Obama definitely screwed this one up. How could anyone support wire-tapping without a warrant? That's insane. We should have voted Clinton. At least she got the basics right.
Well if she gets convicted I'll have to cancel my page. I don't give anybody my real identity on the internet. I can be looked up. In Google they can even see my house. MySpace is not safe and apparently their terms of service are not safe either.
Suing young music fans is a hugely groteque violation of public trust. I absolutely refuse to purchase any music until they stop this. This harkens to the song with the immortal words "The day the music died". RIAA killed it for me.
Dr. Yau's reputation being besmirched by a bumbling junior writer at the New Yorker is really way too much. The lack of fact-finding and ignorance that went into this article is a crime. Dr. Yau certainly didn't deserve this treatment. Apparently the New Yorker is a tabloid who targets more sophisticated subjects. I fully expect to see them do their next piece on Rosanne Barr's large buttocks.
People who support Net Neutrality government interference legislation have no earthly idea what they are talking about. These people seem to have the mistaken impression that ISP's want to control your access to increase profitablity. Actually quite the opposite. With government regulation of access speed, your costs would increase because you'd be funding the bandwidth hogs who bog down the network with hi density multi-media data. The ISP's want these companies to pay a premium for sucking up all the internet bandwidth. This is perfectly sensible way to handle use of bandwidth on the internet. Why should the consumer have to pay extra so a multi-media company can sell movies and TV reruns over the same network you use to surf and get email? You want your VOIP to stop while your neighbor watches Star Trek reruns? To keep your speed, you'll have to pay more to increase network bandwidth so the Trekkie gets his fix. Let the Trekkie pay for the bandwidth. This is really basic logic people. Don't be dummies about this. People who use bandwidth should shoulder the cost of providing it. Net Neutrality is socialism at its worst. In case you don't understand that, it means everyone is "equal" in that they get less and less since the government is very ineffective at regulating the quality of your lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama definitely screwed this one up. How could anyone support wire-tapping without a warrant? That's insane. We should have voted Clinton. At least she got the basics right.
Well if she gets convicted I'll have to cancel my page. I don't give anybody my real identity on the internet. I can be looked up. In Google they can even see my house. MySpace is not safe and apparently their terms of service are not safe either.
Suing young music fans is a hugely groteque violation of public trust. I absolutely refuse to purchase any music until they stop this. This harkens to the song with the immortal words "The day the music died". RIAA killed it for me.
Dr. Yau's reputation being besmirched by a bumbling junior writer at the New Yorker is really way too much. The lack of fact-finding and ignorance that went into this article is a crime. Dr. Yau certainly didn't deserve this treatment. Apparently the New Yorker is a tabloid who targets more sophisticated subjects. I fully expect to see them do their next piece on Rosanne Barr's large buttocks.
People who support Net Neutrality government interference legislation have no earthly idea what they are talking about. These people seem to have the mistaken impression that ISP's want to control your access to increase profitablity. Actually quite the opposite. With government regulation of access speed, your costs would increase because you'd be funding the bandwidth hogs who bog down the network with hi density multi-media data. The ISP's want these companies to pay a premium for sucking up all the internet bandwidth. This is perfectly sensible way to handle use of bandwidth on the internet. Why should the consumer have to pay extra so a multi-media company can sell movies and TV reruns over the same network you use to surf and get email? You want your VOIP to stop while your neighbor watches Star Trek reruns? To keep your speed, you'll have to pay more to increase network bandwidth so the Trekkie gets his fix. Let the Trekkie pay for the bandwidth. This is really basic logic people. Don't be dummies about this. People who use bandwidth should shoulder the cost of providing it. Net Neutrality is socialism at its worst. In case you don't understand that, it means everyone is "equal" in that they get less and less since the government is very ineffective at regulating the quality of your lives.