To deploy LaTeX however, you have to learn an entire typesetting language, from scratch, with a significantly poorer interface (text file). I strongly disagree with you here. The text file interface is infinitely simpler and more flexible than a complicated GUI. People, when writing, will envision an infinity of different final products. The text file is about the *only* interface that copes well with that kind of diversity of intents.
Another advantage to the text file is its portability. No more garbling if I try to open my document on a machine with a different OS or software. And I can use any editor I like to make changes.
Not to say that a GUI layer over something like LaTeX is never useful to anyone. But it continues to amaze me that so many people argue that a cryptic file format that can only be edited through a complex GUI is the best way to write.
The question that I have always had is this: if it is legal, and even desirable (as certain parties would argue) for consumers of labor (i.e. employers) to shop around the world for the cheapeast source of labor, taking full advantage of local conditions and legal structures, why should it be illegal for me, a consumer of music, to shop around the world for the cheapest source of music?
And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.
These companies already have a monopoly... If I want broadband service, I have no choice but to buy it from the company that has the lines into my building. If I am upset with their business practice (because, say, their former CEO and his family bilked the company and its investors out of millions of dollars), or with their pricing structure, I am not able to take my business elsewhere. My only recourse is to cancel my contract and go without the service.
It is in society's interest, I think, to have these monopolies, as the costs of laying down redundant networks for competing companies would be astronomical. However, if ISPs are to have these monopolies, then they have to accept regulation to prevent them abusing it.
Sadly, I'm not holding my breath - I predict net neutrality will go down in flames (or lobbying dollars) sooner rather than later.
Sometimes the most effective way to oppose is to publicly support in a format in which is likely to fail. You see this in all kind of political arenas. Seems like WB is just adding another example to the list.
Who would be responsible for determining which domain sites would belong to? Would it be up to the sites themselves? It doesn't seem like such an opt-in approach would do much to segregate pornography away from less potentially objectionable content. The only alternative I can think of is some kind of central board to decide on a case-by-case basis. Imagine the controversy *that* would generate... Where do you draw the line? What about sexual education/health web sites?
Why not implement this as some sort of extension, similar to extensions in firefox? That way, people who want an integrated calendar/email app can have one, and those (like me) who just want an application that does email only can still use Thunderbird?
How many people really use all the calendar stuff, anyway?
I know that ISPs are not technically classified as common carriers, but does this have anything to do with the premise that ISPs may not discriminate against traffic without becoming responsible for any illegal activity that takes place over their networks? That is, it would seem that if ISPs begin discriminating against certain packets (e.g. Google), they would be opening themselves up to huge liability.
Am I completely off base with this, because I can't imagine any TelCos would be considering such a move if that were the case.
It seems to me that if it takes money to get heard in the political process, and I don't have money, that *my* freedom of speach is effectively limited. I still haven't heard a good answer to this... By accepting huge sums of money from donors, and then granting those donors an amplified voice, the political establishment has curtailed my opportunity to participate in the process.
I generally agree with HerculesMO, but I have one quibble - I much prefer a device that does one thing (plays music), and does it well, to a digital swiss army knife combination cell phone/mp3 player/garage door opener/etc...
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I feel rather strongly about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Another advantage to the text file is its portability. No more garbling if I try to open my document on a machine with a different OS or software. And I can use any editor I like to make changes.
Not to say that a GUI layer over something like LaTeX is never useful to anyone. But it continues to amaze me that so many people argue that a cryptic file format that can only be edited through a complex GUI is the best way to write.
The question that I have always had is this: if it is legal, and even desirable (as certain parties would argue) for consumers of labor (i.e. employers) to shop around the world for the cheapeast source of labor, taking full advantage of local conditions and legal structures, why should it be illegal for me, a consumer of music, to shop around the world for the cheapest source of music?
And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.
These companies already have a monopoly... If I want broadband service, I have no choice but to buy it from the company that has the lines into my building. If I am upset with their business practice (because, say, their former CEO and his family bilked the company and its investors out of millions of dollars), or with their pricing structure, I am not able to take my business elsewhere. My only recourse is to cancel my contract and go without the service.
It is in society's interest, I think, to have these monopolies, as the costs of laying down redundant networks for competing companies would be astronomical. However, if ISPs are to have these monopolies, then they have to accept regulation to prevent them abusing it.
Sadly, I'm not holding my breath - I predict net neutrality will go down in flames (or lobbying dollars) sooner rather than later.
Sometimes the most effective way to oppose is to publicly support in a format in which is likely to fail. You see this in all kind of political arenas. Seems like WB is just adding another example to the list.
How are they going to guarantee that? And if that's their plan, why don't they implement it for .com as well?
Who would be responsible for determining which domain sites would belong to? Would it be up to the sites themselves? It doesn't seem like such an opt-in approach would do much to segregate pornography away from less potentially objectionable content. The only alternative I can think of is some kind of central board to decide on a case-by-case basis. Imagine the controversy *that* would generate... Where do you draw the line? What about sexual education/health web sites?
Why not implement this as some sort of extension, similar to extensions in firefox? That way, people who want an integrated calendar/email app can have one, and those (like me) who just want an application that does email only can still use Thunderbird? How many people really use all the calendar stuff, anyway?
I know that ISPs are not technically classified as common carriers, but does this have anything to do with the premise that ISPs may not discriminate against traffic without becoming responsible for any illegal activity that takes place over their networks? That is, it would seem that if ISPs begin discriminating against certain packets (e.g. Google), they would be opening themselves up to huge liability. Am I completely off base with this, because I can't imagine any TelCos would be considering such a move if that were the case.
It seems to me that if it takes money to get heard in the political process, and I don't have money, that *my* freedom of speach is effectively limited. I still haven't heard a good answer to this... By accepting huge sums of money from donors, and then granting those donors an amplified voice, the political establishment has curtailed my opportunity to participate in the process.
I generally agree with HerculesMO, but I have one quibble - I much prefer a device that does one thing (plays music), and does it well, to a digital swiss army knife combination cell phone/mp3 player/garage door opener/etc... Maybe I'm in the minority, but I feel rather strongly about this.