It should be funded by people who believe it's important. Yes I know the government provides the seed money for some projects that would never get off the ground - but at this point we aren't in a position to say what would happen if they didn't do that.
If you reduced taxes, though, there's a possibility that the wealthy people would donate more money toward pet projects that today might need to be funded by the government.
Enumerating all the "what ifs" could kill me, the end result is that we don't know what would happen unless we try it - and there seems to be something patently wrong with the government adopting part of the money I earned for non-necessary ventures.
I don't like the view that people can make money, but they aren't smart enough to decide how to spend it themselves. (as if politicians are somehow smarter or less greedy than the majority of normal people)
You disagreeing with me just proves the point even further - you would put your money toward certain things that I would not see as valuable - but does that mean that everyone else's money should be put toward it as well just because you think it's important?
Someone else might notice a really valuable project that you don't think is worth spending five cents on, but the government already has the last of their expendable income - what happens then if the government doesn't think the project is valuable?
I know we have to plan for the future and all, but since Mars travel probably won't be viable or even valuable for another 60 to 80 years (by which time I'll probably be dead) I would much rather have a nice reduction in taxes.
How about this - reduce our taxes a bit, and for the non-critical portion of our taxes let us choose what program they go toward funding. Some people might choose a government funded AIDS cure - some might choose Mars exploration... but I really think the people should be allowed to choose which optional programs get their money - if it really needs to be taken from them in the first place.
First I saw them talking about Mac... then I thought well - it's BSD based now, which has been around practically forever.
Then I saw them mention a root kit for OSX and wondered to myself what good that would do without actually having a way to gain control in the first place.
(See definition of rootkit from wikipedia: "A root kit is a set of tools used by an intruder after cracking a computer system. These tools can help the attacker maintain his or her access to the system and use it for malicious purposes."
Note the words "after cracking" and "maintain"... not "hack into" and "gain")
Sounds like a bunch of malarky disguised as solid information to scare people who aren't aware of more advanced computer concepts.
I don't really see why Microsoft would want to stall it - assuming it would allow them to stop piracy of their operating system... Maybe piracy really isn't a big factor for them, and developing this technology would cost them more (plus delay the already late release of Vista)
That said, I'd applaud anyone who successfully fought/stalled/stopped the trusted computing initative - I don't really want someone monitoring me and telling me "No that's wrong, you can't run/do that" or "You can't connect to the internet because your computer/operating system doesn't support the 'trusted NICs'" (You know it will go there eventually...)
I don't think the issue for them is the file sharing anymore - they've just figured out that it's a cash cow to go around suing people who most likely can't/won't mount a successful defense.
I wonder if someone could counter-sue them for defamation of character or whatever if they were mistakenly sued by the RIAA...
I bet they'd think twice if they started losing money on suing people. I think if they do goof up they should have to award the person 100 times as much as the person would have had to pay them. You'd see them get real careful about who they sued real fast.
They don't really have anything to worry about except making money anymore, the government is doing all the dirty work running around strong-arming other countries into cracking down on piracy (Don't crack down.. we won't trade with you...)... sorry just had to throw that in:)
Yeah, more of an array of choices coming from your local FCC soon... sike.
I realize that without government intervention in the first place the cables might have stayed property of on specific company per area - but then again they seem to be regulating it back in that direction anyway.
If all goes well you'll have a great selection - one cable provider, one DSL, one WIMAX... all more expensive than any current ones of course. Consider it a contribution to our capitalistic society - or the war on freedom (oops, i mean terror).
And before you ask what ISPs have to do with the war I'll ask you - what do the RIAA, MPAA, pirating music, movies, and cracking copy protection on video games have to do with the "war on terror"?
The answer is that "terrorism" is now anything that hurts the bottom line of the big companies that your senators think as the cornerstone of our capitalistic society. That's why they're spending your tax money to arrest people giving out video games free in Europe, and attempting to pressure China into cracking down on piracy with trade threats.
"Free market" consists of the government deciding how much it is reasonable for you to pay. (Works the other way too of course.. minimum wage)/rant
Yes I love freedom, but not someone deciding what is best for me then providing me with the choices they think are best for me.
Mod me down for it - and I might be preaching to the choir here - but I don't see how so many people can miss the direction our country is going. I hope some of the candidates in the next election state where they stand on privacy and government monitoring. (If not I guess I'll vote for the 'small government' people... they'd probably be leaning in the right direction)
So he's demanding people to agree to pay him license fees of $200-5000? What would their motivation be? And how many of these people does he have to bribe to sign so he can swindle the rest?
"University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban."
Give me a break, my bedroom is bigger than 12' - much less the rest of my house. What exactly is the point of a wireless device when I can comfortably get a wire the same length. (I say comfortably because obviously I COULD stroll around with my laptop...)
I'm all for useful technology... but this will set me back $140 - more than a mini ipod, which I can carry anywhere, and which holds 1000-2000 songs (meaning I wouldn't have to refill it often even if listening almost constantly)
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem rather exorbitant to value the stock of a web company at 192 million (If my math is correct - based on the 5% that google bought)... especially when they only made 1.5 million profit?
It's possible that other companies have such low profit margins vs. value and I just haven't noticed it - but the company being a website generating ad revenue makes it seem all the more overpriced.
When will technology come back to earth (aka reasonable prices and profit margins)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is all the other movies/music you "reward" in order to find the "good" movies/music to reward - that's where P2P comes in...
I love how he used his little brother to test it.
:)
"Just go stand out there in front of my sentry gun so I can see if it works"
At least he was nice enough to have him wear a paintball mask, some brothers wouldnt be nearly so kind.
It should be funded by people who believe it's important. Yes I know the government provides the seed money for some projects that would never get off the ground - but at this point we aren't in a position to say what would happen if they didn't do that.
If you reduced taxes, though, there's a possibility that the wealthy people would donate more money toward pet projects that today might need to be funded by the government.
Enumerating all the "what ifs" could kill me, the end result is that we don't know what would happen unless we try it - and there seems to be something patently wrong with the government adopting part of the money I earned for non-necessary ventures.
I don't like the view that people can make money, but they aren't smart enough to decide how to spend it themselves. (as if politicians are somehow smarter or less greedy than the majority of normal people)
You disagreeing with me just proves the point even further - you would put your money toward certain things that I would not see as valuable - but does that mean that everyone else's money should be put toward it as well just because you think it's important?
Someone else might notice a really valuable project that you don't think is worth spending five cents on, but the government already has the last of their expendable income - what happens then if the government doesn't think the project is valuable?
I know we have to plan for the future and all, but since Mars travel probably won't be viable or even valuable for another 60 to 80 years (by which time I'll probably be dead) I would much rather have a nice reduction in taxes.
... but I really think the people should be allowed to choose which optional programs get their money - if it really needs to be taken from them in the first place.
How about this - reduce our taxes a bit, and for the non-critical portion of our taxes let us choose what program they go toward funding. Some people might choose a government funded AIDS cure - some might choose Mars exploration
First I saw them talking about Mac... then I thought well - it's BSD based now, which has been around practically forever.
... not "hack into" and "gain")
Then I saw them mention a root kit for OSX and wondered to myself what good that would do without actually having a way to gain control in the first place.
(See definition of rootkit from wikipedia: "A root kit is a set of tools used by an intruder after cracking a computer system. These tools can help the attacker maintain his or her access to the system and use it for malicious purposes."
Note the words "after cracking" and "maintain"
Sounds like a bunch of malarky disguised as solid information to scare people who aren't aware of more advanced computer concepts.
I don't really see why Microsoft would want to stall it - assuming it would allow them to stop piracy of their operating system... Maybe piracy really isn't a big factor for them, and developing this technology would cost them more (plus delay the already late release of Vista)
That said, I'd applaud anyone who successfully fought/stalled/stopped the trusted computing initative - I don't really want someone monitoring me and telling me "No that's wrong, you can't run/do that" or "You can't connect to the internet because your computer/operating system doesn't support the 'trusted NICs'" (You know it will go there eventually...)
I don't think the issue for them is the file sharing anymore - they've just figured out that it's a cash cow to go around suing people who most likely can't/won't mount a successful defense.
... sorry just had to throw that in :)
I wonder if someone could counter-sue them for defamation of character or whatever if they were mistakenly sued by the RIAA...
I bet they'd think twice if they started losing money on suing people. I think if they do goof up they should have to award the person 100 times as much as the person would have had to pay them. You'd see them get real careful about who they sued real fast.
They don't really have anything to worry about except making money anymore, the government is doing all the dirty work running around strong-arming other countries into cracking down on piracy (Don't crack down.. we won't trade with you...)
Yeah, more of an array of choices coming from your local FCC soon... sike.
/rant
I realize that without government intervention in the first place the cables might have stayed property of on specific company per area - but then again they seem to be regulating it back in that direction anyway.
If all goes well you'll have a great selection - one cable provider, one DSL, one WIMAX... all more expensive than any current ones of course. Consider it a contribution to our capitalistic society - or the war on freedom (oops, i mean terror).
And before you ask what ISPs have to do with the war I'll ask you - what do the RIAA, MPAA, pirating music, movies, and cracking copy protection on video games have to do with the "war on terror"?
The answer is that "terrorism" is now anything that hurts the bottom line of the big companies that your senators think as the cornerstone of our capitalistic society. That's why they're spending your tax money to arrest people giving out video games free in Europe, and attempting to pressure China into cracking down on piracy with trade threats.
"Free market" consists of the government deciding how much it is reasonable for you to pay. (Works the other way too of course.. minimum wage)
Yes I love freedom, but not someone deciding what is best for me then providing me with the choices they think are best for me.
Mod me down for it - and I might be preaching to the choir here - but I don't see how so many people can miss the direction our country is going. I hope some of the candidates in the next election state where they stand on privacy and government monitoring. (If not I guess I'll vote for the 'small government' people... they'd probably be leaning in the right direction)
So he's demanding people to agree to pay him license fees of $200-5000? What would their motivation be? And how many of these people does he have to bribe to sign so he can swindle the rest?
"University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban."
Give me a break, my bedroom is bigger than 12' - much less the rest of my house. What exactly is the point of a wireless device when I can comfortably get a wire the same length. (I say comfortably because obviously I COULD stroll around with my laptop...)
I'm all for useful technology... but this will set me back $140 - more than a mini ipod, which I can carry anywhere, and which holds 1000-2000 songs (meaning I wouldn't have to refill it often even if listening almost constantly)
In the printing industry each M stands for 1000 ... so 100m is 100,000 ... 100mm is 100,000,000 and so on.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem rather exorbitant to value the stock of a web company at 192 million (If my math is correct - based on the 5% that google bought)... especially when they only made 1.5 million profit?
It's possible that other companies have such low profit margins vs. value and I just haven't noticed it - but the company being a website generating ad revenue makes it seem all the more overpriced.
When will technology come back to earth (aka reasonable prices and profit margins)