The internet is governed by the "Law of the Jungle". Specific domains, however, are governed by whoever owns and operates them.
People should be competent operators of whatever they use. If someone doesn't know how to use a knife, they'll cut themselves. If someone doesn't know how to use a car, they'll probably kill someone. If someone doesn't know how to use a gun they'll probably kill someone. But we don't let people who don't know how to use cars drive them around in public places, why do you believe there should be protection for those who do the same thing on their computers?
Mr. Straw-man, I not once claimed to be superior in any outdoor field, such as you seem to claim:
Perhaps people like you should be left in the middle of a jungle to survive since you're so intelligent and superior. You make me sick. However, I am in the middle of a type of jungle - the information jungle that's the world-wide-web. And like I would do in a real jungle, I avoid sites and places that I know would be bad for me and my computer. I rarely open attachments - even from people I know. I rarely go around posting personal information about myself. I know how to boot in safe mode and uninstall programs. I can run through a process of elimination.
1)My computer worked fine 30 minutes ago.
2)Between now and then the only change I made was to try and install this "game"
3)Hmmm, that game might have something to do with it. I can't boot normally, how about safe mode?
4)Ah, that works, let's see if I can uninstall this program. Yep, I sure can!
5)Oh good my computer works again. Wow, that guy sure was a dork.
Simple steps that everyone who uses a computer SHOULD know how to do. If my computer was still having problems, I'd just grab my knoppix CD and see if I couldn't at least recover my data.
People who can't drive cars aren't allowed to on public roadways. If they do, they're fined and possibly put in jail. People who can't use computers but still do, people call them victims. If they are victims, it's to their own willful ignorance.
Judging by the fact that it was repeated throughout the US, and rarely did anyone think it was anything dangerous... and the fact that they were placed in very public places, and well lit... Oh, and how about the part where they didn't call in and say "hey this is a bomb!"
Quit trying to excuse personal responsability! If you're too stupid to tell the difference between a light-brite and a bomb, or to tell the difference between a legitimate game and a "virus"... I'm sorry, you need to hand in a couple of bits of anatomy. We can't have your genes in the pool.
If either of these things, this "virus" or the lite-brite-looking-mooninites, had actually had the potential for damage, that's another story. But all this did was simply execute a reboot script, and the mooninites were glowing aliens giving people the finger. Neither of which did actual harm, unless you were dumb as a bag of rocks - no offense to the bag of rocks.
People should be a little smarter when it comes to these things. I, for one, am a suspicious son-of-a-gun and I wouldn't be installing some random programs. Every one of these people had a choice, whether or not to dl and install a rather suspicious program.
Oh, and you wanna see a cool secret game in windows? go to window>run>type "format c:" and click "yes", it's the coolest game ever!
I've... maybe once or twice got spam that was relevant to my interests, but rather than click the link, I've gone to Google or something else. It's still the clickers responsibility.
A prank that causes financial loss should be punished. So... I saw these scary things that totally looked like bombs and it was so totally scary! I so totally can't believe that anyone would ever do such a naughty thing! I mean, how could those poor, defenseless people know any better? Someone should definitely be punished!
Just try this - put an altoids tin somewhere in near plain sight, a visine (or other eyedropper) on the dash, and then get pulled over...
I can practically guarentee that they'll ask to "search" your vehicle.
On the topic of DRM, I can't think of any particular reason that it should work. Heck, the closest thing anyone could possibly get to "real" DRM is if they did something like Terminal Man...
I'm pretty sure any time a government official raises his hand these days it's because he wants more money...
This confuses me though, are they saying that if you own something that you can make copies with, they'll charge you a levy, even if you don't? Does anyone see the phenominal amount of stupidity behind this reasoning? I can't express strongly enough what a big problem this is!
So, because I own a gun - I may or may not have killed/poached/violated city ordinance with it, but just because it's possible, that means I can be punished/taxed/fined for owning a gun? Or a computer? Or a car? Or a knife? Or a bar of soap???
Actually, most power companies will purchase excess power you produce (and in the summer, peak usage is more expensive - and they pay you more), so you can actually profit somewhat if you use a lot less power. And then at night (off peak) you get cheaper power than you were paying... I've known people who actually made money off the company that way... (in the generic read about them on the internet way)
The creator and only the creator, should own the rights to his or her work until the day they die. At that date it becomes PD.
It just makes more sense that way. Then if the artist would like to share their work with the world, they can - it's perfectly fine. If they want to hoard their work and be complete elitist a-holes, that's also within their rights.
Oh, waitaminute, someone is stopping them -- check with your local village/city, county and State laws. They might be preventing your community from getting more than 2 providers. They likely are. I guarantee it. In Arkansas, Conway has a contract with Conwaycorp to bring... well I don't know what it is, but it's sure not high quality internet/cable/blah blah. Maumelle has a contract with Cox Cable.
Therefore it's illegal for any other companies to try and bring cable/phone/whatever into those places. You can get satellite because you're not actually pulling wires, which is really what it's about, AFAIK - land rights.
I actually agree that this kinda thing isn't a good idea.
I used to be of the opinion that regulations like these were a good idea, but it was actually a statement by Ron Paul on Attack of the Show that influenced my change. And then a slight article in Entrepeneur.
Senator Paul voted against net neutrality and extending anti-tax provisions on the basis that voting for them is admitting that the USGOV has rights to tax those things, which he believes they don't. He prefers to let the market decide - allowing people to vote with their wallets. If a business is craptacular? No one will buy from them. If the consumers have no options because of corrupt, ignorant, or otherwise incomplete representation, then they can't vote with their wallets. If someone in Conway wants a cable provider from someone other than Conwaycorp, they have to move. That's their only option.
And if it's important enough, the market will decide.
For instance, an article in the most recent Entrepeneur magazine was talking about how "green" is the next big thing. But the USDA doesn't go after people who improperly label things as "Organic" - for instance, sure, I may have grown this cotton myself, not used pesticides, and did all this good stuff... but if I shipped it from China to Texas - should I really be considered organic?
Well some people decided they wanted to do something about it, and now there's a company that will be providing extra certification - under stringent guidelines - that verify a product is organic.
This has several benefits.
1)If you trust the USDA, you can buy whatever products they allow to be listed organic with a clear consience.
2)If you don't trust the USDA, you can check out the requirements of this other company and decide if you trust them.
3)It creates more jobs - this new company (I can't remember the name, the article's at home, can't be bothered to search online) has to have employees.
I suppose you might be able to argue - but who's watching the watchers? Well, if they're trustworthy, then they should be transparent, and the consumers should be able to watch the watchers. That's why trust the USGOV as far as I can throw the collective lot of them. Maybe less. The process often isn't transparent, nor am I allowed to vote with my wallet.
Personally, I think we should be presented with a bill for services the GOV would like to offer, and we get to pick and choose.
Please check each service you'd like to pay for:
[ ]Military - $1000/yr
[ ]Roadways - $500/yr
[ ]Social Security - One appendage and $5000/yr
[ ]Local Libraries - $20/yr
[ ]Local law enforcement - $1000/yr
[ ]Espionage - $10,000/yr
[ ]Fat dumpy white guys who don't know what they're doing, and pretend they represent your interests - $500,000/mo
[ ]War on Terror - $1 Billion/5 years
[ ]War on Drugs - $40 Billion/yr
[ ]War on the War on Drugs - $1 Billion Dollars in your pocket/50 acres of land/year
[ ]War on War - $Gajillion Somethings.
I think that would be perfectly reasonable. I for one, don't want to pay for the War on Drugs(TM) or the War on Terror(TM). If someone would like to terrorize me or my family, I will have no problem putting a.45 round through their face. Well, I probably would have some psychological damage, but $1/rd is a lot cheaper than wherever the heck my money is going when it gets to Uncle Sam's coffers.
It's better when you get to vote with your wallet. That's free market, anti-monopoly.
I don't know if I see MS doing this though, at least not right away - even though their console is a year old(er), and technically has the same general specs... if they released anything soon it would still be competeing with the PS3 and the Wii - even if was better. I don't know exactly why the Dreamcast kicked the bucket - but it was WAY ahead of the current systems (and from what I recall had some kick-butt games).
They say the best place to set up shop is right next to your competition - and it's true. I don't know, but I would be interested to see if 360 purchases increased with the releases of Wii & PS3. Why is that, you ask? Simple - I get my nice fat (I wish) paycheck, and have $500-600, and I'm thinking "Dude, I want me a console..." so here I go to Best Buy. Wii is sold out, PS3 is sold out... but Xbox360? Hmmm... and there are a ton of sweet games for this.. and heck, I can buy two or three controllers, several games... score!
AFAIK. I would be interested to see some numbers on that though. But that's why I think it would be a bad move for MS to release another system so soon - no hype, no marketing, no money. According to a (loose) estimate by NexGen Wars, Xbox has sold 11 Million consoles since Nov 2005. The Wii has sol 8 Million since November 2006. My 10 second research reported that the 360 was forecasting 8-10 Million units sold by the end of 2006. I'd be curious to see for sure some sales figures from November 2005 - July 2006.
While the 360 did suffer shortages for several months after release, we still see the Wii consistently sold out for... pushing 10 months now? And they're fairly consistenly releasing more systems. While I think the Xbox did get some advantages over the other two consoles, I think if they want to survive this next release, rather than trying to rush a new system (especially if it inherits the unbelievable 30% failure rate of the 360), they should take the time to develop it really well, build up a good reserve of them, and about a month before all the other consoles release - have a surprise release where they flood the market (more or less). That way they have advantage of the hype and marketing from other systems, plus they get their console to the public before the other systems. And here's the scenario I see happening then:
"Dad! I've got my $xxx from mowing lawns this summer, lets go get a Nintendo/PS3!"
"Oooh, looks like they're sold out... what about this Xbox thingie?"
"Hmm... woah, that game looks sweet! Alright!"
And now they own his soul... oh wait, no just his money. And stuff.
If it happens like this, remember you saw it here first!
IANAL, but I seem to recall something about having to have a warrant for "search and seizure".
You may say that XYZ is available for them, but really, unless they want to revise the copyright laws, it's not. That's the problem is there's so much doublespeak that it really doesn't make any sense, from a legitimate point of view. Now if I were to say I want to control someone, then it makes perfect sense.
Personally, I liked the old way... We had a paper and a punch. You're one of those old fashioned punch card programmers, aren't you?;)
Of course, that being said - our educational system is geared around that kind of voting anyway... mmmm, say, that's a thought! Maybe that's why hardly anyone wants to vote - it's too reminiscent of the SATs we all had to take during school. We all felt our time could be better spent doing something else (which it could have) and what we chose really didn't affect what we were taught it school. Perhaps that's what's going on with the American voting system?
Pshaw! 1920 and the US? You're about 500 years too late... Ever since 1492 the "Americans" have rounded up and driven law abiding citizens of the land into concentration, I mean internment-style camps.
Tier it off and you'll make it about as useful as the television networks. Well, DUH!
That's exactly what they want - they don't want the end user to be an internet consumer, they want them to be a product that they can sell. Preferably if it means they make money off both ends of the bargin.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I find that hard to believe.
Years? Decades maybe... centuries? probably
People should be competent operators of whatever they use. If someone doesn't know how to use a knife, they'll cut themselves. If someone doesn't know how to use a car, they'll probably kill someone. If someone doesn't know how to use a gun they'll probably kill someone. But we don't let people who don't know how to use cars drive them around in public places, why do you believe there should be protection for those who do the same thing on their computers?
Mr. Straw-man, I not once claimed to be superior in any outdoor field, such as you seem to claim: Perhaps people like you should be left in the middle of a jungle to survive since you're so intelligent and superior. You make me sick. However, I am in the middle of a type of jungle - the information jungle that's the world-wide-web. And like I would do in a real jungle, I avoid sites and places that I know would be bad for me and my computer. I rarely open attachments - even from people I know. I rarely go around posting personal information about myself. I know how to boot in safe mode and uninstall programs. I can run through a process of elimination.
1)My computer worked fine 30 minutes ago.
2)Between now and then the only change I made was to try and install this "game"
3)Hmmm, that game might have something to do with it. I can't boot normally, how about safe mode?
4)Ah, that works, let's see if I can uninstall this program. Yep, I sure can!
5)Oh good my computer works again. Wow, that guy sure was a dork.
Simple steps that everyone who uses a computer SHOULD know how to do. If my computer was still having problems, I'd just grab my knoppix CD and see if I couldn't at least recover my data.
People who can't drive cars aren't allowed to on public roadways. If they do, they're fined and possibly put in jail. People who can't use computers but still do, people call them victims. If they are victims, it's to their own willful ignorance.
Judging by the fact that it was repeated throughout the US, and rarely did anyone think it was anything dangerous... and the fact that they were placed in very public places, and well lit... Oh, and how about the part where they didn't call in and say "hey this is a bomb!"
Quit trying to excuse personal responsability! If you're too stupid to tell the difference between a light-brite and a bomb, or to tell the difference between a legitimate game and a "virus"... I'm sorry, you need to hand in a couple of bits of anatomy. We can't have your genes in the pool.
If either of these things, this "virus" or the lite-brite-looking-mooninites, had actually had the potential for damage, that's another story. But all this did was simply execute a reboot script, and the mooninites were glowing aliens giving people the finger. Neither of which did actual harm, unless you were dumb as a bag of rocks - no offense to the bag of rocks.
People should be a little smarter when it comes to these things. I, for one, am a suspicious son-of-a-gun and I wouldn't be installing some random programs. Every one of these people had a choice, whether or not to dl and install a rather suspicious program.
Oh, and you wanna see a cool secret game in windows? go to window>run>type "format c:" and click "yes", it's the coolest game ever!
At least it's not Pinto or Nova....
Yeah, but you don't have to click on their link.
I've... maybe once or twice got spam that was relevant to my interests, but rather than click the link, I've gone to Google or something else. It's still the clickers responsibility.
And I'm going to be laughing all the way there... oh my goodness that's too funny!
We didn't have time to do it right!
I guess we'll have to take the time to do it over.
Just try this - put an altoids tin somewhere in near plain sight, a visine (or other eyedropper) on the dash, and then get pulled over...
I can practically guarentee that they'll ask to "search" your vehicle.
On the topic of DRM, I can't think of any particular reason that it should work. Heck, the closest thing anyone could possibly get to "real" DRM is if they did something like Terminal Man...
I'm pretty sure any time a government official raises his hand these days it's because he wants more money...
This confuses me though, are they saying that if you own something that you can make copies with, they'll charge you a levy, even if you don't? Does anyone see the phenominal amount of stupidity behind this reasoning? I can't express strongly enough what a big problem this is!
So, because I own a gun - I may or may not have killed/poached/violated city ordinance with it, but just because it's possible, that means I can be punished/taxed/fined for owning a gun? Or a computer? Or a car? Or a knife? Or a bar of soap???
It's called collateral damage ;)
Actually, most power companies will purchase excess power you produce (and in the summer, peak usage is more expensive - and they pay you more), so you can actually profit somewhat if you use a lot less power. And then at night (off peak) you get cheaper power than you were paying... I've known people who actually made money off the company that way... (in the generic read about them on the internet way)
Unlike Google... they want your souls... forever!
But not to do anything evil with!
My personal opinion?
The creator and only the creator, should own the rights to his or her work until the day they die. At that date it becomes PD.
It just makes more sense that way. Then if the artist would like to share their work with the world, they can - it's perfectly fine. If they want to hoard their work and be complete elitist a-holes, that's also within their rights.
I don't know if I see MS doing this though, at least not right away - even though their console is a year old(er), and technically has the same general specs... if they released anything soon it would still be competeing with the PS3 and the Wii - even if was better. I don't know exactly why the Dreamcast kicked the bucket - but it was WAY ahead of the current systems (and from what I recall had some kick-butt games).
They say the best place to set up shop is right next to your competition - and it's true. I don't know, but I would be interested to see if 360 purchases increased with the releases of Wii & PS3. Why is that, you ask? Simple - I get my nice fat (I wish) paycheck, and have $500-600, and I'm thinking "Dude, I want me a console..." so here I go to Best Buy. Wii is sold out, PS3 is sold out... but Xbox360? Hmmm... and there are a ton of sweet games for this.. and heck, I can buy two or three controllers, several games... score!
AFAIK. I would be interested to see some numbers on that though. But that's why I think it would be a bad move for MS to release another system so soon - no hype, no marketing, no money. According to a (loose) estimate by NexGen Wars, Xbox has sold 11 Million consoles since Nov 2005. The Wii has sol 8 Million since November 2006. My 10 second research reported that the 360 was forecasting 8-10 Million units sold by the end of 2006. I'd be curious to see for sure some sales figures from November 2005 - July 2006.
While the 360 did suffer shortages for several months after release, we still see the Wii consistently sold out for... pushing 10 months now? And they're fairly consistenly releasing more systems. While I think the Xbox did get some advantages over the other two consoles, I think if they want to survive this next release, rather than trying to rush a new system (especially if it inherits the unbelievable 30% failure rate of the 360), they should take the time to develop it really well, build up a good reserve of them, and about a month before all the other consoles release - have a surprise release where they flood the market (more or less). That way they have advantage of the hype and marketing from other systems, plus they get their console to the public before the other systems. And here's the scenario I see happening then:
"Dad! I've got my $xxx from mowing lawns this summer, lets go get a Nintendo/PS3!"
"Oooh, looks like they're sold out... what about this Xbox thingie?"
"Hmm... woah, that game looks sweet! Alright!"
And now they own his soul... oh wait, no just his money. And stuff.
If it happens like this, remember you saw it here first!
IANAL, but I seem to recall something about having to have a warrant for "search and seizure".
You may say that XYZ is available for them, but really, unless they want to revise the copyright laws, it's not. That's the problem is there's so much doublespeak that it really doesn't make any sense, from a legitimate point of view. Now if I were to say I want to control someone, then it makes perfect sense.
With 64kb of RAM...
If I weren't a Boy Scout, you know what I would be?
What?!
If I wern't a Boy Scout... a terrorist I would be! (Since it's after 9/11, you know...)
Of course, that being said - our educational system is geared around that kind of voting anyway... mmmm, say, that's a thought! Maybe that's why hardly anyone wants to vote - it's too reminiscent of the SATs we all had to take during school. We all felt our time could be better spent doing something else (which it could have) and what we chose really didn't affect what we were taught it school. Perhaps that's what's going on with the American voting system?
Pshaw! 1920 and the US? You're about 500 years too late... Ever since 1492 the "Americans" have rounded up and driven law abiding citizens of the land into concentration, I mean internment-style camps.
I knew I got that T1 for a reason!
Go go Google Rangers!
Can I be the Green Google Ranger?
That's exactly what they want - they don't want the end user to be an internet consumer, they want them to be a product that they can sell. Preferably if it means they make money off both ends of the bargin.