why on earth would they give any of the money they raised for their charity to another charity?
if someone wants to donate money that will help give kids video games who otherwise couldn't afford them (i don't know the ins and outs of their charity) they can donate through PA.
if they want to donate money that will help a different cause, they can go through that other cause. people want to know where their money is going when they donate it.
if they have permission to do what they are asking, they won't do it to benefit the consumer. they will do it to destroy competition and punish the consumer.
this isn't about consumers. if they made a $10 premium for consumers who wanted faster connections, lots would do it.
the issue is that they will be slowing down connections for particular websites. some companies wouldn't be able to afford whatever premium they charge, some wouldn't be allowed at all since they are competition.
it would be the perfect way for bells to censor anything they want, like blogs that talk about how they are censoring blogs.
not like anyone reading this doesn't know already, but this would be the worst thing ever to happen to the internet. if you think they would stop by offering crap connections for competitors, you're blind. things like/. would be low priorities since they love to expose what big bells are doing to screw us.
the eff doesn't seem to have any sort of flexibility. rather than try to work something out, they try to fight the very idea of drm in a world of people that don't even know what it stands for.
you can't explain to average joes what drm means any better than you can explain why firefox is better than internet explorer. they don't want to hear about it until their cd won't play or their browser won't open.
they should back down and restructure. their articles come across as arrogant, as if anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. not a very good way to win over the people who matter.
the industry would never go for that. they don't want to have their own little section of the web where you can go to if you want pr0n. some people don't know they want pr0n until they first see it
then why don't they take cases to court when people share passwords, spread files via p2p, etc? they know that it has a hook as good as a drug for some/most people. someone might not be a paying customer today or tomorrow, but once it is hard to find what they want via p2p they might become one..
well, i don't know about everyone else but i think if someone crapped out an "e"-shaped piece of shit i'd think it was pretty awesome. e isn't exatly the easiest letter to make with your ass.
you've got to be kidding me. the only difference between these and the oakleys is that no nerds will actually buy these because no one that knows how to ALT+TAB is stupid enough to buy crap like this.
well in america we have R and NC-17 rated films, which are "you must be 17 or come with your parent/guardian" and "no children under 17" respectively, so an 18 rated film in the uk will SURELY be pr0n/illega/unpatriotic since you must be older than 17 to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
i was thinking the same thing
why on earth would they give any of the money they raised for their charity to another charity?
if someone wants to donate money that will help give kids video games who otherwise couldn't afford them (i don't know the ins and outs of their charity) they can donate through PA.
if they want to donate money that will help a different cause, they can go through that other cause. people want to know where their money is going when they donate it.
wouldn't that just be wonderful to get nailed for something you did 2 years ago.
i wonder if microsoft will invoice sony for this..
you're looking at it in an ideal world though.
if they have permission to do what they are asking, they won't do it to benefit the consumer. they will do it to destroy competition and punish the consumer.
this isn't about consumers. if they made a $10 premium for consumers who wanted faster connections, lots would do it.
the issue is that they will be slowing down connections for particular websites. some companies wouldn't be able to afford whatever premium they charge, some wouldn't be allowed at all since they are competition.
it would be the perfect way for bells to censor anything they want, like blogs that talk about how they are censoring blogs.
not like anyone reading this doesn't know already, but this would be the worst thing ever to happen to the internet. if you think they would stop by offering crap connections for competitors, you're blind. things like /. would be low priorities since they love to expose what big bells are doing to screw us.
when did high school performance matter for anything but getting into college?
anyway, who gives a shit if some kids you obviously have no interest in talking to don't type the way you do?
you're not cynical, you're just an idiot. get over yourself
turn the ironytron down a bit man, i'm just telling you what i think the clip you're talking about means
well based on your quote, they just want sony to suffer. you know, revenge?
the eff doesn't seem to have any sort of flexibility. rather than try to work something out, they try to fight the very idea of drm in a world of people that don't even know what it stands for.
you can't explain to average joes what drm means any better than you can explain why firefox is better than internet explorer. they don't want to hear about it until their cd won't play or their browser won't open.
they should back down and restructure. their articles come across as arrogant, as if anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. not a very good way to win over the people who matter.
i agree. /. editor's question is ignorant.
it's not like it was a trick, the article starts off, "At google, we think..."
link plz?
so is microsoft happy about this or will they be throwing some more chairs in the morning
do 2 minutes of googling and you'll find no evidence of that.
no it probably just means you don't know any other humans.
you sound as if myspace's tos were the first you ever read
"We are, as an energy source, easily renewable and completely recyclable, the dead liquified and fed intravenously to the living."
the industry would never go for that. they don't want to have their own little section of the web where you can go to if you want pr0n. some people don't know they want pr0n until they first see it
then why don't they take cases to court when people share passwords, spread files via p2p, etc? they know that it has a hook as good as a drug for some/most people. someone might not be a paying customer today or tomorrow, but once it is hard to find what they want via p2p they might become one..
or when they turn 18..
or when they get a credit card..
or when they find their parents' credit card..
well, i don't know about everyone else but i think if someone crapped out an "e"-shaped piece of shit i'd think it was pretty awesome. e isn't exatly the easiest letter to make with your ass.
you've got to be kidding me. the only difference between these and the oakleys is that no nerds will actually buy these because no one that knows how to ALT+TAB is stupid enough to buy crap like this.
give me a BREAK
well in america we have R and NC-17 rated films, which are "you must be 17 or come with your parent/guardian" and "no children under 17" respectively, so an 18 rated film in the uk will SURELY be pr0n/illega/unpatriotic since you must be older than 17 to see it.