We could all use some more aggressiveness - hopefully, along with enough tolerance that we don't all go out and shoot each other - but that doesn't necessarily follow aggressive behavior.
Aggressively pursuing some goal can be very good for people. I'm not sure why it has received such a bad name. Maybe it's just another symptom of a lazy, cowardly nation.
They didn't invent IE, they bought it from some other company (so long ago, that I guess you could say they invented it's current state).
Licensing Gecko or WebKit would be exactly the same thing, except it's an open source code base (LGPL - not copy left). They seem to have an unreasonable allergy to anything with the words "open source" in it - even though I can't see why it would make any sense at all to enhance their own rendering and Javascript engines at this point.
Talk about unnecessary expense. Maybe that's why it costs so much for a non-crippled version of Vista.
The problem is that what the "scientists" - in quotes, because physicians are not scientists - they are the implementers of the field of medicine (industry in the U.S. - health care system elsewhere), and as their role permits (or doesn't) they are often not in the business of perceiving what has just presented itself to them - especially when it goes against what the text books (and pharma ads) tell them. Remember they are implementers, not researchers. In fact, they are disincentive from doing that, since they could face ethics charges if they do.
My case to present - my son after getting the MMR, most certainly did break out with a very rubella looking rash that lasted for a week. The doctor said it wasn't from the shot. Well, it's hard to believe that that particular rash having come on right after getting an MMR shot (a shot which also seemed to have made his older sister ill, though to a lesser degree), and looked just like every photo of Rubella I could find in the net, was just a coincidence.
It was a tough call to be sure, the doctor seemed genuinely surprised by the appearance of the rash, and could not offer an explanation, though he was entirely resistant to the idea that it was rubella, caused by the shot.
The problem with all this - how can patients trust a professional that seems to disregard their own observations, and those of their patients so easily.
I say if doctors and the medical field in general, really need to adjust their attitudes and the way in which they interact with patients if they really want to do no harm. What they are doing now is a disservice to their own profession, as well as their patients.
Re:Do what the rest of us scientists do, publish
on
Losing My Software Rights?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Take a look at the recent Forbes magazine. They did a story on "regular" families (all of whom make in the neighborhood of $250,000 - $500,000 a year or more - very not "regular" frankly) hit by the economic crisis.
In that article there is a chart of who pays what portion of the tax burden. The largest group, who pays a healthy 11-13% (can't remember the specifics) are people making around or below $50,000 a year.
The group paying the largest portion of the taxes (and the most as a percentage of their income) is those guys in the 250K - 500K range. Now, that's a problem I'd like to have - just to get that out of the way.
Next up is the millionaires, the guys making multiple millions a year - they are paying a smaller share of the tax burden than the guys making only a quarter of a million, and are paying a smaller amount as a percentage of both what they make, and how much wealth they control.
That is an unfair system - mostly unfair to the knuckle heads in the 250K-500K range, who are paying for the millionaires' Bentleys and 13th houses.
Why knuckleheads? Because those same guys love to talk about wealthfare moms and public school kids, and how unfair it is that they have to pay for all those "social programs". Cry me a river.
Maybe those knuckleheads should be pisses to hell, that the millionaires - the guys getting the most benefit out of a society that they 250K crowd are mostly paying for - that they don't pay their fair share, and leave the struggling alone, or maybe even, help them out.
To finally answer the question about what tax system doesn't "hurt us" - one that taxes the very wealthy and helps get our public services paid for, to stop them from crumbling - making things like public schools work, a college system that educates, and bridges that don't fall down. FDR style taxes on only the rich, and some relief for the rest of us - economic enabling relief for the people who have a desire - a need - to innovate and get stuff done, but who currently lack the resources to do any of it.
How's that for a tax system that doesn't hurt _us_.
The truth is I haven't used it that much since 8.1 shipped, but had logged in this week specifically see if the wmode feature worked (I'm a Flash Developer, that's how I make my living, and really do want to see Flash working on Linux - my preferred platform).
I'm far from a zealot though, though in this case, I'm probably hung out a bit (I assumed that the past stability in 8.0, plus the added missing features, meant that the the issue is now nullified, since the 32-bit plugin in the 64-bit browser appears to be working just fine).
I'm still willing to bet that they'll solve that particular bug, at which time my original assumption and my original point will stand.
All that aside, I really can't see why Adobe will not open the source of the player utilizing some kind of CUPs or Trolltech like licensing and copyright setup. They give their binaries away for free as it is, and even if they want to license their code base to closed systems (like Nintendo Wii) with a Trolltech setup, they could still do that.
The primary stated reason for not opening it up (as far as I can tell) is that they don't want forks and fragmentation to occur - but as with Java, they seem to have more fragmentation occurring do to the closed nature of the code base, then they would probably have if it were open (after Java opened, you immediately saw consolidation of those code bases with projects like Iced Tea).
I really wish they would have a more public discussion of the rationale for keeping it closed than they do right now. I can't see any reason for them to keep the source proprietary.
As I've said though, I think they'll soon see the benefits - they are already seeing dividends paid from opening up the Flex Framework (if not from Tamarin, on which they seem to be a bit let down).
Accusing someone of lying is a sure way to shut down conversation. What I have found is the case - Flash does "just work" on Ubuntu 8.10 x64 (it mostly "just worked" on Ubuntu 8.0 too, there were just some places where it didn't entirely work, or were some missing features.).
It is possible that I am mistaken, or that I haven't used it for long enough to have run into the same problem that you have mentioned, but my experience thus far is as I have described it.
I'm really not sure what cause I've given you to question my intent.
I do remember all that, but my point is only that despite not having a 64-bit version, it did eventually get worked out, so it seems like that single point of contention was unwarranted.
Admittedly, it did take too long. I wish they would just let the swfdec or gnash people port the existing code and be done with it. I personally believe they eventually will, but it's easy to get tired of waiting - I get that.
I just upgraded to Ubuntu 8.10 - and Flash in 64-bit Firefox "just works" including even wmode="transparent" and full-screen mode.
I have a seriously difficult time understanding what so many 64-bit Linux enthusiasts are complaining about. As things stand right now, Flash "just works".
That said, I am eager to help Adobe move even further into opening the source of Flash Player - they've already open parts of it, and I believe given time and the right kinds of encouragement, they will open the rest.
Microsoft has a history of supporting unfinished or in progress standards, then keeping them that way. Just look at what they do with W3C standards. Keeping is static.
No ECMAScript 4.x, no DOM Events, no Canvas/SVG/etc., no greatly improved JS support because they only "want to make existing content content run better" rather than preparing for what the future may hold. Everyone else is doing that - make JS more robust today, so we can have better apps tomorrow.
MS has no interest in a standard that really works - but they'd love to be able to claim support for an open standard just the same.
I don't want them to raid my neighbor's paycheck - I don't want them to raid any working person's paycheck. The entire idea is ludicrous.
I do want the 400 rich families that have been skimming every penny of wealth from the rest of us - the same 400 families that own 90% of the wealth in this country to pay for the benefits they receive from the culture and economy that the rest of us create - and don't give me any trickle down non-sense - we've been trying that stupidity for 30 years, and there is 0 evidence that it works anywhere near what is promised in it's marketing.
All taxes are income redistribution - they are currently only being distributed to the already have more than they can spend crowd, and coming from the just getting by, or not getting by, crowd.
Also, don't pretend poor people don't pay taxes - every time they buy anything, or drive on the roads, they are paying regressive taxes, and having their tax money - money they really can't afford to share - spread upward to those who already have plenty.
I'm really getting tired of this foolishness over redistribution of wealth. Wake up and see what's happening - wealth is being redistributed into the hands of those who already have the most. The evidence is everywhere, all you have to do is see it.
The space program in the U.S. went hand in glove with a whole host of other governmental programs - including a lot of work in education and other infrustructure.
It's not a surprise that these programs had benefits. When you spend money on enriching the population of a country (as the U.S. did before the 1980s) the population enriches the country.
Enriching the rich is fruitless, since there is only so much a few people can do with increasing wealth. the 400 or so families that control 90% of the wealth in the U.S. simply can't spend their money that fast, and now are now spending even less of it.
That said, the space program was never about enriching the population, though that was a clear benefit. I believe that these kinds of projects will always be beneficial to any society that implements them - that includes India - even if they don't immediately address more pressing concerns.
I clean massive amounts of plugins and IE bars out of almost everyone I know's computers on a weekly basis. The will absolutely install anything to make those "damn popups" go away on whatever website they are visiting. They use IE because that's what is on the computer, and don't know that they should switch. They absolutely do not avoid installing anything, and would install Firefox if it came in an ActiveX package.
With paper you need to get an army of individuals to skew the results of a vote enough to matter with things like ballot dumping and intimidation, etc. There's a reason instances of intimidation goes down in areas where these machines are used. Why intimidate voters if their votes don't count?
With electronic voting machines you just need one guy to reprogram the machines - and no one can know that it happened.
The incentives are never going to be in the right places to allow these types of opaque processes to be used for voting (unlike banking, where someone's going to jail if the money isn't properly accounted for). You can't look in these machines and confirm anything - you can only assume that the source code posted on some website last week, is actually the source code compiled and running on the computer (a fool's assumption frankly).
These machines can never be as tamper resistant as hand counted paper ballots. All they do is make it easier to smaller numbers of people to affect many.
$60 for a game you haven't played, and know little about is ridiculous.
$60 for a game you have already played is ridiculous.
How about $20 (Lost Planet on Steam) $30 (UT3 on Steam) for a game you downloaded the demo for, or are otherwise familiar with - or even $40 for a collector's edition, or a pack (Orange Box - although I got that through a promotion when if first came out for $25).
I don't even own a PS3 or an XBox 360 precisely because all the games are $60, and that's just too much. And usually by the time they get cheaper (this goes for $50 Wii games too) I've already played them through other means (borrowed from a friend, etc.).
I did buy Prey for $5 on Steam even though I had already played that (I would have payed $10 or $15 though - that's a good game).
I don't care how much it costs to develop a game, figure out how to sell it cheaper. $60 is simply too much.
That statement was a cop out. I can't believe Bush needs FISA (or that FISA requests from him should be taken seriously, not that he'd actually make one) to do anything, or could even use FISA to do anything right.
He could have voted against it, and then after winning the election, had his sympathetic congress (who would also be more popular had they voted against this thing) create an newer more appropriate version of FISA.
Instead they all voted for the status quo - a status that is destroying this country. This vote was a massive mistake from that perspective, and they had to know it, which makes me wonder what they were really after (maybe making sure they can get favors from companies in the future - a government of people and corporation, rather than of laws?).
I do hope someone like Obama with his impressive bio, can eventually see the problems with this vote, and correct his thinking. He's at least more likely to do that, than his republican opponent, John McCain.
Before they invented, and overpaid for electronic voting machines, people were forcefully prevented from doing it. Kinda odd that they aren't any more;-) (this comment is for you NAACP!)
"Corporate innovation is incremental" - There I fixed it for you.:-)
2 guys in a garage innovation is revolutionary. This is exactly why you want a strong middle and working class. Those people, and the children of those people, given the resources, and the spare time (32 or 40 our work week) are the ones who will revolutionize technology and whole industries. Government incentive programs (like rewards to do things large companies say are not possible - like reducing refrigerator power consumption and freon use in the late 80s) only help.
Firefox has Firebug. It's easier to develop in Firefox than anything else because of that one extension.
Also, if it works in Firefox, it generally works in Safari and Opera, with minor changes.
Also, it's easier to add the hacks into a page for IE that displays according to the standards, than it is to make changes to a page developed for IE, to work in all the various other browsers (quirks modes vary more widely across the browser spectrum than standards mode does, and generally, pages built in IE are built in quirks mode, since IE page devs don't tend to care about standards).
Also, there are a lot of articles online about how to make IE behave in more standards compliant ways, and almost no articles about how to make all of the other browsers behave like IE (since it's largely impossible to get them all to behave the same way when you go at it from that direction).
I really doubt everyone in Europe and Japan know about that stuff either. The problem isn't the people in the U.S. it's the policy, and the politicians.
Markets are not self correcting, but in the U.S. everyone still acts like they are. So really, until that political situation changes, we're stuck with industries that are allowed to be strangled and dominated by a few very large companies - just like the telco industry.
I think from what I've read above, you'd be happy if they were to throttle all internet in an area, to keep access alive for everyone.
For example, if one guy on the block is using too much bandwidth on p2p, the equipment would throttle him down (all of him), so he doesn't clog it up for the guy next door who just wants to check email - and would do so pretty much only when the guy gets on and wants to check his email - and hopefully only throttles him down enough to let others on, but doesn't penalize him in any real way. I don't think users have a problem with that kind of fair use throttling.
This is different than cherry picking which services you as an ISP are going to throttle, in the name of QoS. I'd be happy to deal with what I've described above. But I'll be damned if my ISP is going to get away with throttling only my p2p or other streaming service, so my neighbor can watch his NetFlix streaming video - because NetFlix paid a huge fee to be on the express lane, at the expense of everyone else's services. That is unfair and not acceptable.
As it stands now, an isp is allowed to run the highway. They can't be allowed to shape traffic to give themselves and their competitors an unfair advantage, by cherry picking the services they will throttle. There's an inherent conflict of interest when you have the same guys who run the highway, also utilizing that highway to ship their own (or their partners') product. They are incentivized in that model, to cheat.
I don't think there is a need for exceptions. It's monumentally easier (and probably cheaper) to just increase bandwidth across the board (over time), and decrease latency (over time) across the board.
I see no need to shape traffic in any way. Any current technology will work fine within current constraints, and future technology will be build to take advantage of the constraints of their time (which would improve).
This all misses the real issue anyway - the guys who own the highways also want to use those highways to sell their own product and the product of partners (and why not give their own product priority). That conflict of interest is really where the problem lies.
If Microsoft can figure out how to tied the developers' futures to the success or failure of a software package, then they can get that argument to stick.
Right now, most developers make their money on salary. If the project, or the code base, or even the company they work for goes belly up, they just go get another job making a salary. Case in point, most open source developers get paid to develop or at least contribute to the open source code base (myself included).
To be clear, this would probably involve a payment structure that includes some kind of royalty payments, which would bring a lot of risk for the developer. Great developers don't tend to be great business men. I don't see things changing, so this argument that Microsoft folks always drag out just isn't going to stick (and hasn't stuck).
What's more interesting is that there is no reason Microsoft could not start taking advantage of all the great Open Source software out there - except GPL in many cases, though they could use it in some, and LGPL is certainly on the table - JS2 support in IE anyone? I don't see why not. Even if they don't like the tech, there is no reason not to deploy it as part of their browser.
Slashdot Mirror
We could all use some more aggressiveness - hopefully, along with enough tolerance that we don't all go out and shoot each other - but that doesn't necessarily follow aggressive behavior.
Aggressively pursuing some goal can be very good for people. I'm not sure why it has received such a bad name. Maybe it's just another symptom of a lazy, cowardly nation.
They didn't invent IE, they bought it from some other company (so long ago, that I guess you could say they invented it's current state).
Licensing Gecko or WebKit would be exactly the same thing, except it's an open source code base (LGPL - not copy left). They seem to have an unreasonable allergy to anything with the words "open source" in it - even though I can't see why it would make any sense at all to enhance their own rendering and Javascript engines at this point.
Talk about unnecessary expense. Maybe that's why it costs so much for a non-crippled version of Vista.
The problem is that what the "scientists" - in quotes, because physicians are not scientists - they are the implementers of the field of medicine (industry in the U.S. - health care system elsewhere), and as their role permits (or doesn't) they are often not in the business of perceiving what has just presented itself to them - especially when it goes against what the text books (and pharma ads) tell them. Remember they are implementers, not researchers. In fact, they are disincentive from doing that, since they could face ethics charges if they do.
My case to present - my son after getting the MMR, most certainly did break out with a very rubella looking rash that lasted for a week. The doctor said it wasn't from the shot. Well, it's hard to believe that that particular rash having come on right after getting an MMR shot (a shot which also seemed to have made his older sister ill, though to a lesser degree), and looked just like every photo of Rubella I could find in the net, was just a coincidence.
It was a tough call to be sure, the doctor seemed genuinely surprised by the appearance of the rash, and could not offer an explanation, though he was entirely resistant to the idea that it was rubella, caused by the shot.
The problem with all this - how can patients trust a professional that seems to disregard their own observations, and those of their patients so easily.
I say if doctors and the medical field in general, really need to adjust their attitudes and the way in which they interact with patients if they really want to do no harm. What they are doing now is a disservice to their own profession, as well as their patients.
Take a look at the recent Forbes magazine. They did a story on "regular" families (all of whom make in the neighborhood of $250,000 - $500,000 a year or more - very not "regular" frankly) hit by the economic crisis.
In that article there is a chart of who pays what portion of the tax burden. The largest group, who pays a healthy 11-13% (can't remember the specifics) are people making around or below $50,000 a year.
The group paying the largest portion of the taxes (and the most as a percentage of their income) is those guys in the 250K - 500K range. Now, that's a problem I'd like to have - just to get that out of the way.
Next up is the millionaires, the guys making multiple millions a year - they are paying a smaller share of the tax burden than the guys making only a quarter of a million, and are paying a smaller amount as a percentage of both what they make, and how much wealth they control.
That is an unfair system - mostly unfair to the knuckle heads in the 250K-500K range, who are paying for the millionaires' Bentleys and 13th houses.
Why knuckleheads? Because those same guys love to talk about wealthfare moms and public school kids, and how unfair it is that they have to pay for all those "social programs". Cry me a river.
Maybe those knuckleheads should be pisses to hell, that the millionaires - the guys getting the most benefit out of a society that they 250K crowd are mostly paying for - that they don't pay their fair share, and leave the struggling alone, or maybe even, help them out.
To finally answer the question about what tax system doesn't "hurt us" - one that taxes the very wealthy and helps get our public services paid for, to stop them from crumbling - making things like public schools work, a college system that educates, and bridges that don't fall down. FDR style taxes on only the rich, and some relief for the rest of us - economic enabling relief for the people who have a desire - a need - to innovate and get stuff done, but who currently lack the resources to do any of it.
How's that for a tax system that doesn't hurt _us_.
Bah! Sometimes I can't stand Ubuntu. :-)
The truth is I haven't used it that much since 8.1 shipped, but had logged in this week specifically see if the wmode feature worked (I'm a Flash Developer, that's how I make my living, and really do want to see Flash working on Linux - my preferred platform).
I'm far from a zealot though, though in this case, I'm probably hung out a bit (I assumed that the past stability in 8.0, plus the added missing features, meant that the the issue is now nullified, since the 32-bit plugin in the 64-bit browser appears to be working just fine).
I'm still willing to bet that they'll solve that particular bug, at which time my original assumption and my original point will stand.
All that aside, I really can't see why Adobe will not open the source of the player utilizing some kind of CUPs or Trolltech like licensing and copyright setup. They give their binaries away for free as it is, and even if they want to license their code base to closed systems (like Nintendo Wii) with a Trolltech setup, they could still do that.
The primary stated reason for not opening it up (as far as I can tell) is that they don't want forks and fragmentation to occur - but as with Java, they seem to have more fragmentation occurring do to the closed nature of the code base, then they would probably have if it were open (after Java opened, you immediately saw consolidation of those code bases with projects like Iced Tea).
I really wish they would have a more public discussion of the rationale for keeping it closed than they do right now. I can't see any reason for them to keep the source proprietary.
As I've said though, I think they'll soon see the benefits - they are already seeing dividends paid from opening up the Flex Framework (if not from Tamarin, on which they seem to be a bit let down).
It's just a matter of time.
Accusing someone of lying is a sure way to shut down conversation. What I have found is the case - Flash does "just work" on Ubuntu 8.10 x64 (it mostly "just worked" on Ubuntu 8.0 too, there were just some places where it didn't entirely work, or were some missing features.).
It is possible that I am mistaken, or that I haven't used it for long enough to have run into the same problem that you have mentioned, but my experience thus far is as I have described it.
I'm really not sure what cause I've given you to question my intent.
I do remember all that, but my point is only that despite not having a 64-bit version, it did eventually get worked out, so it seems like that single point of contention was unwarranted.
Admittedly, it did take too long. I wish they would just let the swfdec or gnash people port the existing code and be done with it. I personally believe they eventually will, but it's easy to get tired of waiting - I get that.
I just upgraded to Ubuntu 8.10 - and Flash in 64-bit Firefox "just works" including even wmode="transparent" and full-screen mode.
I have a seriously difficult time understanding what so many 64-bit Linux enthusiasts are complaining about. As things stand right now, Flash "just works".
That said, I am eager to help Adobe move even further into opening the source of Flash Player - they've already open parts of it, and I believe given time and the right kinds of encouragement, they will open the rest.
Microsoft has a history of supporting unfinished or in progress standards, then keeping them that way. Just look at what they do with W3C standards. Keeping is static.
No ECMAScript 4.x, no DOM Events, no Canvas/SVG/etc., no greatly improved JS support because they only "want to make existing content content run better" rather than preparing for what the future may hold. Everyone else is doing that - make JS more robust today, so we can have better apps tomorrow.
MS has no interest in a standard that really works - but they'd love to be able to claim support for an open standard just the same.
I don't want them to raid my neighbor's paycheck - I don't want them to raid any working person's paycheck. The entire idea is ludicrous.
I do want the 400 rich families that have been skimming every penny of wealth from the rest of us - the same 400 families that own 90% of the wealth in this country to pay for the benefits they receive from the culture and economy that the rest of us create - and don't give me any trickle down non-sense - we've been trying that stupidity for 30 years, and there is 0 evidence that it works anywhere near what is promised in it's marketing.
All taxes are income redistribution - they are currently only being distributed to the already have more than they can spend crowd, and coming from the just getting by, or not getting by, crowd.
Also, don't pretend poor people don't pay taxes - every time they buy anything, or drive on the roads, they are paying regressive taxes, and having their tax money - money they really can't afford to share - spread upward to those who already have plenty.
I'm really getting tired of this foolishness over redistribution of wealth. Wake up and see what's happening - wealth is being redistributed into the hands of those who already have the most. The evidence is everywhere, all you have to do is see it.
The space program in the U.S. went hand in glove with a whole host of other governmental programs - including a lot of work in education and other infrustructure.
It's not a surprise that these programs had benefits. When you spend money on enriching the population of a country (as the U.S. did before the 1980s) the population enriches the country.
Enriching the rich is fruitless, since there is only so much a few people can do with increasing wealth. the 400 or so families that control 90% of the wealth in the U.S. simply can't spend their money that fast, and now are now spending even less of it.
That said, the space program was never about enriching the population, though that was a clear benefit. I believe that these kinds of projects will always be beneficial to any society that implements them - that includes India - even if they don't immediately address more pressing concerns.
I clean massive amounts of plugins and IE bars out of almost everyone I know's computers on a weekly basis. The will absolutely install anything to make those "damn popups" go away on whatever website they are visiting. They use IE because that's what is on the computer, and don't know that they should switch. They absolutely do not avoid installing anything, and would install Firefox if it came in an ActiveX package.
With paper you need to get an army of individuals to skew the results of a vote enough to matter with things like ballot dumping and intimidation, etc. There's a reason instances of intimidation goes down in areas where these machines are used. Why intimidate voters if their votes don't count?
With electronic voting machines you just need one guy to reprogram the machines - and no one can know that it happened.
The incentives are never going to be in the right places to allow these types of opaque processes to be used for voting (unlike banking, where someone's going to jail if the money isn't properly accounted for). You can't look in these machines and confirm anything - you can only assume that the source code posted on some website last week, is actually the source code compiled and running on the computer (a fool's assumption frankly).
These machines can never be as tamper resistant as hand counted paper ballots. All they do is make it easier to smaller numbers of people to affect many.
liberal policies aren't any better. George Bush provides great material, just like Bill Clinton did (and still does)
Jokes about Clinton rarely had anything to do with policies (except when they were republican-lite policies, like NAFTA).
$60 for a game you haven't played, and know little about is ridiculous.
$60 for a game you have already played is ridiculous.
How about $20 (Lost Planet on Steam) $30 (UT3 on Steam) for a game you downloaded the demo for, or are otherwise familiar with - or even $40 for a collector's edition, or a pack (Orange Box - although I got that through a promotion when if first came out for $25).
I don't even own a PS3 or an XBox 360 precisely because all the games are $60, and that's just too much. And usually by the time they get cheaper (this goes for $50 Wii games too) I've already played them through other means (borrowed from a friend, etc.).
I did buy Prey for $5 on Steam even though I had already played that (I would have payed $10 or $15 though - that's a good game).
I don't care how much it costs to develop a game, figure out how to sell it cheaper. $60 is simply too much.
That statement was a cop out. I can't believe Bush needs FISA (or that FISA requests from him should be taken seriously, not that he'd actually make one) to do anything, or could even use FISA to do anything right.
He could have voted against it, and then after winning the election, had his sympathetic congress (who would also be more popular had they voted against this thing) create an newer more appropriate version of FISA.
Instead they all voted for the status quo - a status that is destroying this country. This vote was a massive mistake from that perspective, and they had to know it, which makes me wonder what they were really after (maybe making sure they can get favors from companies in the future - a government of people and corporation, rather than of laws?).
I do hope someone like Obama with his impressive bio, can eventually see the problems with this vote, and correct his thinking. He's at least more likely to do that, than his republican opponent, John McCain.
Before they invented, and overpaid for electronic voting machines, people were forcefully prevented from doing it. Kinda odd that they aren't any more ;-) (this comment is for you NAACP!)
Getting rid of the fairness doctrine was what enabled Rupert Murdock to own entire media markets and that damned Fox News.
Maybe re-instating the doctrine isn't the right move, but getting rid of it was most certainly not the right move either.
Simplistic points of view, like the one hinted at by the parent - "We know what's best for you" - are disappointing at best.
"Corporate innovation is incremental" - There I fixed it for you. :-)
2 guys in a garage innovation is revolutionary. This is exactly why you want a strong middle and working class. Those people, and the children of those people, given the resources, and the spare time (32 or 40 our work week) are the ones who will revolutionize technology and whole industries. Government incentive programs (like rewards to do things large companies say are not possible - like reducing refrigerator power consumption and freon use in the late 80s) only help.
Firefox has Firebug. It's easier to develop in Firefox than anything else because of that one extension.
Also, if it works in Firefox, it generally works in Safari and Opera, with minor changes.
Also, it's easier to add the hacks into a page for IE that displays according to the standards, than it is to make changes to a page developed for IE, to work in all the various other browsers (quirks modes vary more widely across the browser spectrum than standards mode does, and generally, pages built in IE are built in quirks mode, since IE page devs don't tend to care about standards).
Also, there are a lot of articles online about how to make IE behave in more standards compliant ways, and almost no articles about how to make all of the other browsers behave like IE (since it's largely impossible to get them all to behave the same way when you go at it from that direction).
The top icon in the start menu on Windows XP (most people) is (usually) whatever the default browser is.
I really doubt everyone in Europe and Japan know about that stuff either. The problem isn't the people in the U.S. it's the policy, and the politicians.
Markets are not self correcting, but in the U.S. everyone still acts like they are. So really, until that political situation changes, we're stuck with industries that are allowed to be strangled and dominated by a few very large companies - just like the telco industry.
I think from what I've read above, you'd be happy if they were to throttle all internet in an area, to keep access alive for everyone.
For example, if one guy on the block is using too much bandwidth on p2p, the equipment would throttle him down (all of him), so he doesn't clog it up for the guy next door who just wants to check email - and would do so pretty much only when the guy gets on and wants to check his email - and hopefully only throttles him down enough to let others on, but doesn't penalize him in any real way. I don't think users have a problem with that kind of fair use throttling.
This is different than cherry picking which services you as an ISP are going to throttle, in the name of QoS. I'd be happy to deal with what I've described above. But I'll be damned if my ISP is going to get away with throttling only my p2p or other streaming service, so my neighbor can watch his NetFlix streaming video - because NetFlix paid a huge fee to be on the express lane, at the expense of everyone else's services. That is unfair and not acceptable.
As it stands now, an isp is allowed to run the highway. They can't be allowed to shape traffic to give themselves and their competitors an unfair advantage, by cherry picking the services they will throttle. There's an inherent conflict of interest when you have the same guys who run the highway, also utilizing that highway to ship their own (or their partners') product. They are incentivized in that model, to cheat.
I don't think there is a need for exceptions. It's monumentally easier (and probably cheaper) to just increase bandwidth across the board (over time), and decrease latency (over time) across the board.
I see no need to shape traffic in any way. Any current technology will work fine within current constraints, and future technology will be build to take advantage of the constraints of their time (which would improve).
This all misses the real issue anyway - the guys who own the highways also want to use those highways to sell their own product and the product of partners (and why not give their own product priority). That conflict of interest is really where the problem lies.
If Microsoft can figure out how to tied the developers' futures to the success or failure of a software package, then they can get that argument to stick.
Right now, most developers make their money on salary. If the project, or the code base, or even the company they work for goes belly up, they just go get another job making a salary. Case in point, most open source developers get paid to develop or at least contribute to the open source code base (myself included).
To be clear, this would probably involve a payment structure that includes some kind of royalty payments, which would bring a lot of risk for the developer. Great developers don't tend to be great business men. I don't see things changing, so this argument that Microsoft folks always drag out just isn't going to stick (and hasn't stuck).
What's more interesting is that there is no reason Microsoft could not start taking advantage of all the great Open Source software out there - except GPL in many cases, though they could use it in some, and LGPL is certainly on the table - JS2 support in IE anyone? I don't see why not. Even if they don't like the tech, there is no reason not to deploy it as part of their browser.