From the link:
the Mosquito ultrasonic teenage deterrent has been described as "the most effective tool in our fight against anti social behaviour".Shop keepers around the world have purchased the device to move along unwanted gatherings of teenagers and anti social youths.
Gatherings of anti social youths. Other featured products are, the worlds darkest lightbulb and the worlds hottest air conditioner.
Look, to assume that artists are going to stop doing what they're doing because there isn't wealth in it is stupid. People who enjoy creating and sharing art will continue to do it so as long as it remains enjoyable for them and they can get enough money to fund their projects. And technology is making that easier not harder. So to say that music, movies, writing, story telling, dancing, painting, sculpting, and anything else that contributes to a culture is going to die because of piracy is silly. We have the history of civilization to prove it.
What we observers know is that models and technology pass from existence, not art. Mr. Glickman represents a bureaucracy that currently dominates western movie production and distribution. He'd like us to think that he is doing something noble but his intentions are not. He isn't fighting to save art. He isn't even fighting to save the industry. He is fighting to save the model on which the industry is currently locked into.
Every bureaucrat hates innovation. They hate new ways of doing things which are more productive. Innovation makes the old people and old ways look incompetent, and no one likes to look incompetent.
I have no doubt that movies and movie makers will survive. Mr. Glickman might even survive, but not by trying to fit his old model over the new one. I'm sure he will land on his feet either way.
I thought I would say it because I don't think that Mr. Barlow did an adequate job.
Yea, they at least filed if were not awarded a patent for exactly what you described. I remember reading about it and thinking about how much it would suck. There was some speculation that no company would be fool enough to do something like this and that it was a good will patent to keep others from implementing a similar system. Of course I think this was around the same time that Japans second hand electronics market was coming under fire from Japanese electronics manufacturers. If I'm remembering this all correctly electronics resale was actually made illegal for at least a short spot of time.
And really, I've not seen any good will from Sony recently. Well, I mean there is the privilege of buying their beautiful new system...which is gravely under priced...I mean buying Sony goods is like eating at a fine restaurant...one that wouldn't normally not have trash like me....errr....hrm.
This phone stands in opposition to everything I've ever seen of the market. Most of the mobile users I have the misfortune of coming across are still attempting to use their phones as status symbols. So the goal isn't to have secure if not meaningful conversations but rather loud and attention gaining ones.
Wait, I'm having trouble figuring this out. So it doesn't have the neon antenna that flashes when my K-Fet tone goes off? Well how loud can I have it play? I like everyone in the room to know when I have a phone call. What about chirp? Does it have chirp? Speaker phone? I like to yell my inappropriate conversations when I'm in public...tell me it has speaker phone.
So its like you've implied. There are concerns about the envirnment for cell phone users...they're concerned if people are listening. And if they aren't...why not?
You're justifying the questionably legal if not just unethical actions of the NSA and our major telecoms.
My comparison was to show that while you may expect unethical action from other people in society it is unacceptable to write off that same behavior in the guardians of our society.
And you're correct, I don't know if the program is effective at stopping terrorists. But it can be circumvented by criminals and terrorists by using encryption as you pointed out. It also has the benefit of being fairly effective at intimidating reporters who cover whistle blowers, setting portions of the population ill at ease, and generally making me feel like I'm going to be living in a police state within the course of my lifetime.
I'm saying if you're too lazy to encrypt your traffic, you can't really bitch when people listen in
I'm saying that when it's our guardians scrutinizing us for crimes we did not commit you can bitch about it. And you should.
So you're saying that because the internet is inherently insecure and anyone with enough knowledge can read unencrypted traffic that the NSA should be allowed to read the traffic of everyone? There's no shock that it is possible, but should it be justified just because they can? If you weren't so knowledgeable about encryption you wouldn't consider it an unjust invasion of your privacy if someone read your private yet unencrypted traffic?
I assume when I walk outside everyday it would be possible for someone to mug me and take my wallet. It would be possible for the local police to mug me and take my wallet. But you can sure as heck bet I would be upset if they were to do it. And frankly I would be more upset because they are suppose to be the people out there watching my back.
The NSA thinks they are helping us but they aren't. And I certainly hope more and more people are able to wake up to this fact. Its creepy, unethical, and I think easily outsmarted by the very dangerous people it is intended to catch.
Or the university could just give it up. I went to Penn State which has extremely close ties to the RIAA. President Spanier serves on a Committee with the head of the RIAA Cary Sherman. Barry K. Robinson from the Board of Trustees is a Senior Counselor for the RIAA. So with Penn States ties to the industry I wouldn't doubt at all they would give students up. They were extremely aggressive when I was there.
I haven't had a chance to read the article but the solution I see would be to require any search engines that do business w/ in the U.S. to implement a filtering solution similar to China. If your website does not comply with x-standard and does not put its rating tag in the propper place then it doesn't get indexed. Additionally if any complaints come in that such and such website's rating isn't reflective of its content, it doesn't get indexed. So really, its enforcable. The seach companies seem complacient in working with these types of governmental requirements.
It doesn't remove any content from the internet. And you can still go to any page address that is out there. It just can't be found via search engine. I can't tell you the last time that I've used in the internet without a search engine, outside of my usual 15 or so sites I have bookmarked.
It would be helpful for restricting the flow of information, which is a double edged sword. Your search results might not return illegitamate adult sites posing as something else...but they might not return information about the civilian casualties in Fallujah either. Product maker x might report xyz site for inaccurate/unappropriate information because there was unfavorable information about their labor practices. I can see private and governmental institutions leaning on search companies using this as an excuse to have content which is unfavorable to them removed. Its your call. I'm willing to deal with occasionally click that *oh so wrong* link in order to have my search results come through in their unrefined form.
I hope it gets shot down. And I'll be writing my elected officials to tell them not to support any similar legislation that might come their way.
It's like people who suppose that humming birds worry about their weight or something and put NutraSweet in their humming bird feeders. The humming bird comes along to feed and dies...see, its belly is full but NutraSweet has no calories. It starved to death with a full stomach.
He covers what he calls "Patent Trolls" later in the article. I think they are exactly what you are describing.
His foot-notes even suggest that the software industry as a whole could starve them out by agreeing to not do business with any law firm that represents Patent Trolls.
It would be interesting...the software industry generate a good bit of revenue for law firms. And the Patent Trolls are completely dependent on litigation as their sole source of income collection, what with no actual good or service.
I agree with your general discontent for how idealistic this article is. I just can't specify any specific section that I fault for that yet.
In other words, it's probably based on an unverified claim by an anonymous source?
From the EFF website: "EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Technical Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005."
Gee, I sure am glad they rushed to inform us.
From the same article: The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public. "The public deserves to know about AT&T's illegal program," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure."
I think you've got a good idea there but I don't think its possible. I'd like to think of the current internet as a system of roads that people use to deliver shipments (packets) of goods (data) over. I'd then like to think that ISPs are like Fedex, UPS, and any number of smaller delivery services to which there are alternatives. Not always as good, but alternatives none the less.
I'd like to think of it that way but it isn't like that. First, the roads wouldn't be quite like we know them now. They would be controlled in large sections by a handful of corporations but then subsidized by public taxation. There will be large borders where one corporations turf meets another corporations turf. Now traditionally the corporations would charge businesses and consumers for access to the roadway but were required not to charge you for driving over the turf boarders. And though the modest tolls sounded crappy, everyone got use to the idea. How else would a system like this work?
They got so use to it in fact, that they built entire business models on it. Entire companies became dependent on the roadway system...sure a lot of companies needed additional reliability from things like rush-hour and construction so they built their own tube stations, but they relied on these roadways and started thinking of them as essential. Soon there were tons of companies dedicated to bringing goods and people from one place to another and back. There was a lot of variety, you could have a VW or a Dodge, you could ship USPS or UPS. And the roads grew. The public subsidized it through taxes while also aiding through their tolls...it generated a little additional revenue for the corporations that controlled the roads but who can fault that. After all if someone didn't like it they could just find an alternative.
Then one day one of the turf lords thought that he might be losing some of his profitability based on the current peering model. See, lots of trucks were coming out of the neighboring territory and passing through his on their way to the other coast. And even though he wasn't getting paid as they entered his territory he was still having to pay for the road maintenance that resulted from it. So he got the idea that as anyone entered his territory they would have to pay an additonal toll. But still, they are being subsidized by taxation...and they were benefiting by pushing traffic from their territory to others without paying... How could they collect additonal tolls on everyone everytime they passed into a new territory? How could they justify this and convince casual drivers it was good for them?
*This is where I'm sure you'll point out that speculation comes in.
How about if people who pay the toll are allowed to drive faster on a better conditioned strip of the road? They would have to stop and pay additional charges at each territory, but surely that would surely make the additional hassle and cost more tolerable to the average person. And they will still have a choice. Those that don't pay the additonal toll can still pass through but they're going to have to drive on the shoulder where there may be lots of potholes and breaks in the pavement. I mean we've always allowed people to pay extra at their driveway in order to drive faster...but now we can do that at every additional checkpoint too.
Now as it turns out, those several corperations were successful at pushing for this change. But companies that had been dependent on traveling across multiple territories suddenly had to deal with additional expense or reduced quality in delivering their service to their consumers. So they had two choices. They could pay the additional money, and pass the additional expense along to their consumers. OR, they could deliver slow damaged services to their consumers for the same price they had grown accustom to. It was a killer for many businesses that had just gotten use to paying their toll once. And it negatively impacted them and their consumers either way...
Now if they didn't like it they could build their own roadway infrastructure I suppose. But really...that seems a bit silly with how large and advanced the whole system had gotten. I guess they were screwed either way now...
I haven't ever really understood what the RIAA hopes to achieve from all their lawsuits and extortion rackets
They hope to regain some control over what the perceived value of their product. When file sharing came along consumers set their own price point for recorded music...and it was zero. If unchallenged it would stay zero too. Consumers have no incentive to pay for anything unless there are repercussions for receiving it for free.
I think you are one of the consumers that sees the light and sees the indirect costs of not paying artists, and sadly the middlemen. You see those repercussions and police your own actions. The RIAA feels that there isn't a large enough population of consumers that share your responsible views and that puts their business is in danger.
I personally don't think the RIAA have painted a good reputation for themselves. I think they are unnecessary barrier of rot between myself and the artists I respect. I think that they are greedy and if they had it their way they would charge more than their old cartel prices while pocketing all the additional revenue they save with digital distribution. I think you can see that in their dealings with itunes. But I think this particular action is at least a necessity if they are to continue to profit by selling music to consumers. I wish they weren't there...but they are...and that is their reasoning.
I understand your frustration of being tossed into a demographic which you have actively struggled to separate yourself from....but reading what you're post upset me.
I'm glad for you that you've been able to control your deeper instincts and deny yourself sexual gratification till you married at age 24. For many of us that isn't reasonable, many of us are not ready to be dedicated to someone else at that age. An increasing number I might add...as the level of education rises and number of young people enrolled in four year educational programs after high school grows. I have to think that as a dedicated Mormon you grew up in a rather unique environment compared to most other people in this country. And I think that when you make your assumptions about the dangerous ramifications of pornography you do so from the perspective of your small religious community.
I have to ask if you just view all pornography as immoral or if you think that it's the self-gratification that is immoral? Certainly I view a great amount of pornography as objectionable, but not all of it...and I rely on my personal views to be judge of that. I also understand that while its my privilege to look at only what I find acceptable, it is the right of others to post and view what they find acceptable within the bounds of our greater national laws. I don't find the pornography I look at harmful to me. I think that I'm the only person qualified to make that decision at this time as it has not impacted my life or social interactions in a negative way.
I understand that for you it is a source of individual accomplishment and a way of showing your affection for your mate, but for a large percentage of our population it does not carry that same weight. You've given sex a lot of power in your life, to others...and I'd like the think the majority of others...sex is sex. It can mean lots of things, but its just part of life. And if someone enjoys their sexuality in a way I don't, its not any business of mine as long as they are not actively hurting others.
You made the comment that humans can differentiate themselves from animals by controlling their urges. You still feel hunger just as you still feel sexual urges, I'm glad you made that point. You later made the comparison of overeating to pornography, which really should have been the act of self gratification not the object pornography. But my point is this. I can't tell you how to live or what is acceptable, but I don't understand how it is that you view starving yourself as any healthier than overeating.
Everything in moderation. And I hope you don't think of this as a flame. I'm actually looking forward to reading your response.
I can think of a quick and significant reason I would not want mandatory patches for users of Windows or IE.
Ask any decently managed medium or large sized business if they would like mandatory patches forced upon them. Patches are tested extensively prior to rolling them out on the network. If a patch breaks a critical system it can cost the company millions in uptime, legal expenses and replacement costs.
I'm not really sure why you are so up in arms about this whole thing. You seem legitimately pissed off. It just seems like more of the same to me.
Plus, with my fan-based system, I hook it up to some ducting, and the fans blow most of the heat right out of the building. Obviously that would be much more difficult with liquid-cooling.
Dude, you hooked your air cooled pc up to your duct system...and you're knocking this guy for running a few tubes through his pc?
If blu-ray wins the format war there will be both games and movie available for the ps3 in the blu-ray format.
If blu-ray loses the format war there will be both games and sony movies available for the ps3 in the blu-ray format.
It's a game system, I don't believe the ps3 will sink or swim based on its ability to play movies any more so than the X-Box 360 did. I didn't hear anyone say, "That DVD player pushes more polys than any one I've ever seen before...I must have it!" No, they're buying it because it plays GAMES.
Its great if you want a "cheap" blu-ray player when the damn thing is released, but in a year or two you aren't going to be playing movies off your ps3. And not necessarily because they aren't available. I own an X-Box, PS2, and Gamecube...and you know why I bought them? Gaming.
No kidding. First of all there should be some legislation against attaching trailers to laws...I can't believe how much of a political weapon they have become. Want to sink proposed legislation, attach some ridiculous and unrelated legislation to the end of it.
And I just recently got my first taste of what this means when I went to the store this week to get some non-drowsy cough-syrup. I've been wicked sick but don't have the real option of missing work and I swear its easier to get tobacco, alcohol or illegal drugs. Also I had the nice surprise of realizing my address was mistyped on my drivers license...good to know but more than a little annoying when the clerk refuses to sell you a legal over the counter medication. I've been getting into bars with this for the last 3 years and no one has once had to actually confirm my address.
It would literally be easier and faster for me to go out and purchase illegal drugs than it would be for me to purchase cough syrup. Drug dealers don't card you. And how is this any more effective than just disallowing people to purchase more than a case of these drugs? Rather than passing legislation to try to help people overcome their drug abuse problems we're treating the symptoms...and thus, the problem will never actually be solved.
Yes, you can learn behaviors through videogames. Soldiers are trained to kill but we let them back into society because we expect that those behaviors will only manifest themselves under certain conditions. I'd expect the behaviors learned while playing games are similar.
I had a soc professor who use to say that all the things we claim don't affect us really do. Advertising, music, movies and even videogames do in fact shape our persona and behaviors. The reason we tolerate such violence in the media and in our entertainment in the US is because we actively want to encourage that type of behavior as a society. We want killers and frankly soldiers, warriors...what ever you want to call them, as civilians and for the military. I didn't always agree with her postulations but this one I found some truth in.
I'm not Cohen but I believe it would depend on what type of encryption you are using.
Something like SSL will do session data only and none of the header info will be encrypted. So the type of data could be determined but not the actual data itself.
If a VPN was used in data transfer the entire packet and even a portion of the header is encrypted, everything from the IP header on. In that case neither the type of data nor the data itself should be able to be determined prior to the end of the tunnel.
Can anyone with a better background in this confirm?
The "War on Terror" is akin to the "War on Drugs". It's a PR campaign, the US is not currently at war as there has been no declaration of war.
And I don't personally protest the ability of the US Government to gather information on perceived threats. I do worry about the ability to abuse this program if it does not have proper oversight. That's all I've been hearing from US citizens concerned about this program.
I appreciate your concern for your family and country but I worry that you are reacting on the grounds of irrational fear. More citizens have been lost as a result of our reaction to terrorist attacks on the US than the actual attacks. Its something to think over...which is worse?
Slashdot Mirror
From the link: the Mosquito ultrasonic teenage deterrent has been described as "the most effective tool in our fight against anti social behaviour". Shop keepers around the world have purchased the device to move along unwanted gatherings of teenagers and anti social youths. Gatherings of anti social youths. Other featured products are, the worlds darkest lightbulb and the worlds hottest air conditioner.
I feel like a terrible person for this but all I can think after reading that last post is how V for Vendetta is being released on DVD tomorrow.
Remember, remember, the fifth of November...
Look, to assume that artists are going to stop doing what they're doing because there isn't wealth in it is stupid. People who enjoy creating and sharing art will continue to do it so as long as it remains enjoyable for them and they can get enough money to fund their projects. And technology is making that easier not harder. So to say that music, movies, writing, story telling, dancing, painting, sculpting, and anything else that contributes to a culture is going to die because of piracy is silly. We have the history of civilization to prove it.
What we observers know is that models and technology pass from existence, not art. Mr. Glickman represents a bureaucracy that currently dominates western movie production and distribution. He'd like us to think that he is doing something noble but his intentions are not. He isn't fighting to save art. He isn't even fighting to save the industry. He is fighting to save the model on which the industry is currently locked into.
Every bureaucrat hates innovation. They hate new ways of doing things which are more productive. Innovation makes the old people and old ways look incompetent, and no one likes to look incompetent.
I have no doubt that movies and movie makers will survive. Mr. Glickman might even survive, but not by trying to fit his old model over the new one. I'm sure he will land on his feet either way.
I thought I would say it because I don't think that Mr. Barlow did an adequate job.
I thought torrentspy was just an indexer. They don't host any of the material do they?
Yea, they at least filed if were not awarded a patent for exactly what you described. I remember reading about it and thinking about how much it would suck. There was some speculation that no company would be fool enough to do something like this and that it was a good will patent to keep others from implementing a similar system. Of course I think this was around the same time that Japans second hand electronics market was coming under fire from Japanese electronics manufacturers. If I'm remembering this all correctly electronics resale was actually made illegal for at least a short spot of time.
And really, I've not seen any good will from Sony recently. Well, I mean there is the privilege of buying their beautiful new system...which is gravely under priced...I mean buying Sony goods is like eating at a fine restaurant...one that wouldn't normally not have trash like me....errr....hrm.
Someone correct me if my memory is failing me.
This phone stands in opposition to everything I've ever seen of the market. Most of the mobile users I have the misfortune of coming across are still attempting to use their phones as status symbols. So the goal isn't to have secure if not meaningful conversations but rather loud and attention gaining ones.
Wait, I'm having trouble figuring this out. So it doesn't have the neon antenna that flashes when my K-Fet tone goes off? Well how loud can I have it play? I like everyone in the room to know when I have a phone call. What about chirp? Does it have chirp? Speaker phone? I like to yell my inappropriate conversations when I'm in public...tell me it has speaker phone.
So its like you've implied. There are concerns about the envirnment for cell phone users...they're concerned if people are listening. And if they aren't...why not?
I'll ignore your attacks.
You're justifying the questionably legal if not just unethical actions of the NSA and our major telecoms.
My comparison was to show that while you may expect unethical action from other people in society it is unacceptable to write off that same behavior in the guardians of our society.
And you're correct, I don't know if the program is effective at stopping terrorists. But it can be circumvented by criminals and terrorists by using encryption as you pointed out. It also has the benefit of being fairly effective at intimidating reporters who cover whistle blowers, setting portions of the population ill at ease, and generally making me feel like I'm going to be living in a police state within the course of my lifetime.
I'm saying if you're too lazy to encrypt your traffic, you can't really bitch when people listen in
I'm saying that when it's our guardians scrutinizing us for crimes we did not commit you can bitch about it. And you should.
So you're saying that because the internet is inherently insecure and anyone with enough knowledge can read unencrypted traffic that the NSA should be allowed to read the traffic of everyone? There's no shock that it is possible, but should it be justified just because they can? If you weren't so knowledgeable about encryption you wouldn't consider it an unjust invasion of your privacy if someone read your private yet unencrypted traffic?
I assume when I walk outside everyday it would be possible for someone to mug me and take my wallet. It would be possible for the local police to mug me and take my wallet. But you can sure as heck bet I would be upset if they were to do it. And frankly I would be more upset because they are suppose to be the people out there watching my back.
The NSA thinks they are helping us but they aren't. And I certainly hope more and more people are able to wake up to this fact. Its creepy, unethical, and I think easily outsmarted by the very dangerous people it is intended to catch.
Or the university could just give it up. I went to Penn State which has extremely close ties to the RIAA. President Spanier serves on a Committee with the head of the RIAA Cary Sherman. Barry K. Robinson from the Board of Trustees is a Senior Counselor for the RIAA. So with Penn States ties to the industry I wouldn't doubt at all they would give students up. They were extremely aggressive when I was there.
I haven't had a chance to read the article but the solution I see would be to require any search engines that do business w/ in the U.S. to implement a filtering solution similar to China. If your website does not comply with x-standard and does not put its rating tag in the propper place then it doesn't get indexed. Additionally if any complaints come in that such and such website's rating isn't reflective of its content, it doesn't get indexed. So really, its enforcable. The seach companies seem complacient in working with these types of governmental requirements.
It doesn't remove any content from the internet. And you can still go to any page address that is out there. It just can't be found via search engine. I can't tell you the last time that I've used in the internet without a search engine, outside of my usual 15 or so sites I have bookmarked.
It would be helpful for restricting the flow of information, which is a double edged sword. Your search results might not return illegitamate adult sites posing as something else...but they might not return information about the civilian casualties in Fallujah either. Product maker x might report xyz site for inaccurate/unappropriate information because there was unfavorable information about their labor practices. I can see private and governmental institutions leaning on search companies using this as an excuse to have content which is unfavorable to them removed. Its your call. I'm willing to deal with occasionally click that *oh so wrong* link in order to have my search results come through in their unrefined form.
I hope it gets shot down. And I'll be writing my elected officials to tell them not to support any similar legislation that might come their way.
There's a centralized credit card opt out list?
I'll borrow an illustration from Neil Geiman.
It's like people who suppose that humming birds worry about their weight or something and put NutraSweet in their humming bird feeders. The humming bird comes along to feed and dies...see, its belly is full but NutraSweet has no calories. It starved to death with a full stomach.
He covers what he calls "Patent Trolls" later in the article. I think they are exactly what you are describing.
His foot-notes even suggest that the software industry as a whole could starve them out by agreeing to not do business with any law firm that represents Patent Trolls.
It would be interesting...the software industry generate a good bit of revenue for law firms. And the Patent Trolls are completely dependent on litigation as their sole source of income collection, what with no actual good or service.
I agree with your general discontent for how idealistic this article is. I just can't specify any specific section that I fault for that yet.
In other words, it's probably based on an unverified claim by an anonymous source?
From the EFF website:
"EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Technical Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005."
Gee, I sure am glad they rushed to inform us.
From the same article:
The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public.
"The public deserves to know about AT&T's illegal program," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure."
I think you've got a good idea there but I don't think its possible. I'd like to think of the current internet as a system of roads that people use to deliver shipments (packets) of goods (data) over. I'd then like to think that ISPs are like Fedex, UPS, and any number of smaller delivery services to which there are alternatives. Not always as good, but alternatives none the less.
I'd like to think of it that way but it isn't like that. First, the roads wouldn't be quite like we know them now. They would be controlled in large sections by a handful of corporations but then subsidized by public taxation. There will be large borders where one corporations turf meets another corporations turf. Now traditionally the corporations would charge businesses and consumers for access to the roadway but were required not to charge you for driving over the turf boarders. And though the modest tolls sounded crappy, everyone got use to the idea. How else would a system like this work?
They got so use to it in fact, that they built entire business models on it. Entire companies became dependent on the roadway system...sure a lot of companies needed additional reliability from things like rush-hour and construction so they built their own tube stations, but they relied on these roadways and started thinking of them as essential. Soon there were tons of companies dedicated to bringing goods and people from one place to another and back. There was a lot of variety, you could have a VW or a Dodge, you could ship USPS or UPS. And the roads grew. The public subsidized it through taxes while also aiding through their tolls...it generated a little additional revenue for the corporations that controlled the roads but who can fault that. After all if someone didn't like it they could just find an alternative.
Then one day one of the turf lords thought that he might be losing some of his profitability based on the current peering model. See, lots of trucks were coming out of the neighboring territory and passing through his on their way to the other coast. And even though he wasn't getting paid as they entered his territory he was still having to pay for the road maintenance that resulted from it. So he got the idea that as anyone entered his territory they would have to pay an additonal toll. But still, they are being subsidized by taxation...and they were benefiting by pushing traffic from their territory to others without paying... How could they collect additonal tolls on everyone everytime they passed into a new territory? How could they justify this and convince casual drivers it was good for them?
*This is where I'm sure you'll point out that speculation comes in.
How about if people who pay the toll are allowed to drive faster on a better conditioned strip of the road? They would have to stop and pay additional charges at each territory, but surely that would surely make the additional hassle and cost more tolerable to the average person. And they will still have a choice. Those that don't pay the additonal toll can still pass through but they're going to have to drive on the shoulder where there may be lots of potholes and breaks in the pavement. I mean we've always allowed people to pay extra at their driveway in order to drive faster...but now we can do that at every additional checkpoint too.
Now as it turns out, those several corperations were successful at pushing for this change. But companies that had been dependent on traveling across multiple territories suddenly had to deal with additional expense or reduced quality in delivering their service to their consumers. So they had two choices. They could pay the additional money, and pass the additional expense along to their consumers. OR, they could deliver slow damaged services to their consumers for the same price they had grown accustom to. It was a killer for many businesses that had just gotten use to paying their toll once. And it negatively impacted them and their consumers either way...
Now if they didn't like it they could build their own roadway infrastructure I suppose. But really...that seems a bit silly with how large and advanced the whole system had gotten. I guess they were screwed either way now...
I haven't ever really understood what the RIAA hopes to achieve from all their lawsuits and extortion rackets
They hope to regain some control over what the perceived value of their product. When file sharing came along consumers set their own price point for recorded music...and it was zero. If unchallenged it would stay zero too. Consumers have no incentive to pay for anything unless there are repercussions for receiving it for free.
I think you are one of the consumers that sees the light and sees the indirect costs of not paying artists, and sadly the middlemen. You see those repercussions and police your own actions. The RIAA feels that there isn't a large enough population of consumers that share your responsible views and that puts their business is in danger.
I personally don't think the RIAA have painted a good reputation for themselves. I think they are unnecessary barrier of rot between myself and the artists I respect. I think that they are greedy and if they had it their way they would charge more than their old cartel prices while pocketing all the additional revenue they save with digital distribution. I think you can see that in their dealings with itunes. But I think this particular action is at least a necessity if they are to continue to profit by selling music to consumers. I wish they weren't there...but they are...and that is their reasoning.
I understand your frustration of being tossed into a demographic which you have actively struggled to separate yourself from....but reading what you're post upset me.
I'm glad for you that you've been able to control your deeper instincts and deny yourself sexual gratification till you married at age 24. For many of us that isn't reasonable, many of us are not ready to be dedicated to someone else at that age. An increasing number I might add...as the level of education rises and number of young people enrolled in four year educational programs after high school grows. I have to think that as a dedicated Mormon you grew up in a rather unique environment compared to most other people in this country. And I think that when you make your assumptions about the dangerous ramifications of pornography you do so from the perspective of your small religious community.
I have to ask if you just view all pornography as immoral or if you think that it's the self-gratification that is immoral? Certainly I view a great amount of pornography as objectionable, but not all of it...and I rely on my personal views to be judge of that. I also understand that while its my privilege to look at only what I find acceptable, it is the right of others to post and view what they find acceptable within the bounds of our greater national laws. I don't find the pornography I look at harmful to me. I think that I'm the only person qualified to make that decision at this time as it has not impacted my life or social interactions in a negative way.
I understand that for you it is a source of individual accomplishment and a way of showing your affection for your mate, but for a large percentage of our population it does not carry that same weight. You've given sex a lot of power in your life, to others...and I'd like the think the majority of others...sex is sex. It can mean lots of things, but its just part of life. And if someone enjoys their sexuality in a way I don't, its not any business of mine as long as they are not actively hurting others.
You made the comment that humans can differentiate themselves from animals by controlling their urges. You still feel hunger just as you still feel sexual urges, I'm glad you made that point. You later made the comparison of overeating to pornography, which really should have been the act of self gratification not the object pornography. But my point is this. I can't tell you how to live or what is acceptable, but I don't understand how it is that you view starving yourself as any healthier than overeating.
Everything in moderation. And I hope you don't think of this as a flame. I'm actually looking forward to reading your response.
I can think of a quick and significant reason I would not want mandatory patches for users of Windows or IE.
Ask any decently managed medium or large sized business if they would like mandatory patches forced upon them. Patches are tested extensively prior to rolling them out on the network. If a patch breaks a critical system it can cost the company millions in uptime, legal expenses and replacement costs.
I'm not really sure why you are so up in arms about this whole thing. You seem legitimately pissed off. It just seems like more of the same to me.
Plus, with my fan-based system, I hook it up to some ducting, and the fans blow most of the heat right out of the building. Obviously that would be much more difficult with liquid-cooling.
Dude, you hooked your air cooled pc up to your duct system...and you're knocking this guy for running a few tubes through his pc?
Thank you.
Although those blocks were pretty crude images of humans.
I have a prediction.
If blu-ray wins the format war there will be both games and movie available for the ps3 in the blu-ray format.
If blu-ray loses the format war there will be both games and sony movies available for the ps3 in the blu-ray format.
It's a game system, I don't believe the ps3 will sink or swim based on its ability to play movies any more so than the X-Box 360 did. I didn't hear anyone say, "That DVD player pushes more polys than any one I've ever seen before...I must have it!" No, they're buying it because it plays GAMES.
Its great if you want a "cheap" blu-ray player when the damn thing is released, but in a year or two you aren't going to be playing movies off your ps3. And not necessarily because they aren't available. I own an X-Box, PS2, and Gamecube...and you know why I bought them? Gaming.
No kidding. First of all there should be some legislation against attaching trailers to laws...I can't believe how much of a political weapon they have become. Want to sink proposed legislation, attach some ridiculous and unrelated legislation to the end of it.
And I just recently got my first taste of what this means when I went to the store this week to get some non-drowsy cough-syrup. I've been wicked sick but don't have the real option of missing work and I swear its easier to get tobacco, alcohol or illegal drugs. Also I had the nice surprise of realizing my address was mistyped on my drivers license...good to know but more than a little annoying when the clerk refuses to sell you a legal over the counter medication. I've been getting into bars with this for the last 3 years and no one has once had to actually confirm my address.
It would literally be easier and faster for me to go out and purchase illegal drugs than it would be for me to purchase cough syrup. Drug dealers don't card you. And how is this any more effective than just disallowing people to purchase more than a case of these drugs? Rather than passing legislation to try to help people overcome their drug abuse problems we're treating the symptoms...and thus, the problem will never actually be solved.
Yes, you can learn behaviors through videogames. Soldiers are trained to kill but we let them back into society because we expect that those behaviors will only manifest themselves under certain conditions. I'd expect the behaviors learned while playing games are similar.
I had a soc professor who use to say that all the things we claim don't affect us really do. Advertising, music, movies and even videogames do in fact shape our persona and behaviors. The reason we tolerate such violence in the media and in our entertainment in the US is because we actively want to encourage that type of behavior as a society. We want killers and frankly soldiers, warriors...what ever you want to call them, as civilians and for the military. I didn't always agree with her postulations but this one I found some truth in.
I'm not Cohen but I believe it would depend on what type of encryption you are using.
Something like SSL will do session data only and none of the header info will be encrypted. So the type of data could be determined but not the actual data itself.
If a VPN was used in data transfer the entire packet and even a portion of the header is encrypted, everything from the IP header on. In that case neither the type of data nor the data itself should be able to be determined prior to the end of the tunnel.
Can anyone with a better background in this confirm?
The "War on Terror" is akin to the "War on Drugs". It's a PR campaign, the US is not currently at war as there has been no declaration of war.
And I don't personally protest the ability of the US Government to gather information on perceived threats. I do worry about the ability to abuse this program if it does not have proper oversight. That's all I've been hearing from US citizens concerned about this program.
I appreciate your concern for your family and country but I worry that you are reacting on the grounds of irrational fear. More citizens have been lost as a result of our reaction to terrorist attacks on the US than the actual attacks. Its something to think over...which is worse?