You're modded funny, but that's the same thought I had. All the coppers need to do now is organize local chapters of 'The Junior Spies' and the circle will finally be complete.
So, I just had to cynically jump in on the "anywhere in the universe" clause. I think his estate would have a difficult time enforcing that in quite a few places on the planet, let alone how enforceable it would be if the Vogons decided to create their own cinematic reproduction of Mr. Newman. Give me a break.
Our self-centered view of the universe becomes quite laughable when one realizes that we are not.
The idea is to use tax dollars for the initial costs of infrastructure and then convert to a private entity once established for operational costs and maintenance. Not a terrible idea at all. Makes me wish I lived in a smaller town, actually.
See, here's where the problem is. A college is a business, just like any other. They not only make money from the tuition, they make money on what they sell in the school book store.
Believe you me that a school does not have a bookstore to keep it alive, it is a pitiful amount of revenue compared to what the school is really after: grants, endowments, and other free money. The vehicle for bringing in that money is research. And don't you believe it is the other way around. Education, you see, is just a means to an end, not the end itself. It is as you state, a business of sorts that coincidentally educates.
It reduces the amount of time, energy, and money they might have to spend on lawyers looking up various countries copyright claims, and their market may primarily be based in the United States.
So maybe I'm riding on my fanciful unicorn while writing this, but the Internet offers a unique possibility to dissolve borders. This isn't about anarchy or forcing my world view on people, this is about people coming together irrespective of their location and having an intellectual, economical, and political dialogue.
The side effects of the Internet's design include creating a borderless society. Why should I have to look up the laws of another country? In effect, they are a traveler that has arrived in the US and are electronically conducting trade. It's as if they arrived here, pulled out a credit card and paid for a product, and got back on their plane home. Except this plane goes nearly the speed of light and they don't have to enjoy the privilege of a body cavity search at the airport.
Not necessarily, I frequent the Top100 to see what everyone else is listening to. I've picked up on a few bands I hadn't heard of previously, but most of time its junk that I don't particularly care for. I don't listen to music radio, so this is a way for me to get plugged into what most people are listening to. Most of it gets removed within a couple days.
To me this is one of the most 'organic' ways to know what is popular out there.
I think the issue here is the completely capricious and arbitrary number they used. 60GB for the highest tier? GO TAKE A HIKE! I have 13 months of usage data that puts me close to there on average, but I'd be totally boned for those months that I went way over.
Give me a 20Mb/s line with a 250GB cap at the price I'm currently paying and I'll be fine.
I think the issue is bigger than that. When you start hearing reports that the cost of upgrading the infrastructure ends up only being $75-$100 to handle it, what is the consumer left thinking? We're getting screwed. But now, I'm not satisfied with them merely walking away from their cock-eyed ideas for caps. Where's my infrastructure upgrade? Can I pay the one time $100 upgrade fee to get the 20Mb service? (I know it doesn't work that way, but come on!)
I think they got more than they bargained for by opening up this can of worms.
I'm not saying it isn't so, but just because they have a conflict of interest does not mean they are wrong. You are not wrong in being suspect, but don't let skepticism taint and bias your own opinions, either. It would be much more insightful if you were able to provide evidence that flies in the face of these reports.
Vista came out a couple years ago, and no one wants it, especially not corporations which are refusing to give up XP for their workers' desks
So why, pray tell, would they give up XP (when you say the don't want to) for Linux? Why do they want to keep XP? Application and infrastructure compatibility. You're not going to get that (even make it worse) by going with Linux. I'm sorry, but 2009 (nor 2010, 2011, etc.) will not be the year of the Linux Desktop. The only way people would be jumping off the M$ ship is if Redmond were to suddenly implode, sucking into its massive black whole every installation of Windows with it. And even then, companies would still be using XP with bootlegged copies.
What makes it the stupidest idea ever is the whole reason things have gone digital: cost. Just because storage media costs five one hundredths of a cent to store a single photo doesn't mean that the photo (or the memory) itself is meaningless. It's like we took a time warp to the 60s with 2009 technology, passed around the 'peace pipe', started living at a communal with digital cameras, and started farting out crazy ideas like this. Wake me up when the trip is over!
Such is the way for the company I work for. The problem they're having is getting the 'younger' folks like myself to take an interest in it. Invariably, once you start down the path of COBOL development, forever are you pigeon-holed there just because of the scant human resources there are to keep it going. Most of us view it as career ending for this reason.
The pressure, however, is mounting since the first waves of 'old timers' are starting to retire, further exacerbating the situation. Perhaps if the pot were sweetened a bit, more people would be attracted to it.
Irritating, isn't it? I wouldn't mind the caps so much if there were a nominal increase in speed. Gimme a synchronous 20Mb line and I'd be OK with that.
Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation.
All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.
Not necessarily. One of the cornerstones of Marxism (gasp!, not in US!) is the concept of perpetual revolution. If there is always a target, always a crusade against the badies, the government can more easily legitimatize and perpetuate bad policy (ie domestic wiretapping). This is always advertised as being for the good (but always at the expense) of the whole of the people. The vain promise, the mirage on the horizon, is a safer, happier people. The world will be secure from the bad guys!
Of course it's a money grab--they've been feeding the cow this whole time and now it's ready to cash in. What's funny, though, is they're learning as the music and movie industries have that when you go digital, your product instantly becomes a commodity because of its ease of transfer. Perhaps they should embed ads into their own content to monetize it, and then sell subscriptions to premium (ad free, or pay-per-view) feeds to sites like Google and Yahoo for syndication.
There are better, saner approaches to content distribution than the knee-jerk lawsuit.
What I find interesting is this: prior to reading it last Thursday, I had no inclination of watching it in the theater. To me this was another attempt to milk the franchise for more $$$. While that may be true, the positive review got me excited to watch the movie, and I have consequently decided this one is worth shelling out some cash to go see instead of waiting for it to appear in RedBox. I am sure that I'm not the only one who has decided to *pay* to see it now.
This behaviour is "not the core of who they are" but rather a projection in which they choose to indulge because of loosened inhibitions.
But I would argue that who we are is just that--what kind of person are we when we think no one is looking (or hiding behind a pseudonym)? Be honest with yourself--you might discover something interesting. Some are less hypocritical than that, though, and behave the way they do regardless of who might know.
You miss the point of what I was trying to say. The Internet is us. Though you choose to focus on the negative aspects of who we are, worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, and porn are a part of who we are.
If you want a good read, here's God's Debris, a thought experiment from Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert.
Coming from an ultra-conservative background myself, I still find the whole notion of Internet regulation and censorship to be a bit laughable. The Internet is an inherently 'dangerous' place. The 'Net is a portal into the ethos of human society. If you want to know the collective wisdom, foolishness, virtues, and vices of humanity, it's all there--unedited, uncensored, uncut. Some people find that uncomfortable because it lays bare the core of who we really are. And if you don't like that, then maybe the Internet is not for you. If we're really interested in an open and free (libre) society, the Internet gives everyone the best chance to be heard and be seen--and the side of that open coin is hearing and seeing things that you don't necessarily agree with or condone.
Slashdot Mirror
You're modded funny, but that's the same thought I had. All the coppers need to do now is organize local chapters of 'The Junior Spies' and the circle will finally be complete.
So, I just had to cynically jump in on the "anywhere in the universe" clause. I think his estate would have a difficult time enforcing that in quite a few places on the planet, let alone how enforceable it would be if the Vogons decided to create their own cinematic reproduction of Mr. Newman. Give me a break.
Our self-centered view of the universe becomes quite laughable when one realizes that we are not.
The idea is to use tax dollars for the initial costs of infrastructure and then convert to a private entity once established for operational costs and maintenance. Not a terrible idea at all. Makes me wish I lived in a smaller town, actually.
You also have to look at from the perspective of "were we successful enough to whore it for sequels."
Maybe not.
See, here's where the problem is. A college is a business, just like any other. They not only make money from the tuition, they make money on what they sell in the school book store.
Believe you me that a school does not have a bookstore to keep it alive, it is a pitiful amount of revenue compared to what the school is really after: grants, endowments, and other free money. The vehicle for bringing in that money is research. And don't you believe it is the other way around. Education, you see, is just a means to an end, not the end itself. It is as you state, a business of sorts that coincidentally educates.
It reduces the amount of time, energy, and money they might have to spend on lawyers looking up various countries copyright claims, and their market may primarily be based in the United States.
So maybe I'm riding on my fanciful unicorn while writing this, but the Internet offers a unique possibility to dissolve borders. This isn't about anarchy or forcing my world view on people, this is about people coming together irrespective of their location and having an intellectual, economical, and political dialogue.
The side effects of the Internet's design include creating a borderless society. Why should I have to look up the laws of another country? In effect, they are a traveler that has arrived in the US and are electronically conducting trade. It's as if they arrived here, pulled out a credit card and paid for a product, and got back on their plane home. Except this plane goes nearly the speed of light and they don't have to enjoy the privilege of a body cavity search at the airport.
Not necessarily, I frequent the Top100 to see what everyone else is listening to. I've picked up on a few bands I hadn't heard of previously, but most of time its junk that I don't particularly care for. I don't listen to music radio, so this is a way for me to get plugged into what most people are listening to. Most of it gets removed within a couple days.
To me this is one of the most 'organic' ways to know what is popular out there.
I think the issue here is the completely capricious and arbitrary number they used. 60GB for the highest tier? GO TAKE A HIKE! I have 13 months of usage data that puts me close to there on average, but I'd be totally boned for those months that I went way over.
Give me a 20Mb/s line with a 250GB cap at the price I'm currently paying and I'll be fine.
If your intention is to create a large botnet, you are of course going to target the most popular operating system.
Not exactly. You're going to target the lowest hanging fruit. Which (no pun intended) is steadily becoming an Apple.
I think the issue is bigger than that. When you start hearing reports that the cost of upgrading the infrastructure ends up only being $75-$100 to handle it, what is the consumer left thinking? We're getting screwed. But now, I'm not satisfied with them merely walking away from their cock-eyed ideas for caps. Where's my infrastructure upgrade? Can I pay the one time $100 upgrade fee to get the 20Mb service? (I know it doesn't work that way, but come on!)
I think they got more than they bargained for by opening up this can of worms.
Yeah, but screwing your customers because you can't (or won't) adapt has never been a good business model.
I'm not saying it isn't so, but just because they have a conflict of interest does not mean they are wrong. You are not wrong in being suspect, but don't let skepticism taint and bias your own opinions, either. It would be much more insightful if you were able to provide evidence that flies in the face of these reports.
Wrong again, for the reasons you state.
Vista came out a couple years ago, and no one wants it, especially not corporations which are refusing to give up XP for their workers' desks
So why, pray tell, would they give up XP (when you say the don't want to) for Linux? Why do they want to keep XP? Application and infrastructure compatibility. You're not going to get that (even make it worse) by going with Linux. I'm sorry, but 2009 (nor 2010, 2011, etc.) will not be the year of the Linux Desktop. The only way people would be jumping off the M$ ship is if Redmond were to suddenly implode, sucking into its massive black whole every installation of Windows with it. And even then, companies would still be using XP with bootlegged copies.
What makes it the stupidest idea ever is the whole reason things have gone digital: cost. Just because storage media costs five one hundredths of a cent to store a single photo doesn't mean that the photo (or the memory) itself is meaningless. It's like we took a time warp to the 60s with 2009 technology, passed around the 'peace pipe', started living at a communal with digital cameras, and started farting out crazy ideas like this. Wake me up when the trip is over!
Such is the way for the company I work for. The problem they're having is getting the 'younger' folks like myself to take an interest in it. Invariably, once you start down the path of COBOL development, forever are you pigeon-holed there just because of the scant human resources there are to keep it going. Most of us view it as career ending for this reason.
The pressure, however, is mounting since the first waves of 'old timers' are starting to retire, further exacerbating the situation. Perhaps if the pot were sweetened a bit, more people would be attracted to it.
Is there a 'horse's mouth' release anywhere that doesn't have that ambiguity?
http://a.longreply.com/109511
Irritating, isn't it? I wouldn't mind the caps so much if there were a nominal increase in speed. Gimme a synchronous 20Mb line and I'd be OK with that.
Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation.
All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.
Not necessarily. One of the cornerstones of Marxism (gasp!, not in US!) is the concept of perpetual revolution. If there is always a target, always a crusade against the badies, the government can more easily legitimatize and perpetuate bad policy (ie domestic wiretapping). This is always advertised as being for the good (but always at the expense) of the whole of the people. The vain promise, the mirage on the horizon, is a safer, happier people. The world will be secure from the bad guys!
Of course it's a money grab--they've been feeding the cow this whole time and now it's ready to cash in. What's funny, though, is they're learning as the music and movie industries have that when you go digital, your product instantly becomes a commodity because of its ease of transfer. Perhaps they should embed ads into their own content to monetize it, and then sell subscriptions to premium (ad free, or pay-per-view) feeds to sites like Google and Yahoo for syndication.
There are better, saner approaches to content distribution than the knee-jerk lawsuit.
What I find interesting is this: prior to reading it last Thursday, I had no inclination of watching it in the theater. To me this was another attempt to milk the franchise for more $$$. While that may be true, the positive review got me excited to watch the movie, and I have consequently decided this one is worth shelling out some cash to go see instead of waiting for it to appear in RedBox. I am sure that I'm not the only one who has decided to *pay* to see it now.
This behaviour is "not the core of who they are" but rather a projection in which they choose to indulge because of loosened inhibitions.
But I would argue that who we are is just that--what kind of person are we when we think no one is looking (or hiding behind a pseudonym)? Be honest with yourself--you might discover something interesting. Some are less hypocritical than that, though, and behave the way they do regardless of who might know.
You miss the point of what I was trying to say. The Internet is us. Though you choose to focus on the negative aspects of who we are, worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, and porn are a part of who we are.
If you want a good read, here's God's Debris, a thought experiment from Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert.
Coming from an ultra-conservative background myself, I still find the whole notion of Internet regulation and censorship to be a bit laughable. The Internet is an inherently 'dangerous' place. The 'Net is a portal into the ethos of human society. If you want to know the collective wisdom, foolishness, virtues, and vices of humanity, it's all there--unedited, uncensored, uncut. Some people find that uncomfortable because it lays bare the core of who we really are. And if you don't like that, then maybe the Internet is not for you. If we're really interested in an open and free (libre) society, the Internet gives everyone the best chance to be heard and be seen--and the side of that open coin is hearing and seeing things that you don't necessarily agree with or condone.
The chart or the virus?