What makes you think Google is somehow better than Microsoft (or IBM, or any other evil-corporate-giant-of-the-week)? Take a look at Stallman's story, "The Right to Read" and then ask yourself whose side Google is on. The reader's?
How about we ask, "What would George Washington do?" Answer: The exact same thing. Ever since this country was founded we have done this same sort of stuff.
And what hate freedom, right wing source gave you that information? "We" have only had the apparatus to conduct large-scale surveillance since approximately World War II.
TFA says words to the effect, "First delivery anticipated 2010." Along with Windows 7 and Duke Nukem Forever.
Whether the company will still be around in 2010 to deliver the orders they've already taken is very much an open question.
Whether these aircraft will be street-legal in any state in the U.S. is another open question.
To be clear, "security" in this sense means "not letting people defeat the electronic turnstile and ride for free," not "protecting the transit system from crime and/or terrorist attack." That is, we're only talking about security of the MBTA's revenue stream here -- which would have been better served by just leaving in the old token-operated mechanical turnstiles.
However, if the Patent Office receives an application for an identical patent from a third party, they will reveal the NSA's patent and officially grant it to the NSA for the full term on that date.
If the Patent Office receives an application for an identical patent, I doubt the disclosure will ever happen. Far more likely the NSA will just have the applicant arrested for using "stolen" "national security secrets."
"The average user is more than willing to pay more money for hobbled music because of user interface, ease of use"
Nonsense. DRM doesn't improve ease of use. The average user is more than willing to pay for hobbled music because the music he/she wants is only available in DRM-restricteds formats. If the popular artists were only releasing new songs on 8-track tapes, people would buy 8-track tapes. The format in which music is sold has little to do with convenience; it has much more to do with the recording companies' business model.
In the US, you are restricted to what is listed in the "consitution".
Incorrect. You can find the full U.S. Constitution here but the relevant parts are:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I'd like to see those particular amendments get a lot more emphasis and respect than they seem to do, but the point is, they exist (and the Supreme Court does enforce them).
Fileshares take quite a bit of bandwidth and if they can be kicked off, the more the merrier...
Partly, but "broadband" ISPs make their money by selling bandwidth. Take away the desire for bandwidth and customers may be inclined to switch to dial-up for cost savings (don't forget that dial-up is still an option and millions of people still use it). So the uploaders are bandwidth hogs and bad, but the downloaders are potentially loyal customers.
So the RIAA is offering to "work with ISPs." From the sound of it, what they want is for the ISPs to do a lot of work monitoring users, and take a serious public-relations risk for banning them. If I ran an ISP, I would not exactly be falling over myself to embrace those new headaches.
What's in it for the ISPs? If the RIAA is offering a carrot, then the size of the carrot is limited by the ever-diminishing money the RIAA has to offer. If they're trying to threaten with a stick, they're relying on either regulation, lobbying, or lawsuits -- in all three arenas, ISPs are more than a match for them in terms of money and influence.
The more I think about it, the more I realize this is just a face-saving tactic, and the "cooperative relationship" can't last because it's contrary to the ISPs best interests.
Just like the French. First you give us fried potatoes to clog our arteries
Hey, wait a minute! French fries allegedly come from Belgium. Both the French and the Belgians consider the term "French fries" to be grossly unfair: the Belgians feel they deserve the credit, and the French feel they don't deserve the blame.
Of course, there is the possibility that the first prototype fries were planted in Belgium by French agents provocateurs.
An RIAA spokesman is quoted as saying that the litigation campaign has been "successful in raising the public's awareness that file-sharing is illegal."
If it's so illegal, then why did they sue for damages (that is, compensation) rather than prosecute file-sharers for a crime? You don't sue people because they robbed banks or stabbed someone, you sue because they owe you money for some reason.
So the real message they were sending to the public is, "File sharing takes money out of our pockets." Well, duh.
Half right. High quality of life drives jobs away in a "free trade" scenario. That's "free as in beer," by the way. If the country with the higher quality of life (USA) imposed trade tariffs on imports from countries with lower quality of life, there would be little or no economic advantage to manufacture overseas.
In the 1980's, free-trade proponents convinced Congress (and, I admit, the public) that manufacturing jobs were something that we're better off without, and we should move beyond sweaty, grimy production into a "knowledge economy." And so we signed trade agreements that moved all the factories overseas. Now in the 2000's we find out that "knowledge" jobs are just as profitable to export and the trade agreements are still in place to drive them overseas as well.
Maybe Congress should take a look at why U.S. companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically, and implement policy changes to fix the underlying problems. Otherwise it's just economic Whack-a-Mole.
And no, I'm not a supply-sider. I think the incentives are more complex than "high taxes drive jobs away." Maybe that's part of the answer, but only a part.
True, but unfortunately Windows Update tends to require a reboot. The advice MS gives, leave your Windows box connected 24/7 and update at 3am, is about the worst advice I've ever heard. You'll get a lot more attacks than updates in any given day. Especially when MS is basically announcing to all the attackers what the window of vulnerability is.
So yes, technically the Windows Update feature is competently implemented, but the policies Microsoft recommends regarding its use are utterly moronic.
I live in Massachusetts, which is a state known for high taxes but also one that maintains a cash reserve. There are some substantial budget cuts this year, but nothing one would call a crisis.
To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to ideological differences that which can be explained by simple incompetence.;-)
Except for the part about only accusing Islam of murderous tendencies?
Perhaps you missed the part about (from TFA):
Java would be Fundamentalist Christianity... Not only are they certain that it's the best language in the world, but they're willing to burn those who disagree at the stake.
Offensive, perhaps; singling out Islam, not so much.
So the state is collapsing under its government's regulations
Actually, the state is collapsing under a sudden, dramatic downturn in tax revenues because Wall Street firms are losing money all of sudden. Quoth TFA:
"Maybe we should have thought about this when we were depending on what we thought was inexhaustive collections of taxes from Wall Street - and now those taxes have fallen off a cliff."
Apparently the state of New York didn't build up any cash reserves/pay off debts when times were good.
I don't see where regulation comes into it. It's not that I expect you to RTFA or anything, but it sure sounds like you're jumping to conclusions to fit your pet theory.
The next time some idiot says "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," (re: privacy), we have a clear counter-example to point to.
Slashdot Mirror
For my part, Microsoft will only improve its image when they remove DRM support from the OS and its bundled applications (IE, Media Player).
What makes you think Google is somehow better than Microsoft (or IBM, or any other evil-corporate-giant-of-the-week)? Take a look at Stallman's story, "The Right to Read" and then ask yourself whose side Google is on. The reader's?
And what hate freedom, right wing source gave you that information? "We" have only had the apparatus to conduct large-scale surveillance since approximately World War II.
TFA says words to the effect, "First delivery anticipated 2010." Along with Windows 7 and Duke Nukem Forever. Whether the company will still be around in 2010 to deliver the orders they've already taken is very much an open question. Whether these aircraft will be street-legal in any state in the U.S. is another open question.
To be clear, "security" in this sense means "not letting people defeat the electronic turnstile and ride for free," not "protecting the transit system from crime and/or terrorist attack." That is, we're only talking about security of the MBTA's revenue stream here -- which would have been better served by just leaving in the old token-operated mechanical turnstiles.
Look on the bright side: it's easy to park. :-)
If the Patent Office receives an application for an identical patent, I doubt the disclosure will ever happen. Far more likely the NSA will just have the applicant arrested for using "stolen" "national security secrets."
Nonsense. DRM doesn't improve ease of use. The average user is more than willing to pay for hobbled music because the music he/she wants is only available in DRM-restricteds formats. If the popular artists were only releasing new songs on 8-track tapes, people would buy 8-track tapes. The format in which music is sold has little to do with convenience; it has much more to do with the recording companies' business model.
The EU Trade Commission will have to form a sub-committee to discuss it. They'll get back to you, eventually. ;-)
Incorrect. You can find the full U.S. Constitution here but the relevant parts are:
I'd like to see those particular amendments get a lot more emphasis and respect than they seem to do, but the point is, they exist (and the Supreme Court does enforce them).
Partly, but "broadband" ISPs make their money by selling bandwidth. Take away the desire for bandwidth and customers may be inclined to switch to dial-up for cost savings (don't forget that dial-up is still an option and millions of people still use it). So the uploaders are bandwidth hogs and bad, but the downloaders are potentially loyal customers.
So the RIAA is offering to "work with ISPs." From the sound of it, what they want is for the ISPs to do a lot of work monitoring users, and take a serious public-relations risk for banning them. If I ran an ISP, I would not exactly be falling over myself to embrace those new headaches.
What's in it for the ISPs? If the RIAA is offering a carrot, then the size of the carrot is limited by the ever-diminishing money the RIAA has to offer. If they're trying to threaten with a stick, they're relying on either regulation, lobbying, or lawsuits -- in all three arenas, ISPs are more than a match for them in terms of money and influence.
The more I think about it, the more I realize this is just a face-saving tactic, and the "cooperative relationship" can't last because it's contrary to the ISPs best interests.
Hey, wait a minute! French fries allegedly come from Belgium. Both the French and the Belgians consider the term "French fries" to be grossly unfair: the Belgians feel they deserve the credit, and the French feel they don't deserve the blame.
Of course, there is the possibility that the first prototype fries were planted in Belgium by French agents provocateurs.
An RIAA spokesman is quoted as saying that the litigation campaign has been "successful in raising the public's awareness that file-sharing is illegal."
If it's so illegal, then why did they sue for damages (that is, compensation) rather than prosecute file-sharers for a crime? You don't sue people because they robbed banks or stabbed someone, you sue because they owe you money for some reason.
So the real message they were sending to the public is, "File sharing takes money out of our pockets." Well, duh.
Half right. High quality of life drives jobs away in a "free trade" scenario. That's "free as in beer," by the way. If the country with the higher quality of life (USA) imposed trade tariffs on imports from countries with lower quality of life, there would be little or no economic advantage to manufacture overseas.
In the 1980's, free-trade proponents convinced Congress (and, I admit, the public) that manufacturing jobs were something that we're better off without, and we should move beyond sweaty, grimy production into a "knowledge economy." And so we signed trade agreements that moved all the factories overseas. Now in the 2000's we find out that "knowledge" jobs are just as profitable to export and the trade agreements are still in place to drive them overseas as well.
In my opinion, this is not progress.
Maybe Congress should take a look at why U.S. companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically, and implement policy changes to fix the underlying problems. Otherwise it's just economic Whack-a-Mole.
And no, I'm not a supply-sider. I think the incentives are more complex than "high taxes drive jobs away." Maybe that's part of the answer, but only a part.
True, but unfortunately Windows Update tends to require a reboot. The advice MS gives, leave your Windows box connected 24/7 and update at 3am, is about the worst advice I've ever heard. You'll get a lot more attacks than updates in any given day. Especially when MS is basically announcing to all the attackers what the window of vulnerability is.
So yes, technically the Windows Update feature is competently implemented, but the policies Microsoft recommends regarding its use are utterly moronic.
I live in Massachusetts, which is a state known for high taxes but also one that maintains a cash reserve. There are some substantial budget cuts this year, but nothing one would call a crisis.
To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to ideological differences that which can be explained by simple incompetence. ;-)
Perhaps you missed the part about (from TFA):
Offensive, perhaps; singling out Islam, not so much.
Actually, the state is collapsing under a sudden, dramatic downturn in tax revenues because Wall Street firms are losing money all of sudden. Quoth TFA:
Apparently the state of New York didn't build up any cash reserves/pay off debts when times were good.
I don't see where regulation comes into it. It's not that I expect you to RTFA or anything, but it sure sounds like you're jumping to conclusions to fit your pet theory.
The next time some idiot says "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," (re: privacy), we have a clear counter-example to point to.
Unfortunately, in this case, the name fits.
Am I the only one to notice the irony of having a guy named Agent Lawless at the Justice Department?
Now there's the voice of authority. Not.
That's what happened to Sir Edmund Hillary. He climbed to the top of Everest, made it all the way to the bottom, and then died 55 years later.