My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution.
I think you might need to read your copy of the constitution closer. People have rights. The government has powers. If something isn't directly coded as a power of government, it IS a right of the people. See the 9th amendment for more details
I'm not sure how excited they'll be with fighting Google et al when that comes up. Besides, not doing the right thing because some people will drag their feet doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing. Ask the EU about MS for details.
I don't like the idea of you determining what is important to me. Just because you don't think something is an issue doesn't mean you should be able to bury it through legislation.
I can't fathom that you believe that labeling an item correctly is wrong, and bad for the consumer.
The successful hijacking took place only two minutes into the second day of the competition
So you're saying that he had an exploit before hand, waited till the SECOND DAY, and then used it. Brilliant strategy. I'd figure someone who already had knew a vulnerability would be freaked out that someone else had it.
I'd say it's more plausible that he did some extra homework after the 1st day and found it then (if anything).
It's a fricking dollar seventy to make it and get it to the store, but the "price" is fifteen bucks?
You're right. It only costs $1.70 to get a pressed CD onto a shelf at Wal*Mart. Oh whats that - You want music on it?! Well that's a horse of a different color.
I agree that the numbers are skewed, but the price of an object is based on value, not how much it costs to deliver. If you really believe that, I'd like to get a slice of your $1.00 pizza.
I wish I had mod points to give to sibling poster, but come on. It's ludicrous to believe that as long as content and wiring are allowed to exist as one company that competition can exist between cable/phone/other network providers.
The problem is that cables have to be installed and maintained. There will not be the infinite number of producers (or anywhere near it) necessary to have a free market when those barriers to entry exist. 1) It's a large capital expense and 2) No one wants roads, lawns, or anything else in the way to be torn up by N different network providers.
I mean how hard is it to get RADIO ANTENNAS up in some areas for better cell phone coverage. People actively fight them being put up with a NIMBY attitude. You think they are going to accept their lawn being ripped to shreds whenever a new carrier comes in town? And if they aren't accepting of it, WHY WOULD A NEW CARRIER COME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
Idealistically, FCC would grow a pair and rip "wire operators*" away from "content providers." Content providers sell us the service (TV, internet, whatever) and the wire operators* maintain the lines. Completely distinct companies without mixed interests. Only then can you have the competition and only between the content providers (which is what you ultimately care about anyway).
*Called such because with all the subsidies Americans have provided since forever, the lines really should belong to the people. After all, we paid for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Make as many laws as you want. He's still going to offend people :)
They said the same thing about flying cars in the 50's. Just saying is all.
If only there were some way to put links on to Wikipedia!
Plus - if you have a tangible way to make that happen, what are you doing posting on /.?
and apparently its cold out there
I think you might need to read your copy of the constitution closer. People have rights. The government has powers. If something isn't directly coded as a power of government, it IS a right of the people. See the 9th amendment for more details
"Honestly, most software just plain sucks"
I think that is where the question begins. What happens once Google has that data? They are neither a provider or insurer...
Don't go bragging. A lot of people know the key to rooting your wife's box.
Your mom!
I'm not sure how excited they'll be with fighting Google et al when that comes up. Besides, not doing the right thing because some people will drag their feet doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing. Ask the EU about MS for details.
If that was anywhere near to being the biggest concern with the current US lawmaking, I'd be so excited I could hammer nails with my wiener.
gasoline tends to explode under certain circumstances, yet somehow we survive...
Your view point earlier was "I don't like it so people shouldn't hear about it." I don't need to be an agriculture expert to know that is asinine.
I can't fathom that you believe that labeling an item correctly is wrong, and bad for the consumer.
Well who would you compare them to? Before this last generation, not a lot of folks lived long enough to develop dementia compared to today.
You forgot about the Ron Paul ads, you insensitive clod!
So you're saying that he had an exploit before hand, waited till the SECOND DAY, and then used it. Brilliant strategy. I'd figure someone who already had knew a vulnerability would be freaked out that someone else had it.
I'd say it's more plausible that he did some extra homework after the 1st day and found it then (if anything).
You're right. It only costs $1.70 to get a pressed CD onto a shelf at Wal*Mart. Oh whats that - You want music on it?! Well that's a horse of a different color.
I agree that the numbers are skewed, but the price of an object is based on value, not how much it costs to deliver. If you really believe that, I'd like to get a slice of your $1.00 pizza.
No
j/k Bruce
I wish I had mod points to give to sibling poster, but come on. It's ludicrous to believe that as long as content and wiring are allowed to exist as one company that competition can exist between cable/phone/other network providers.
The problem is that cables have to be installed and maintained. There will not be the infinite number of producers (or anywhere near it) necessary to have a free market when those barriers to entry exist. 1) It's a large capital expense and 2) No one wants roads, lawns, or anything else in the way to be torn up by N different network providers.
I mean how hard is it to get RADIO ANTENNAS up in some areas for better cell phone coverage. People actively fight them being put up with a NIMBY attitude. You think they are going to accept their lawn being ripped to shreds whenever a new carrier comes in town? And if they aren't accepting of it, WHY WOULD A NEW CARRIER COME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
Idealistically, FCC would grow a pair and rip "wire operators*" away from "content providers." Content providers sell us the service (TV, internet, whatever) and the wire operators* maintain the lines. Completely distinct companies without mixed interests. Only then can you have the competition and only between the content providers (which is what you ultimately care about anyway).
*Called such because with all the subsidies Americans have provided since forever, the lines really should belong to the people. After all, we paid for them.
As upset as I am about the Executive, the Legislative branch leaves a lot to be wanted as well.
Except for this eminent domain bull shi'at