Naw, it would be reasonable to give them a very limited copyright on reinterpreted public domain work. Say... 7 years. If you can't make money off an idea that isn't yours in 7 years after putting your personal spin on it then too bad. It gives an incentive to create work based on the public domain without raping the public. Copyright isn't wrong, its immortal copyright that is.
How about an electronic/paper method? Where a electronic device cuts/burns/prints out a mark or whatever to avoid the whole pregnant chads. Votes can be counted electronically to give real time stats but still have a physical record that was generated by a machine instead of an arthritic hand. Make it so the paper is human readable and those same glaucoma ridden eyes can confirm it. Why this should cost an exorbitant amount of money I don't quite understand. If we can get netbooks down to a few hundred bucks why can't they build an open source voting machine with a paper trail?
Just a follow up, for those who want to read the iPhone SDK Agreement themselves. Apple won't allow the general public to read it, its hidden so only registered devs can access it. Here is a link to the wikileaks pdf of the agreement. Please take note that section 3.3.2 matchs my above quote word for word.
Please look at my response. It's possible the article misquoted which agreement their talking about but they use the words "iPhone SDK Agreement" not "Apple App Store Agreement".
Now it's possible the article screwed up but this is the quote that leads me to believe that its apple SDK eula *not* app stores.
iPhone SDK Agreement; "3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)
I disagree. While Apple has the right to reject the emulator from their own store I refuse to accept that they have the right to bar this person from developing any product he wants for it. Just because a wrench is designed for a 5/8" bolt doesn't mean you can't use it as a pry bar, but that is specifically what Apple is trying to do with their "EULA" of the SDK and I find that reprehensible.
While it is true that a person has the option to not buy a product. You fail to take into account that they also have the innate right of altering any product they own however they see fit. Anyone who disagrees with that is ignoring one of the fundamental driving forces of innovation for the last several millenia.
I'm sure the idea of razing the buildings will include some sort of waste removal process. Would be great if they built a thermal depolymerization plant to grind up the waste and create fuel for all the trucks that will be needed.
You do realize that its more efficient to demolish an old building that is costing you money to maintain than to pay for it year after year after year? That's what we're talking about, not digging holes and then filling them up. This is the part of maintenance that most people don't think about, the 'throwing away' part. While I hate the green movement in many ways I can't but respect them for forcing people to acknowledge that waste management is an integral part of modern society, a part you seem to be forgetting.
I live downtown in a major international city and I can tell you the chances of being run over here are higher than in a suburb. I don't know about you but there were only couple thousand cars that went through my suburban city while there are hundreds of thousands that drive around my lofts block, except the weekend. It's pretty dead then.
Yeah, they've really locked down the fiber maps due to terrorism. Even if you have a legitimate usage such as scouting out a land to build a datacenter they won't give you access. Idiotic.
Unfortunately that wouldn't work. For one calculating 5% profit is almost impossible to do accurately with how non local ISP costs are. The costs involved with just figuring that out would probably negate any savings to the end user. Plus it isn't impractical. The city itself should tell the provider they want certain price points and then competing ISP's for that monopoly should jokey offerings within those ranges. That way the very body offering the choke hold you hate is regulating what sort of ISP covers their population.
Once you get his email address I'd recommend posting it on or the website where it can be located here on/. I'm sure he'll get plenty of reading material on why asking for passwords and then hiring someone bright enough to provide them is a bad idea.
Places like google will actually peer directly with an ISP so they don't pay any bandwidth. This is a benefit to both google and the isp as neither then has to pay for the bandwidth used and the port charge is negligible in comparison.
True, a rural user can make this argument. Just about anywhere else though you have the choice of cable, dsl, satellite, tethered cellphone, and I'm sure other options. Not all users may be aware of their options or be willing to invest in the equipment to exercise their choices. But that doesn't mean its ok to regulate an entire industry just because a small % have "no" choice.
Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?
Maybe because there isn't a data reservoir underground or giant reactor burning fuel thats generating all your bits? Networks are limited by speed not the amount of data you transfer. So logically limits should be based on speed. But to give you a useful response... I believe ISP's should sell two types of connectivity, much like we do in data centers. You have your "shared" usage where you get a certain speed and a transfer limit. Then you offer "dedicated" bandwidth where your guaranteed to be able to push and pull 100% of your bandwidth at all times (or 99.9% of the time). That would let the user in your example who sips their internet have nice fast speeds at a discounted rate while letting the people who gorge on their bandwidth to get exactly what the salesman promises. This would be logical... so it'll never happen.
Exactly, might also be the dozen days of rain we get per year. There is a reason people from all across the globe come to live here and it isn't just hollywood or silicon valley. Huge influx of people without a massive increase in water resources... not hard to project what will happen with even a minor drought.
Not really, speaking as someone who connects directly to Tier1 providers the transit is there and its ever growing. The failure is on the ISP side of not upgrading their infrastructure to handle it. I know of several ISP's who run a profit and provide excellent service to their clients, if these guys can't its their failure not the capacity of the internet infrastructure.
Personally I hope not, that should be a market decision not a government one. There is nothing immoral about selling internet service as a metered product. The problem is when you promise unlimited service and then after you grow huge or gain a government granted monopoly you put a meter on it because you over sold your network.
I'm torn on this one, I hate regulations. But at the same time many of those providers who are putting caps in place *sold* their service as unlimited and I believe they should be forced to honor the original agreement. If they want to start capping service they should give some incentive to downgrade vs just pulling the rug out from under people. Heck give users +5mbps but a cap of whatever GB at the same price or a buck or two off and they could easily swap almost all their users. The real reason this uproar occurred isn't because of caps but because the ISP's just downgraded their promised level of service without giving the uses any choice and they rightfully got angry. Which is now forcing this backlash by the government to threaten to step in and start regulating things.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw, it would be reasonable to give them a very limited copyright on reinterpreted public domain work. Say... 7 years. If you can't make money off an idea that isn't yours in 7 years after putting your personal spin on it then too bad. It gives an incentive to create work based on the public domain without raping the public. Copyright isn't wrong, its immortal copyright that is.
How about an electronic/paper method? Where a electronic device cuts/burns/prints out a mark or whatever to avoid the whole pregnant chads. Votes can be counted electronically to give real time stats but still have a physical record that was generated by a machine instead of an arthritic hand. Make it so the paper is human readable and those same glaucoma ridden eyes can confirm it. Why this should cost an exorbitant amount of money I don't quite understand. If we can get netbooks down to a few hundred bucks why can't they build an open source voting machine with a paper trail?
Actually, yes. Your unfortunately mistaken in Apple's altruism, please look at my post here.
Just a follow up, for those who want to read the iPhone SDK Agreement themselves. Apple won't allow the general public to read it, its hidden so only registered devs can access it. Here is a link to the wikileaks pdf of the agreement. Please take note that section 3.3.2 matchs my above quote word for word.
Please look at my response. It's possible the article misquoted which agreement their talking about but they use the words "iPhone SDK Agreement" not "Apple App Store Agreement".
iPhone SDK Agreement; "3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)
I disagree. While Apple has the right to reject the emulator from their own store I refuse to accept that they have the right to bar this person from developing any product he wants for it. Just because a wrench is designed for a 5/8" bolt doesn't mean you can't use it as a pry bar, but that is specifically what Apple is trying to do with their "EULA" of the SDK and I find that reprehensible.
While it is true that a person has the option to not buy a product. You fail to take into account that they also have the innate right of altering any product they own however they see fit. Anyone who disagrees with that is ignoring one of the fundamental driving forces of innovation for the last several millenia.
Underdasea
I'm sure the idea of razing the buildings will include some sort of waste removal process. Would be great if they built a thermal depolymerization plant to grind up the waste and create fuel for all the trucks that will be needed.
Cause its purrrrdy during the day and the quick access to hookers and drugs at night make living a drone life livable?
You do realize that its more efficient to demolish an old building that is costing you money to maintain than to pay for it year after year after year? That's what we're talking about, not digging holes and then filling them up. This is the part of maintenance that most people don't think about, the 'throwing away' part. While I hate the green movement in many ways I can't but respect them for forcing people to acknowledge that waste management is an integral part of modern society, a part you seem to be forgetting.
Maybe the crackheads will devolve to potheads, after all with the land being reclaimed by nature its a lot easier to grow them weeds.
I live downtown in a major international city and I can tell you the chances of being run over here are higher than in a suburb. I don't know about you but there were only couple thousand cars that went through my suburban city while there are hundreds of thousands that drive around my lofts block, except the weekend. It's pretty dead then.
Naw, ignoring those facts just makes it convenient for the gp to hate him. For me its pretty much directly related to your sig.
Yeah, they've really locked down the fiber maps due to terrorism. Even if you have a legitimate usage such as scouting out a land to build a datacenter they won't give you access. Idiotic.
Unfortunately that wouldn't work. For one calculating 5% profit is almost impossible to do accurately with how non local ISP costs are. The costs involved with just figuring that out would probably negate any savings to the end user. Plus it isn't impractical. The city itself should tell the provider they want certain price points and then competing ISP's for that monopoly should jokey offerings within those ranges. That way the very body offering the choke hold you hate is regulating what sort of ISP covers their population.
A lawyer who likes latex and leather? Why am I not surprised.
Once you get his email address I'd recommend posting it on or the website where it can be located here on /. I'm sure he'll get plenty of reading material on why asking for passwords and then hiring someone bright enough to provide them is a bad idea.
Places like google will actually peer directly with an ISP so they don't pay any bandwidth. This is a benefit to both google and the isp as neither then has to pay for the bandwidth used and the port charge is negligible in comparison.
True, a rural user can make this argument. Just about anywhere else though you have the choice of cable, dsl, satellite, tethered cellphone, and I'm sure other options. Not all users may be aware of their options or be willing to invest in the equipment to exercise their choices. But that doesn't mean its ok to regulate an entire industry just because a small % have "no" choice.
Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?
Maybe because there isn't a data reservoir underground or giant reactor burning fuel thats generating all your bits? Networks are limited by speed not the amount of data you transfer. So logically limits should be based on speed. But to give you a useful response ... I believe ISP's should sell two types of connectivity, much like we do in data centers. You have your "shared" usage where you get a certain speed and a transfer limit. Then you offer "dedicated" bandwidth where your guaranteed to be able to push and pull 100% of your bandwidth at all times (or 99.9% of the time). That would let the user in your example who sips their internet have nice fast speeds at a discounted rate while letting the people who gorge on their bandwidth to get exactly what the salesman promises. This would be logical... so it'll never happen.
Exactly, might also be the dozen days of rain we get per year. There is a reason people from all across the globe come to live here and it isn't just hollywood or silicon valley. Huge influx of people without a massive increase in water resources... not hard to project what will happen with even a minor drought.
Not really, speaking as someone who connects directly to Tier1 providers the transit is there and its ever growing. The failure is on the ISP side of not upgrading their infrastructure to handle it. I know of several ISP's who run a profit and provide excellent service to their clients, if these guys can't its their failure not the capacity of the internet infrastructure.
Personally I hope not, that should be a market decision not a government one. There is nothing immoral about selling internet service as a metered product. The problem is when you promise unlimited service and then after you grow huge or gain a government granted monopoly you put a meter on it because you over sold your network.
I'm torn on this one, I hate regulations. But at the same time many of those providers who are putting caps in place *sold* their service as unlimited and I believe they should be forced to honor the original agreement. If they want to start capping service they should give some incentive to downgrade vs just pulling the rug out from under people. Heck give users +5mbps but a cap of whatever GB at the same price or a buck or two off and they could easily swap almost all their users. The real reason this uproar occurred isn't because of caps but because the ISP's just downgraded their promised level of service without giving the uses any choice and they rightfully got angry. Which is now forcing this backlash by the government to threaten to step in and start regulating things.