I am only saying that it will change dramatically and become a different place. Not simply be blocked. It is foolish, imo, to think it will be completely unaffected.
Whether or not they experience it doesn't affect my argument. Just reminding the reader that circumstances like that have and will arise whether they know it or not. You taking it too literally is a lack of proper judgement on interpretation, and is your own fault.
The biggest thing is, if that law was in place before Youtube had been created, then Youtube would probably not be around today. What you're saying is too Utopian. Of course Youtube will be affected. Have you ever tried to watch a Youtube video, only to find the link was dead and replaced with "This video was taken down due to copyright infringement'? Besides torrenting sites, Youtube users are one of the biggest abusers of copyright infringement. After this law gets in place, companies wont expect to have to look through the piles of videos to make sure that they're videos or songs aren't being used without permission. AND there will be some sort of delay in place anytime someone posts a video, being as Youtube will have to sift through hundreds of videos that are uploaded every minute.
What you're saying just seems downright naive. (Not trolling.) If the user base was large enough to be downright appalled, then that should scare lawmakers NOW. Not after the fact.
Users should be responsible for their own actions, not the enabling institution or service. Installing a gatekeeper on sites like Youtube totally ruins the exchange that happens on there every single day, connecting countless people together without restraint. And what about all of the videos that are already uploaded? Do they have to sift through every single video to make sure it's 'kosher'?
Of course I wouldn't risk MY computer or MY work computer. I would just use the separate box I have set up for these sorts of situations that may lead to malicious behavior. More and more people have extra computers just laying around for this type of thing, right? It's 2011!
Sexual promiscuousness and speaking are both alright when done responsibly. I'm just reminding/. that there is a female population around here and therefore a female perspective to things, too.
For one thing, it is illegal for an ISP to arbitrarily block content. Also, it is not in the interest of an ISP because more content increases demand for their service. The more demand, the more they can charge for it.
The main topic of concern is priority access. And in the end it comes down to two things.
1) There will be an incentive to keep bandwidth as it is and offer a premium service to websites willing to pay for more. Not only is blocking content illegal, but it would actually hurt internet providers to offer a lower quality service to their customers.
2) The only reason why websites would pay for a premium service for their content is if there was a noticeable improvement. Which means a noticeable lower quality of service for other websites.
And when it comes to the internet, no one can truly predict the future.
Anytime you're dealing with intellectual property laws there is also a bit of gray area that can ultimately turn into a slippery-slope. Where does the regulation stop?
This is more on par with what should be happening:
As I have explained elsewhere, policy-makers should be helping consumers get relevant content, not enacting laws to take it away from them.
Twitter *is* the poor man's Facebook. Whenever I introduce Twitter to people and they ask me what it is--I reply, "It basically only gives you the option of making status updates like Facebook, and that's pretty much it."
Twitter is a bit more professional for updating coworkers, relatives, friends, and generally everyone by the single fact that you're also not able to look at last weekend's crazy drunk fest. I don't understand why Facebook would want to take over Twitter, except for the fact of spreading around more ownership and advertisements.
Since we're obviously over-generalizing a typical slashdot reader's reading/interpreting habits, isn't it safe to assume that most of us skip ahead and read the article ourselves anyway?
It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control.
These are the same people that probably sugar coat the truth and then eat it.
I would have to say that it is a nice turn around to start stimulating the economy in terms of creating more jobs rather than just throwing money at everyone.
Connecting more schools, libraries, and hospitals to the internet will surely create more jobs. How will net neutrality opponents factor into this? Will there be more protection if the government forges its way into connecting everyone?
IBM claims the system can save businesses $500 to $800 per user on Microsoft software licenses and an additional $258 per user "since there is no need to upgrade hardware to support Windows Vista and Office."
This seems like a good idea. The relationship of 'cheap' is directly proportional to 'easy maintenance' in this case. (Expressing this relationship very loosely anyhow.) The necessities are covered with a list of typical applications, but is there anything missing here?
It is my understanding that this data was already obtainable in the first place. So technically it isn't huge a huge invasion of privacy; it is just becoming more readily/easily available.
One of the public data sets provided is from The US Census Bureau, and those were for the public anyway.
The way I see it, two things could happen:
1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly.
2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly.
There is no way to prevent a monopoly.
The New York Times recently reported Jonathan Miller, the former chief executive of AOL, attempting to raise $30 billion to buy Yahoo.
It seems that there are a few places this could go; albeit, very unlikely.
Bush is making an effort to be on good terms with Nancy Pelosi, and invited her to lunch today.
This whole thing about democrats taking over the house is obviously a disapproval for Bush in Iraq, the leader of not only our country but the republican party.
Slashdot Mirror
To this day I remember my ex's /. account password, and I logged in once a while ago to see if he changed it. He didn't.
I am only saying that it will change dramatically and become a different place. Not simply be blocked. It is foolish, imo, to think it will be completely unaffected.
Whether or not they experience it doesn't affect my argument. Just reminding the reader that circumstances like that have and will arise whether they know it or not. You taking it too literally is a lack of proper judgement on interpretation, and is your own fault.
The biggest thing is, if that law was in place before Youtube had been created, then Youtube would probably not be around today. What you're saying is too Utopian. Of course Youtube will be affected. Have you ever tried to watch a Youtube video, only to find the link was dead and replaced with "This video was taken down due to copyright infringement'? Besides torrenting sites, Youtube users are one of the biggest abusers of copyright infringement. After this law gets in place, companies wont expect to have to look through the piles of videos to make sure that they're videos or songs aren't being used without permission. AND there will be some sort of delay in place anytime someone posts a video, being as Youtube will have to sift through hundreds of videos that are uploaded every minute.
What you're saying just seems downright naive. (Not trolling.) If the user base was large enough to be downright appalled, then that should scare lawmakers NOW. Not after the fact.
Users should be responsible for their own actions, not the enabling institution or service. Installing a gatekeeper on sites like Youtube totally ruins the exchange that happens on there every single day, connecting countless people together without restraint. And what about all of the videos that are already uploaded? Do they have to sift through every single video to make sure it's 'kosher'?
Of course I wouldn't risk MY computer or MY work computer. I would just use the separate box I have set up for these sorts of situations that may lead to malicious behavior. More and more people have extra computers just laying around for this type of thing, right? It's 2011!
Sexual promiscuousness and speaking are both alright when done responsibly. I'm just reminding /. that there is a female population around here and therefore a female perspective to things, too.
Open devices are like a girl with open legs, convenient but they have their own risks.
Open devices are like a guy with an open mouth, convenient but they have their own risks.
Fixed.
For one thing, it is illegal for an ISP to arbitrarily block content. Also, it is not in the interest of an ISP because more content increases demand for their service. The more demand, the more they can charge for it.
The main topic of concern is priority access. And in the end it comes down to two things.
1) There will be an incentive to keep bandwidth as it is and offer a premium service to websites willing to pay for more. Not only is blocking content illegal, but it would actually hurt internet providers to offer a lower quality service to their customers.
2) The only reason why websites would pay for a premium service for their content is if there was a noticeable improvement. Which means a noticeable lower quality of service for other websites.
And when it comes to the internet, no one can truly predict the future.
This is why George W. Bush served two terms.
Should I mod this "up" or "down" ?
If we measure, won't that change the outcome?
We should let it simultaneously exist as funny and not exist as funny.
This is more on par with what should be happening:
As I have explained elsewhere, policy-makers should be helping consumers get relevant content, not enacting laws to take it away from them.
Twitter *is* the poor man's Facebook. Whenever I introduce Twitter to people and they ask me what it is--I reply, "It basically only gives you the option of making status updates like Facebook, and that's pretty much it."
Twitter is a bit more professional for updating coworkers, relatives, friends, and generally everyone by the single fact that you're also not able to look at last weekend's crazy drunk fest. I don't understand why Facebook would want to take over Twitter, except for the fact of spreading around more ownership and advertisements.
"With great power comes great responsibility." With more regulation at their own discretion, maybe it doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.
Since we're obviously over-generalizing a typical slashdot reader's reading/interpreting habits, isn't it safe to assume that most of us skip ahead and read the article ourselves anyway?
It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control.
These are the same people that probably sugar coat the truth and then eat it.
I would have to say that it is a nice turn around to start stimulating the economy in terms of creating more jobs rather than just throwing money at everyone. Connecting more schools, libraries, and hospitals to the internet will surely create more jobs. How will net neutrality opponents factor into this? Will there be more protection if the government forges its way into connecting everyone?
IBM claims the system can save businesses $500 to $800 per user on Microsoft software licenses and an additional $258 per user "since there is no need to upgrade hardware to support Windows Vista and Office."
This seems like a good idea. The relationship of 'cheap' is directly proportional to 'easy maintenance' in this case. (Expressing this relationship very loosely anyhow.) The necessities are covered with a list of typical applications, but is there anything missing here?
It is my understanding that this data was already obtainable in the first place. So technically it isn't huge a huge invasion of privacy; it is just becoming more readily/easily available. One of the public data sets provided is from The US Census Bureau, and those were for the public anyway.
The way I see it, two things could happen: 1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly. 2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly. There is no way to prevent a monopoly.
The New York Times recently reported Jonathan Miller, the former chief executive of AOL, attempting to raise $30 billion to buy Yahoo. It seems that there are a few places this could go; albeit, very unlikely.
Is it any coincidence that DARPA is Sanskrit for arrogance in this situation?
It's about time someone fixed the Hubble after Mike Nelson crashed the Satellite of Love into it.
Bush is making an effort to be on good terms with Nancy Pelosi, and invited her to lunch today. This whole thing about democrats taking over the house is obviously a disapproval for Bush in Iraq, the leader of not only our country but the republican party.
In other news of stating the obvious... _Fill in the Blank_