Because it is easy enough to make it look like someone downloaded something illegally, when they really didn't. Also, if I remember correctly this law does not give the cut-off customer legal recourse (if you say they did something illegal, prove it in court or GTFO).
Best in the world? That's a pretty big statement, how is it better than Canada's, the UK's, Ireland's, France's or for that matter most if not all of the EU?
They don't spend millions arguing about whether they should execute someone (they go for the cheaper route of locking them up for life), right there I'd say they have a leg up. Plus, for the most part they don't have to deal with two levels of jurisdiction (Fed. vs. State) which also reduces complexity and cost.
Sorry, but I'm sick of Americans saying "we have the best X in the world", that kind of thinking eventually leads to "and we should impose it on everyone else through war".
Earthlink does have service in San Antonio, did you enter your address in the site? You might be right, but I'm pretty sure Earthlink has service everywhere TW does (plus Comcast it appears).
(I'm not a Earthlink user or employee, I'm just considering them to replace my service in Rochester)
The people who are worried they will hit the cap will switch too, especially if it's ~$5 for peace of mind. Those people might be very profitable, but worried about getting a virus and suddenly having a $1000 internet bill.
Earthlink isn't the same as RoadRunner, it just uses the cable network, but not they have their own internet peering, and they're not bound by RoadRunner's stupidity. I've already with Earthlink and they confirmed there are no caps nor any plans for them. I'll be switching to them once TW announces a timetable for this (I live in Rochester, NY).
Some sites have HTTPS for no good reason. A number of mailing list hosts seem to do this, I run into them while googling for stuff. Too often the certs are out of date, since I don't care about security for the page (I'm viewing it, not submitting info) I add the exception.
Your argument is another "the user is stupid" assumption, those are getting out of hand. If I tell the browser to do something, it should f**king do it.
Suppose it's worth pointing out I meant *create* not *cut* jobs. Oops.
In any case, there's currently no tax on long-term capital gains. If corporations need cash, why not cut the corporate income tax, rather than giving money to the rich and hoping they'll invest it?
Investing isn't likely to be the first place anyone would put their money right now. Even the rich might just turn around and buy treasury bonds, or foreign bonds/investments. After all, the "socialist" European countries are more likely to keep their businesses afloat right?
It's true that cutting taxes for the bulk of Americans is unlikely to have much of an effect, it takes an unimaginably large cut to really effect someone's pay meaningfully. The best policy is to free up credit by any means necessary and temporarily bulk up welfare so that intelligent people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are not left out on the streets. If anyone should get a tax cut, it's probably corporations which create jobs. A good start would be eliminating payroll tax, which effectively taxes businesses for hiring people.
None of that answers the original post that said he raised taxes. You can have your own opinion on trickle-down economics, but that isn't related.
However, you should consider that giving a tax cut to consumers means they will spend money, and they will give the money (in theory) to those which are best equipped to survive, and those businesses will therefore be able to cut jobs.
In any case, giving tax breaks to rich people, rather than corporations, is not the right way to do it. I don't see any millionaire CEOs creating jobs out of their own pocket. They didn't get their millions by writing checks.
He cut taxes, where's the increase you're babbling about? Specify a real, legitimate link. Why are the republicans so mad about this when Bush gave billions to the financial and car industries anyway (talk about failing projects...)?
The can find a job elsewhere. Until recently, unemployment among qualified individuals was not a problem in this country, despite many jobs being lost over the decades through various innovations. Wastework does not help anyone. If you can't handle change in the economy, live in a traditionalist economy like rural India.
Mechanization of manufacturing meant a lot of lost jobs. The progress of technology will always mean some jobs are lost. Our overall efficiency increases, however.
90% of people can be honest and good and yet the last 10% will ruin it for everyone. The U.S. has no concept of responsibility for one's children. U.S. children are taught that sex is wrong and condoms are worse. Then they look at T.V. and see sex, sex, sex and have no idea how to deal with it. Then they end up having kids, but they're so selfish that they don't raise them properly. We end up with people who have absolutely no moral compass at all levels of society. There's only a few steps from the guy on the street who will stab you for the $5 in your wallet to the guy who puts up the ads saying "Your computer has a virus! Click here to fix it!" and hoping they will trick people into giving them money. Neither of these people have a moral compass. In fact, the man who stabs you probably needs the $5 a lot more. The advertiser just has no respect for other humans.
We're conditioned to be afraid of other Americans because enough of them are insane that we really should be afraid of them. There's a reason we lock up so many people and it isn't just crazy drug laws. So yes, expect U.S. society to develop differently. Our religious fanaticism creates generations of brainwashed morons who just keep having kids and begging the government for money. This means that we end up isolating ourselves because we know that walking down the street could get us killed.
I never forced them to create music, in fact no one did. They chose to do so of their own free will. Do not try to compare this to slavery, that's just disgusting.
Your idea would make Embrace, Extend, Extinguish easy. Open source projects need users in order to be able to function. These users can report bugs and request features, this is required for a project to advance. Once a company makes a proprietary version of the project and begins adding features, most users will use that instead.
It's true, requiring the software and its derivatives to remain open reduces commercial involvement, but its the only way to prevent companies from simply taking the community's work, adding features (without sharing them) and distributing the program without source.
Besides, open source developers don't usually want to see another company selling a version of their program without contributing to the community.
As has been pointed out by others, my previous post was incorrect. IMO, this leaves a few issues:
- Invasion of privacy for both webmaster and user (not all web content is static, they could be looking at pages meant only for the user)
- That being said, could the information that the ISP is gathering be considered private? Could it be covered by wiretapping laws or something similar?
Whether the server is using HTTPS or not, if a site requires a login, that could be considered to be an attempt to secure it. If the ISP (or anyone else) then records this "conversation" which was intended to be secure, I would think that's illegal. Then again, I'm from the states, I have no idea how british law works.
Advertising in television is done with the consent of the content creators, not so with Phorm. Modifying a site in this manner is completely unacceptable, there is no discussion to be had.
If it were done with the consent of the content creators, there would be little or no benefit over google ads.
The blacklist for NoScript must be pretty long too, seeing as they seem to have an update every time I restart firefox, and of course that (they believe) requires them to open their home page in my browser. How difficult can what NoScript does possibly be? Is it really needed that they open their home page on every update?
Note: I know that NoScript doesn't use a blacklist, but as a developer it doesn't make any sense to me that they have so many updates, nor does it make sense that they have to open their home page.
Actually, while I was loading that page I saw "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" so some of their stuff is still coming from there, further reducing its utility as a mirror.
I still haven't read any of that documentation, as far as I'm concerned this was simply trying to word things such that you would understand them.
I work on Linux/Unix systems, I have written several vector space matchers and other components. I will not reference my work here since I do not wish to involve my employer in such discussions. For all your supposed accomplishments you do not seem to understand the basics of operating systems, nor civilized discussion.
This is a forum, not documentation on dynamic loading of libraries. I was merely attempting to correct your mistaken views on how libraries work.
I have also released, through my employer, several open source works.
All that has been said here can be summed up by saying that the code section of a library is mmap'd when it is loaded. However you seem to have at least learned how mmap works, which I suppose is a good thing.
All of the code sections are mapped into the process, that does not mean they are loaded in RAM, but if the application calls a function in a given page it is loaded. This avoids the system needing to know which functions the application will call, while losing some address space. The reason for creating DLLs is to allow multiple applications to share the same code and to allow the library (which may have OS-dependent calls) to be updated independently from the application (so long as ABI is maintained this can be accomplished).
Leaving aside the option to have the data section be shared among processes, the normal mode is that the data pages are per-process, which is easily done.
Again, the only way to accomplish "sharing" of memory is to map the memory into each process's address space.
I'm not trying to save face here, I really doubt anyone is reading this except you, but if you don't understand how little you know you might be dangerous.
The entire DLL is *mapped* into the process's address space, like I said. That is correct, you said it is not. Look up "mapping memory" (mmap). It does not mean "load". You are incorrect, you keep trying to convince me you are correct even though what you are saying is insane. I suggest you give up now.
An application can only reference something in its address space, "shared" memory has to be mapped into each process's address space, possibly at different locations. This is handled by the MMU.
The data sections are not mapped into the process's address space, since they are not shared. It is possible that the underlying call is mmap, since it is also used as a block allocator. The code sections (all of them) are mapped into the process's address space.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it is easy enough to make it look like someone downloaded something illegally, when they really didn't. Also, if I remember correctly this law does not give the cut-off customer legal recourse (if you say they did something illegal, prove it in court or GTFO).
Best in the world? That's a pretty big statement, how is it better than Canada's, the UK's, Ireland's, France's or for that matter most if not all of the EU?
They don't spend millions arguing about whether they should execute someone (they go for the cheaper route of locking them up for life), right there I'd say they have a leg up. Plus, for the most part they don't have to deal with two levels of jurisdiction (Fed. vs. State) which also reduces complexity and cost.
Sorry, but I'm sick of Americans saying "we have the best X in the world", that kind of thinking eventually leads to "and we should impose it on everyone else through war".
Earthlink does have service in San Antonio, did you enter your address in the site? You might be right, but I'm pretty sure Earthlink has service everywhere TW does (plus Comcast it appears).
(I'm not a Earthlink user or employee, I'm just considering them to replace my service in Rochester)
The people who are worried they will hit the cap will switch too, especially if it's ~$5 for peace of mind. Those people might be very profitable, but worried about getting a virus and suddenly having a $1000 internet bill.
It was founded by a Scientologist, but it doesn't appear that it has any relation to the nutters now.
Earthlink isn't the same as RoadRunner, it just uses the cable network, but not they have their own internet peering, and they're not bound by RoadRunner's stupidity. I've already with Earthlink and they confirmed there are no caps nor any plans for them. I'll be switching to them once TW announces a timetable for this (I live in Rochester, NY).
Some sites have HTTPS for no good reason. A number of mailing list hosts seem to do this, I run into them while googling for stuff. Too often the certs are out of date, since I don't care about security for the page (I'm viewing it, not submitting info) I add the exception.
Your argument is another "the user is stupid" assumption, those are getting out of hand. If I tell the browser to do something, it should f**king do it.
Suppose it's worth pointing out I meant *create* not *cut* jobs. Oops.
In any case, there's currently no tax on long-term capital gains. If corporations need cash, why not cut the corporate income tax, rather than giving money to the rich and hoping they'll invest it?
Investing isn't likely to be the first place anyone would put their money right now. Even the rich might just turn around and buy treasury bonds, or foreign bonds/investments. After all, the "socialist" European countries are more likely to keep their businesses afloat right?
It's true that cutting taxes for the bulk of Americans is unlikely to have much of an effect, it takes an unimaginably large cut to really effect someone's pay meaningfully. The best policy is to free up credit by any means necessary and temporarily bulk up welfare so that intelligent people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are not left out on the streets. If anyone should get a tax cut, it's probably corporations which create jobs. A good start would be eliminating payroll tax, which effectively taxes businesses for hiring people.
None of that answers the original post that said he raised taxes. You can have your own opinion on trickle-down economics, but that isn't related.
However, you should consider that giving a tax cut to consumers means they will spend money, and they will give the money (in theory) to those which are best equipped to survive, and those businesses will therefore be able to cut jobs.
In any case, giving tax breaks to rich people, rather than corporations, is not the right way to do it. I don't see any millionaire CEOs creating jobs out of their own pocket. They didn't get their millions by writing checks.
He cut taxes, where's the increase you're babbling about? Specify a real, legitimate link. Why are the republicans so mad about this when Bush gave billions to the financial and car industries anyway (talk about failing projects...)?
It comes up faster because it's always running.
The can find a job elsewhere. Until recently, unemployment among qualified individuals was not a problem in this country, despite many jobs being lost over the decades through various innovations. Wastework does not help anyone. If you can't handle change in the economy, live in a traditionalist economy like rural India.
Mechanization of manufacturing meant a lot of lost jobs. The progress of technology will always mean some jobs are lost. Our overall efficiency increases, however.
90% of people can be honest and good and yet the last 10% will ruin it for everyone. The U.S. has no concept of responsibility for one's children. U.S. children are taught that sex is wrong and condoms are worse. Then they look at T.V. and see sex, sex, sex and have no idea how to deal with it. Then they end up having kids, but they're so selfish that they don't raise them properly. We end up with people who have absolutely no moral compass at all levels of society. There's only a few steps from the guy on the street who will stab you for the $5 in your wallet to the guy who puts up the ads saying "Your computer has a virus! Click here to fix it!" and hoping they will trick people into giving them money. Neither of these people have a moral compass. In fact, the man who stabs you probably needs the $5 a lot more. The advertiser just has no respect for other humans.
We're conditioned to be afraid of other Americans because enough of them are insane that we really should be afraid of them. There's a reason we lock up so many people and it isn't just crazy drug laws. So yes, expect U.S. society to develop differently. Our religious fanaticism creates generations of brainwashed morons who just keep having kids and begging the government for money. This means that we end up isolating ourselves because we know that walking down the street could get us killed.
I never forced them to create music, in fact no one did. They chose to do so of their own free will. Do not try to compare this to slavery, that's just disgusting.
I was with you until you turned into a biggot (faggotry). Instead, I think you should get an education and grow up.
Your idea would make Embrace, Extend, Extinguish easy. Open source projects need users in order to be able to function. These users can report bugs and request features, this is required for a project to advance. Once a company makes a proprietary version of the project and begins adding features, most users will use that instead.
It's true, requiring the software and its derivatives to remain open reduces commercial involvement, but its the only way to prevent companies from simply taking the community's work, adding features (without sharing them) and distributing the program without source.
Besides, open source developers don't usually want to see another company selling a version of their program without contributing to the community.
As has been pointed out by others, my previous post was incorrect. IMO, this leaves a few issues:
- Invasion of privacy for both webmaster and user (not all web content is static, they could be looking at pages meant only for the user)
- That being said, could the information that the ISP is gathering be considered private? Could it be covered by wiretapping laws or something similar?
Whether the server is using HTTPS or not, if a site requires a login, that could be considered to be an attempt to secure it. If the ISP (or anyone else) then records this "conversation" which was intended to be secure, I would think that's illegal. Then again, I'm from the states, I have no idea how british law works.
Advertising in television is done with the consent of the content creators, not so with Phorm. Modifying a site in this manner is completely unacceptable, there is no discussion to be had.
If it were done with the consent of the content creators, there would be little or no benefit over google ads.
The blacklist for NoScript must be pretty long too, seeing as they seem to have an update every time I restart firefox, and of course that (they believe) requires them to open their home page in my browser. How difficult can what NoScript does possibly be? Is it really needed that they open their home page on every update?
Note: I know that NoScript doesn't use a blacklist, but as a developer it doesn't make any sense to me that they have so many updates, nor does it make sense that they have to open their home page.
I would say the same to you, it's difficult to recognize proper grammar when you see it, isn't it?
Actually, while I was loading that page I saw "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" so some of their stuff is still coming from there, further reducing its utility as a mirror.
I still haven't read any of that documentation, as far as I'm concerned this was simply trying to word things such that you would understand them.
I work on Linux/Unix systems, I have written several vector space matchers and other components. I will not reference my work here since I do not wish to involve my employer in such discussions. For all your supposed accomplishments you do not seem to understand the basics of operating systems, nor civilized discussion.
This is a forum, not documentation on dynamic loading of libraries. I was merely attempting to correct your mistaken views on how libraries work.
I have also released, through my employer, several open source works.
All that has been said here can be summed up by saying that the code section of a library is mmap'd when it is loaded. However you seem to have at least learned how mmap works, which I suppose is a good thing.
All of the code sections are mapped into the process, that does not mean they are loaded in RAM, but if the application calls a function in a given page it is loaded. This avoids the system needing to know which functions the application will call, while losing some address space. The reason for creating DLLs is to allow multiple applications to share the same code and to allow the library (which may have OS-dependent calls) to be updated independently from the application (so long as ABI is maintained this can be accomplished).
Leaving aside the option to have the data section be shared among processes, the normal mode is that the data pages are per-process, which is easily done.
Again, the only way to accomplish "sharing" of memory is to map the memory into each process's address space.
I'm not trying to save face here, I really doubt anyone is reading this except you, but if you don't understand how little you know you might be dangerous.
The entire DLL is *mapped* into the process's address space, like I said. That is correct, you said it is not. Look up "mapping memory" (mmap). It does not mean "load". You are incorrect, you keep trying to convince me you are correct even though what you are saying is insane. I suggest you give up now.
An application can only reference something in its address space, "shared" memory has to be mapped into each process's address space, possibly at different locations. This is handled by the MMU.
The data sections are not mapped into the process's address space, since they are not shared. It is possible that the underlying call is mmap, since it is also used as a block allocator. The code sections (all of them) are mapped into the process's address space.