want? shit, try ads that you hate. the author of the article seemed to think that if you drank Pepsi you'd get Pepsi ads...why? the whole purpose of ads is to sell you shit you don't already buy. more Pepsi? sure, but wouldn't Coke love to have all of your business and wouldn't they pay handsomely for that?
it's the rare ad that is *somehow* wittier than Wazzzzzup! i would love to pay for the things you mention - yeah, my own personal stock streamer would be cool (i like to see how much XRX has screwed me this week,) but the chance that some firm will offer it to me? hmmmmm - slim? none.
sorry, but i have very little faith in marketers and their ilk. lowest common denominator and such.
actually, on the contrary, when i have used the CS (twice) i have received pretty good service and generally prompt answers.
yeah, we've had 2 outtages in the couple of months that i have been using RR, but at least one also knocked out the TV signal - can't really blame them there.
and yeah, sometimes it is slow, but hey for those 3 or 4 min i got get a drink or use the bathroom. having that pipe into my house and getting away from dial-up has been very liberating and has allowed me to love surfing from home almost as much as at work (with the massive T3!)
no one wants to put up with the jewish bandwidth limitation pulled by SBC, GTE, and others.
pretty much nailed it on the head (of course, no need to use the racist moniker.)
i probably would not have gone with RR if i would have had to sign a year agreement, as SBC in my area (Houston) requires. SBC was offering free installation, but once you sign the agreement, if you move, you have to pay for the new installation.
i agree that DSL maybe superior, but i pull 400kbps all day all night and only pay $40 a month. no service contract, no installation fee!
this might all be immaterial in the years to follow, but for those trying to get DSL, the early adopters are always going to foot the largest portion of the bill. at least with cable, the line is there and is cheap to run - thus building a base has been much easier.
of course you are right too - i'm not a huge fan of Time Warner and feel i am just lucky that i'm happy with RR.
can only hope that some fool who made the decision (if they in fact did so) put it in writing.
but i see your point - the chance of punishing SBC is slim as far as guilt. but this appears to me to be what most class actions suits are about: media attention. and of course, media attention could negatively effect their bottom line.
in my dealings with SBC they were overwhelmed - and i believe this is partly due to their own errors. the campaign of offering free installation drove SBC in Houston to being 2 months behind on appointments - when they finally called to confirm that i still had an appointment, i had already been using RR for a month!
so i guess it would not be that odd to find that SBC is having rate problems and that in some managers short-sightedness they might have capped the rates. as i understand it, breaking out the line at the router is expensive and time consuming, of course, SBC is a big ass Co.
IMHO - if you can get it, go RoadRunner - i have yet to have problems and it has been three months on CounterStrike bliss!
wow! you have a C compiler for the 800? now there is something i'd be interested in.
i admit it - i still love my 800. i only called it glorified b/c all the kids in my neighborhood used it for games - while i at least did a 'little' programming.
yeah - my dad bought the whole thing b/c it ran VisiCalc, which was the first computer program i ever had interaction with.
for fun, check out Ebay for old 800 stuff. how cheap!!
yeap - the ATARI 400 and 800. i still have my 800 in working condition with two 5 1/4 external floppy drives (one has a cool chip in it that allows you to surpass copyright protection - even back then games wanted to be free) and a whopping 32k of RAM. of course, it was a glorified 2600, but i learned BASIC on it, so it means something to me.
mailed? you footing the bill? now i see why we call it "bigger government."
no - in all actuality they have the right to request it. postage will be their concern. the actual document production cost will also be their concern. trust me, i worked in Federal District 11 for two years doing just that - providing copies of pleadings, judgments, abstracts, motions, etc. to everyone: read as lawyers, messengers, bankers, regular joes, and even the indigent (which surprised me by how many people live on the street with no food or clothing, but would pay $.10/page for some obscure case that they had nothing to do with (as far as i could tell....) guess toilet paper comes from odd places!)
By offering legal documents only in PDF format, the government is assisting Adobe in gaining market share, at the expense of those people who don't want to or can't download the Acrobat reader (Plain text browsers, people with slow computers, people who are too illiterate to install Acrobat....
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/
The document will be in PDF format. You may need to download a (free) copy of Acrobat Reader, if you don't already have it, or visit the Help page for links to additional instructions and technical support.
i see your arguments, but truthfully, i don't see how using the free PDF format is a bad thing. it has instructions for how to config with AOL, so we know that the ignorant masse are being covered. there is a text-only reader for those who need/prefer and the reader version is only 5.6mb.
i don't think the, by providing documents in this format, they are denying anyone. by your logic, do the people without PC access should have the right to have a free copy mailed to them?
i'm not looking to them to pirate the content. i'm looking for there to be enough of a media flury over this that maybe, just maybe Samaranch might wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that the decisions on banning any/all internet content is directly opposed to the idea of making money.
and that is what the Olympics are about today - $$.
what am i basing the IOC being out of the loop? you remeber Samaranch's explanation about his financial deal ings....
the IOC is a corrupt. he's old school. he's what's wrong with business today - old men with money living lavishly off the profits of the companies that they run.
as for why is the internet just so important:
i work alot. i get a lot of content at work. i buy stuff from work. i have both my work/personal life at work. the Olympics is financially motivated, just like baseball, football, and any other sport. so if king samarach denies the web from providing content - the he's denying profits. and if you think that the little old king isn't concerned about profits, go re-read the orginal story. that's billions with a capital B.
besides the $$? because i keep up with professional cycling. i actually give a shit. and the Olympics are huge for cycling. next to the Tour de France they may be 2nd for eyeballs. and for me, i want to be able to get that information at work. isn't a difficult concept. as a business, you put the content where people will use it. the all or nothing ideal of tv vs. the web is ignorant. and my guess is that Samaranch doesn't get it. i would venture that he sees it as dilution. in fact, it may be concetration. but the "dance with the date who brung ya" attitude is what makes this all possible. Samaranch is beholden to the medium that my parents are more in touch with than i am.
Unfortunately what with the attitude of most/.ers that everything should be "free" and online
this has little to do with free. it has alot to do with online.
when ESPN can't show Olympic event re-plays on their website, then we're talking about a restriction placed upon a HUGE business - ESPN is no mom/pop operation.
but even more, the real problem is that the IOC is out of touch, out of the loop, and quite possibly too old to understand the internet, the people who use it, and why it is important.
stop me if i am wrong here, but since i work monday-friday (saturday?!) about 7AM-5PM CST, i assume that i am going to miss some events. of course, i have web access at work and i am fortunate enough to work for a company that allows me the freedom to work and surf as i please. so by excluding the web as a viable medium - they are excluding me from viewing some things i might care about (cycling events!)
you are more than allowed to copy materials for personal use. you are also allowed to get author permission to reproduce materials for classes (see next post.)
what you are not allowed to do, without permission, is to copy a material and then provide it to ANY AND ALL comers unregulated. that sir, is illegal.
not sure how it works in your country, but in ours (U.S.) material that it copyrighted is just that - protected to prevent undue replication and dissemination.
feel free to disagree, but the crux of the matter is that this young man is illegall providing a a copy of someones else's property.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yeah, preach it man
gonna say it anyway - b/c what you said is soooooo what i think for both men and women.
i too feel too much time is committed to these corporate entities/our own firms/etc. thinking that what matters is $$ and a good job and accumulating more shit.....
don't get me wrong - $$ is good to have, but if you sacrifice your children's lives then you have lost something far more valuable than any worldly good.
people who think like Ketzer need to have several kids, b/c at least we know they will have a life that is taught with some intelligence.
I would say I feel sorry for you, for when you are 65 and alone..
wow. pity?
please. it's called extended family. brothers, sisters, etc.
plus, simply b/c i chose not to procreate doesn't mean i will never have kids...adoption of children that are over the age of 9 (after that they become "unwanted" - what a sad social commentary...) is fine with my wife and i and part of our plan...one that includes being financially stable and independent. my goal is by age 40 (10 years!) i'm on track...and happy.
save your pity for people who needed it.
since i don't hide behind some psuedonym (dingbat hp), i'll wager that each and everything that I post is factual and true - at least in regards to me.
No doubt you also think that all single mothers are also lazy trollops who should have their misbegotten brood dragged off to orphanages.
flamebait. pure and simple.
the quit your job comment comes at the fact that many, many two career families, who are buying filtering software for the PC are in fact as such b/c they have wants not needs. (find me some poor single family mothers and i'll show you that almost 100% are worried about the light bill - not paying the fucking internet bill.)
these families are as such:
they WANT that family vacation to disneyland - both parents work.
they WANT to have that $40,000 Chevy Suburban - both parents work.
they WANT they new HDTV with satellite and TiVo system - both parents work.
what i am fed up with is morons who believe that children are a RIGHT not a fucking PRIVLIDGE.
Don't you think that getting away from their parents some of the time is a good thing for children ?
where'd you pull this shit from? where did i say that i want any kids not interacting with other KIDS. no, what i don't want them interacting with are people like Captain GO, who'll try and cross state lines to have sex with a fucking 13 yr old.
If my son
do us a favor - think long and hard before you have kids...save us all some grief.
We have talked to Akamai about this and have not gotten a response," said Kevin Fink, chief technology officer at N2H2. "We discovered this quite some time ago, but I don't think they did anything about it."
i understand your position and i am not in any way suggesting that parents should not use some filtering software, but at the crux of the matter is whether or not Akamai needs to worry about this. they don't make filtering software. they make search engine software. the matter at hand is looking to me like, "hey, Akamai, you need to kowtow to the filtering software needs b/c people might be harmed."
sorry - i love a free unregulated society for all. and if/when i own my own business, i'll be damed if someone will tell me how to make/sell my product. if it is legal, i'll do it my way.
N2H2 needs to get a grip. i think they are a little upset b/c they too have a product and now it seems that it may work a little less effectively. that hurts their bottom line.
but all in all, what i'd really settle for is parents being parents. right now, i see filtering software as taking some of the responsibilty of parenting and that should not be its purpose. it's a tool - not a crutch.
true true.
the whole pulling of the PC and mom-monitoring usage resulted from more than one incident, after repeated warnings and the fear that the web is quite possibly the best tool child molestors have. i have learned that 13 yr old girls can be as stubborn and hard headed as 13 yr old boys. i suggested to my mom some ways to monitor usage surreptitiously (keyboard monitors, web logs, etc.) but ultimately helped my parents arrive at a decsion that was in the same vein as the way i was raised - a little heavy handedness that was up front with a full explaination.
yeah, when i was a kid it was all the rage to find/buy/steal p0rn mags. but i was essentially dealt with the same way. my parents reasoned with me, punished me some, but ultimately THEY tried to teach me right from wrong. i'm glad what they didn't do was try and run Stop N' Rob out of the neighborhood. and that is what most parents want - they want to be less responsible and want some sort of government mandate that will help them with their responsiblities. and that is a sad propisition.
thx for the response! i enjoy the discourse on these matters - now if we can only influence the other 199,990,000 people in the U.S.
there isnt a damn thing you can do to Sony
uninstall?
/. the shit out of them and their product?
create a media storm of protest?
hell, there are a lot of things i can do.
howabout you?
my rant
you and i should get together and run against bush/gore. we'll call it the real family values tour!
great rant. i agree 100%. even about the tall buildings.
hehe.
This makes about as much sense as a parent going to congress and telling them the networks can't show sexual content because he's afraid his kid might see it.
this was the exact issue that popped in my mind as i read these articles. i don't want to sound like jon katz or get on a stump, but...
is it only me who recognizes that PARENTS today want to use technology to cover the gaps in their role as a parent? ultimately, any control placed to hamper web sites loading can be over come - save one: how about the parents take some responsiblity and turn off the PC?
yeah, yeah. i've heard it before. "we work." "we can't police our children 24/7." "society should set some acceptable norms for all to live by." etc. etc. etc.
look, if you have children, you made a CHOICE to propigate your family linage (and don't give me that bullshit about 'accidents.' there are no accidental births - what did you think the act of sex might result in? free beer?) it is your responsiblity to raise your child. if work gets in the way - well maybe you need to quit your job.
QUIT MY JOB! yeah, wtf do you think is more important - work or family (god, i hate asking that question to some people....)
and before you ask me my wherewithall to rant on this subject - my wife and i chose NOT to have children b/c we have other things we want to accomplish. we made that decsion based on NOT wanting to be part-time parents and full time employees. and also, my 13 year old sis recently got into some adult level chats with some questionable people. the result? no unsupervised PC usage (yeah, my mom actually sits there as she does homework research) and some stearn talk about the world, people, and growing up.
look, sorrry for the rant, but i am sooooo tired of people thinking technology has morals. people have morals. technology is just a means to an end.
MP3Board is itself fighting a lawsuit filed against it by the Recording Industry Association of America, arguing that MP3Board violates copyright laws by assisting consumers in the location of online MP3 music files. essentially this is MP3Board trying to divert some of the blame/press/damages/etc. to someone/anyone besides themselves. be assure that the lawyers thought this up, it is a tactic to by them time and was the direct result of the 2600 case.
When you install Napster, it automatically creates an index of every MP3 on your system
at least the version i installed, asked me if i wanted it to search and find my MP3 catalog. it was not automatic in the sense that i did not have a choice.
article comment
Combined with data-mining services by which browsers' individual likes, dislikes and purchasing patterns can be relentlessly tracked and analyzed, virtual insertion opens up the ability to shunt personally targeted advertisements over phone lines or cables to Web users and TV viewers. Say you like Pepsi but your neighbor next door likes Coke and your neighbor across the street likes Seven-Up--the kind of data harvestable from supermarket checkout records. It will become possible to tailor the soft-drink image in the broadcast signal to reach each of you with your preferred brand.
poster's comment
I would love if information specific to me was able to be incorporated into my everyday sensorium.
truth
yeah, right. the truth of the matter is that any chance any moron who chose a career in TV-land gets, they will try and sublimated our wants/desires for some crap that they sell. ads that you want? shit, try ads that you hate. the author of the article seemed to think that if you drank Pepsi you'd get Pepsi ads...why? the whole purpose of ads is to sell you shit you don't already buy. more Pepsi? sure, but wouldn't Coke love to have all of your business and wouldn't they pay handsomely for that?
it's the rare ad that is *somehow* wittier than Wazzzzzup! i would love to pay for the things you mention - yeah, my own personal stock streamer would be cool (i like to see how much XRX has screwed me this week,) but the chance that some firm will offer it to me? hmmmmm - slim? none.
sorry, but i have very little faith in marketers and their ilk. lowest common denominator and such.
actually, on the contrary, when i have used the CS (twice) i have received pretty good service and generally prompt answers.
yeah, we've had 2 outtages in the couple of months that i have been using RR, but at least one also knocked out the TV signal - can't really blame them there.
and yeah, sometimes it is slow, but hey for those 3 or 4 min i got get a drink or use the bathroom. having that pipe into my house and getting away from dial-up has been very liberating and has allowed me to love surfing from home almost as much as at work (with the massive T3!)
no one wants to put up with the jewish bandwidth limitation pulled by SBC, GTE, and others.
pretty much nailed it on the head (of course, no need to use the racist moniker.)
i probably would not have gone with RR if i would have had to sign a year agreement, as SBC in my area (Houston) requires. SBC was offering free installation, but once you sign the agreement, if you move, you have to pay for the new installation.
i agree that DSL maybe superior, but i pull 400kbps all day all night and only pay $40 a month. no service contract, no installation fee!
this might all be immaterial in the years to follow, but for those trying to get DSL, the early adopters are always going to foot the largest portion of the bill. at least with cable, the line is there and is cheap to run - thus building a base has been much easier.
of course you are right too - i'm not a huge fan of Time Warner and feel i am just lucky that i'm happy with RR.
can only hope that some fool who made the decision (if they in fact did so) put it in writing.
but i see your point - the chance of punishing SBC is slim as far as guilt. but this appears to me to be what most class actions suits are about: media attention. and of course, media attention could negatively effect their bottom line.
in my dealings with SBC they were overwhelmed - and i believe this is partly due to their own errors. the campaign of offering free installation drove SBC in Houston to being 2 months behind on appointments - when they finally called to confirm that i still had an appointment, i had already been using RR for a month!
so i guess it would not be that odd to find that SBC is having rate problems and that in some managers short-sightedness they might have capped the rates. as i understand it, breaking out the line at the router is expensive and time consuming, of course, SBC is a big ass Co.
IMHO - if you can get it, go RoadRunner - i have yet to have problems and it has been three months on CounterStrike bliss!
wow! you have a C compiler for the 800? now there is something i'd be interested in.
i admit it - i still love my 800. i only called it glorified b/c all the kids in my neighborhood used it for games - while i at least did a 'little' programming.
yeah - my dad bought the whole thing b/c it ran VisiCalc, which was the first computer program i ever had interaction with.
for fun, check out Ebay for old 800 stuff. how cheap!!
yeap - the ATARI 400 and 800. i still have my 800 in working condition with two 5 1/4 external floppy drives (one has a cool chip in it that allows you to surpass copyright protection - even back then games wanted to be free) and a whopping 32k of RAM. of course, it was a glorified 2600, but i learned BASIC on it, so it means something to me.
mailed? you footing the bill? now i see why we call it "bigger government."
no - in all actuality they have the right to request it. postage will be their concern. the actual document production cost will also be their concern. trust me, i worked in Federal District 11 for two years doing just that - providing copies of pleadings, judgments, abstracts, motions, etc. to everyone: read as lawyers, messengers, bankers, regular joes, and even the indigent (which surprised me by how many people live on the street with no food or clothing, but would pay $.10/page for some obscure case that they had nothing to do with (as far as i could tell....) guess toilet paper comes from odd places!)
By offering legal documents only in PDF format, the government is assisting Adobe in gaining market share, at the expense of those people who don't want to or can't download the Acrobat reader (Plain text browsers, people with slow computers, people who are too illiterate to install Acrobat....
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/
The document will be in PDF format. You may need to download a (free) copy of Acrobat Reader, if you don't already have it, or visit the Help page for links to additional instructions and technical support.
i see your arguments, but truthfully, i don't see how using the free PDF format is a bad thing. it has instructions for how to config with AOL, so we know that the ignorant masse are being covered. there is a text-only reader for those who need/prefer and the reader version is only 5.6mb.
i don't think the, by providing documents in this format, they are denying anyone. by your logic, do the people without PC access should have the right to have a free copy mailed to them?
not up to the users to start pirating the content
i'm not looking to them to pirate the content. i'm looking for there to be enough of a media flury over this that maybe, just maybe Samaranch might wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that the decisions on banning any/all internet content is directly opposed to the idea of making money.
and that is what the Olympics are about today - $$.
what am i basing the IOC being out of the loop? you remeber Samaranch's explanation about his financial deal ings....
the IOC is a corrupt. he's old school. he's what's wrong with business today - old men with money living lavishly off the profits of the companies that they run.
as for why is the internet just so important:
i work alot. i get a lot of content at work. i buy stuff from work. i have both my work/personal life at work. the Olympics is financially motivated, just like baseball, football, and any other sport. so if king samarach denies the web from providing content - the he's denying profits. and if you think that the little old king isn't concerned about profits, go re-read the orginal story. that's billions with a capital B.
besides the $$? because i keep up with professional cycling. i actually give a shit. and the Olympics are huge for cycling. next to the Tour de France they may be 2nd for eyeballs. and for me, i want to be able to get that information at work. isn't a difficult concept. as a business, you put the content where people will use it. the all or nothing ideal of tv vs. the web is ignorant. and my guess is that Samaranch doesn't get it. i would venture that he sees it as dilution. in fact, it may be concetration. but the "dance with the date who brung ya" attitude is what makes this all possible. Samaranch is beholden to the medium that my parents are more in touch with than i am.
Unfortunately what with the attitude of most /.ers that everything should be "free" and online
this has little to do with free. it has alot to do with online.
when ESPN can't show Olympic event re-plays on their website, then we're talking about a restriction placed upon a HUGE business - ESPN is no mom/pop operation.
but even more, the real problem is that the IOC is out of touch, out of the loop, and quite possibly too old to understand the internet, the people who use it, and why it is important.
stop me if i am wrong here, but since i work monday-friday (saturday?!) about 7AM-5PM CST, i assume that i am going to miss some events. of course, i have web access at work and i am fortunate enough to work for a company that allows me the freedom to work and surf as i please. so by excluding the web as a viable medium - they are excluding me from viewing some things i might care about (cycling events!)
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
hmmmm - looks like a source to me. did you try finding this? it took me 2 secs.
little FYI.
you are more than allowed to copy materials for personal use. you are also allowed to get author permission to reproduce materials for classes (see next post.)
what you are not allowed to do, without permission, is to copy a material and then provide it to ANY AND ALL comers unregulated. that sir, is illegal.
not sure how it works in your country, but in ours (U.S.) material that it copyrighted is just that - protected to prevent undue replication and dissemination.
feel free to disagree, but the crux of the matter is that this young man is illegall providing a a copy of someones else's property.
M$ alike people should know when they'v got all the dow they can. If you can't see what the difference is, then I feel very sorry for you.
i can't even understand your post.