It's amazingly bad that a site can't handle UTF-8 in 2009. It easy as hell to fix, but apparently Slashdot is run by ignorant American bastards who don't give a shit about their international members or even comments on international news.
If I find a similar site that don't treat us like weeds, I'll ditch Slashdot.
I don't know about your culture, but here in Sweden we stop calling ideas "childish" before the end of the primary school. You argue like a little kid. An annoying one too.
For you others: The cost of creating artificial monopolies like a copy monopoly or a patent monopoly is way larger than simply tax people and give the creators money. You all know this (unless you're stupid like clarkkent09), but for some odd reason you're fooled to think that a total forbidding of copying is less bad than a tax that at least makes it possible, even though more expensive.
Then I really wonder why on Earth should Metallica, Madonna and Abba get loads of more money even if they don't work anymore? Stealing from common people and giving to the rich, while forbidding the poor to take part of the culture. Why should the government help with that? It sure as hell don't give us better, more or cheaper music.
Free speech means that you should be able to send data to others without being stopped by the government. When the government says "You can't share that data because you have to buy it from somewhere instead." then it's killing the free speech.
Free speech is not only about the right to discuss politics, but also to share information of all kinds. And the value for the individuals and society is immense.
So if you want to enforce a copy monopoly, then you're right out evil and I honestly hope you'll die a painful death.
Or maybe you're just very stupid and can't figure out that there are way better ways to sponsor content producers than strangling such a basic right as using our own products to copy data!
You're plain wrong. A documentary can be very important for people to download. For example The Union (about the marijuana war). There is no way in hell such movies will be seen at your local theater at a time when you want to see it. Piracy is the only democratic possibility in this and similar cases.
I really think that the people behind The Union should get paid, but not by stopping everyone to watch it for free.
If the society wants to pay for content like movies, it's way cheaper and freedom loving to simply pay for it with taxes, than granting the current monopolies that give away our basic rights and property to intellectual monopolists.
Off course it is illegal. If you watch a movie, you have to be certain that no one else sees or hears it. You have to make sure no neighbour can hear it and no one is peaking through your windows. Watching it with your friends is of course STEALING. MPAA owns your life if you see the movie. They will try to get royalties if you write about it too.
Well, unless you slave-wannabes start turning these monsters out of business. A world without over-expensive movies is way better than one where students are driven to suicide and your personal life is controlled by MPAA and friends.
Every time you go to the movies, you lose another right.
If you name a product "Panasonic P905i", you should be shot. At least a little in the foot. Everyone remembers "iPhone" or "Eee", but I've already forgotten what that PQW9592391IE-phone was called...
The industry that prints CDs and DVDs is totally dependent on the monopoly given to them. Everyone suffering from this isn't so dependent. Therefore these monopolists will fight until their death, but people will not fight until their deaths about the right to use the last percentage of their own equipment.
But it's your own fault. You have bought CDs and DVDs! Every time you do, a bit on the Internet and your computer is stolen from you.
The end story is that we simply don't need CD and DVD-producers. The world would be far better off without them.
Re:You can't win if you don't play
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
If my company ever makes enough money to hire someone, I would never ever hire someone who isn't at least on Facebook and with loads of drunk-ass photos on their profile.
Then I'm developing and running social networking sites, so I guess it's a little different... If you're applying to a job in the secret service or mafia, I guess you want to be secret.
So you have bought 150 DVDs and much of the money you spent on that is now being used to lobby for stealing your right to use your own computer, strangle the free flow of information on the Internet and hunt innocent people down.
You're so ignorant that it makes me sick! Do you know anything about the world outside of USA? I live in Sweden and there are no problems getting pretty OK Internet out in the woods here. And as you can see, there's little difference in Internet-access between countries like Sweden and Denmark despite totally different population densities.
Policies have everything to do with penetration. It's just that the developed part of USA usually have less moronic government so they get better Internet access (Still quite expensive though).
I personally can select phone and Internet from three different lines and the phone-line can be connected to countless alternatives (just like in the rest of the EU). And there's no need for any net neutrality regulations from the government (there still has to be private deals, of course) as I would just change operator if they start pulling some crap.
You don't need any flywheel. If the system is connected to the main power grid, there will be no problems even if there is the unlikely event that the system should generate more energy than it produces for a while.
That should be emphasized much more. When you're buying properiatary software you're basically giving away control to the company you're buying from. It's like buying a car that you have no right to do any kind of service on, and you don't even know if the GPS is connected to a deadswitch that will turn the engine off if you drive in a state where you don't have a license. Generally if you just want a little more out of your properiatary application, it will cost you a lot.
Or to put it frankly: Properiary software may be way more expensive than expected and you'll lose your job!
There is a huge difference between free things to select from and to select different versions of the same thing that you have to pay for crippled in different ways.
Think about this:
Do you want a thepiratebay where you can download only 2 songs or one where you can download thousands?
Do you want to be able to buy an album in 8 slightly different versions or just have it in one version?
Well, the wheel has to be reinvented every time you build a new vehicle because you can't use a bike-wheel on a tractor.
The goal is to make a distribution that is suitable for Russian and the Russian state's needs. It should work fine to use Cyrillic letter everywhere, the Russian spelling-controls, translators and interfaces to programs generally used in Russia. These things will probably be used by other distributions too.
EU and especially not USA don't have the same need to make some special effort as basically all distributions already take into account the special needs of our countries.
We do need to put some effort on demanding open source though, because that will save loads of money in the long run.
I have almost stopped with buying AdWords ads myself (I'm mostly a publisher). They work pretty well for Thunder's Keep because I can direct the ads almost only to people who are reading Society for Creative Anachronism pages on weekends. But ads for Elftown don't work and I have to pay at least $5-$15 per new user (Compared to Thunder's Keep where it's about $1).
I think the way to go as an advertiser is to select a site whose visitors you want as customers. Then pay that site for every sale to someone that is also a member of the other site. In this way you get away from screaming "Come and buy!" and get more into sponsoring which is generally giving a more positive thing.
I think there should be advertisers that allowed cookie stuffing in exchange for ads on every page on the site. How it would work:
The publishers would show the ads that make branding (not selling ads) on their pages according to how the advertiser want them. When the ad is shown, it's done so in an iframe that sets a cookie. If the customer goes directly to the advertiser to buy (regardless of following the link) without passing any other publisher's ads of the same kind, then the first publisher get credits. The advertiser can also write "We are considered a good seller by: Slashdot, Elftown.. and so on" on their site.
This would take us away from the damn "forcing the user to click" hell. With this method the advertisers can buy trust from the site they are playing the ad on, instead of visibility, and it's often way more important.
This kind of advertising would work great both for advertisers and publishers on sites like Slashdot or my own Elftown. It would not work for the crap-sites (well, no advertiser would use them) that has no valuable content, no returning customers, but that make huge amounts of money on that people click on their ads to get away from the site.
The downside for advertisers is that they have to pay for their old customers that return, but the price for that is lower than paying for "new customers" that usually aren't old, but fraud or allowed but similar type of clicks.
I don't make much money at all and can't live on it, but I guess they made more money by having really crappy content so that people are more likely to click the ads.
Is there any better ways to make money from a free website except by forcing people to click on links? It is great advertising to be present on my site, but my visitors will simply not click on ads and advertisers don't pay for branding.
Or pay for very specific content that is requested. Like buying the rights to a fauna book and pay for getting it submitted with all the images and other content to be used in the relevant articles.
It can also be used to buy old movies, computer-games and similar things free if the deal is cheap enough.
Paying people per page they produce is a very bad idea though.
You're totally right, but even some hundred kilos of burning thermite is safer than a kilo of something that can explode. If the supercapacitors just heat up to some thousands K and melts through the bottom of the car, it's pretty safe, unless you happen to be there.
It would be way worse if the center of the supercapacitors suddenly could turn into vapor and therefore cause a huge explosion that causes death all across the block instead of using its energy to melt metal and road.
What about connecting your brain? Oh, sorry, old habit. I mean: What about connection a superconductor in your house? So you charge it for hours and then that can charge your car's superconductor in a few minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it should! If it's run by cave-trolls...
It's amazingly bad that a site can't handle UTF-8 in 2009. It easy as hell to fix, but apparently Slashdot is run by ignorant American bastards who don't give a shit about their international members or even comments on international news.
If I find a similar site that don't treat us like weeds, I'll ditch Slashdot.
I don't know about your culture, but here in Sweden we stop calling ideas "childish" before the end of the primary school. You argue like a little kid. An annoying one too.
For you others: The cost of creating artificial monopolies like a copy monopoly or a patent monopoly is way larger than simply tax people and give the creators money. You all know this (unless you're stupid like clarkkent09), but for some odd reason you're fooled to think that a total forbidding of copying is less bad than a tax that at least makes it possible, even though more expensive.
Then I really wonder why on Earth should Metallica, Madonna and Abba get loads of more money even if they don't work anymore? Stealing from common people and giving to the rich, while forbidding the poor to take part of the culture. Why should the government help with that? It sure as hell don't give us better, more or cheaper music.
There must be a couple already.
Free speech means that you should be able to send data to others without being stopped by the government. When the government says "You can't share that data because you have to buy it from somewhere instead." then it's killing the free speech.
Free speech is not only about the right to discuss politics, but also to share information of all kinds. And the value for the individuals and society is immense.
So if you want to enforce a copy monopoly, then you're right out evil and I honestly hope you'll die a painful death.
Or maybe you're just very stupid and can't figure out that there are way better ways to sponsor content producers than strangling such a basic right as using our own products to copy data!
You're plain wrong. A documentary can be very important for people to download. For example The Union (about the marijuana war). There is no way in hell such movies will be seen at your local theater at a time when you want to see it. Piracy is the only democratic possibility in this and similar cases.
I really think that the people behind The Union should get paid, but not by stopping everyone to watch it for free.
If the society wants to pay for content like movies, it's way cheaper and freedom loving to simply pay for it with taxes, than granting the current monopolies that give away our basic rights and property to intellectual monopolists.
Off course it is illegal. If you watch a movie, you have to be certain that no one else sees or hears it. You have to make sure no neighbour can hear it and no one is peaking through your windows. Watching it with your friends is of course STEALING. MPAA owns your life if you see the movie. They will try to get royalties if you write about it too.
Well, unless you slave-wannabes start turning these monsters out of business. A world without over-expensive movies is way better than one where students are driven to suicide and your personal life is controlled by MPAA and friends.
Every time you go to the movies, you lose another right.
40 Mbit/s is not "super fast fibre optic broadband". It's "slow fibre optic broadband".
Here in Sweden it's quite common with 100/100, and I have 80/10 Mbit/s (or 80/16 is more close to reality).
"super fast fibre optic broadband" would be something more than 1 Gbit/s. 1 Gbit/s would be "fast fibre optic broadband".
If you name a product "Panasonic P905i", you should be shot. At least a little in the foot. Everyone remembers "iPhone" or "Eee", but I've already forgotten what that PQW9592391IE-phone was called...
The industry that prints CDs and DVDs is totally dependent on the monopoly given to them. Everyone suffering from this isn't so dependent. Therefore these monopolists will fight until their death, but people will not fight until their deaths about the right to use the last percentage of their own equipment.
But it's your own fault. You have bought CDs and DVDs! Every time you do, a bit on the Internet and your computer is stolen from you.
The end story is that we simply don't need CD and DVD-producers. The world would be far better off without them.
If my company ever makes enough money to hire someone, I would never ever hire someone who isn't at least on Facebook and with loads of drunk-ass photos on their profile.
Then I'm developing and running social networking sites, so I guess it's a little different... If you're applying to a job in the secret service or mafia, I guess you want to be secret.
So you have bought 150 DVDs and much of the money you spent on that is now being used to lobby for stealing your right to use your own computer, strangle the free flow of information on the Internet and hunt innocent people down.
You're so ignorant that it makes me sick! Do you know anything about the world outside of USA? I live in Sweden and there are no problems getting pretty OK Internet out in the woods here. And as you can see, there's little difference in Internet-access between countries like Sweden and Denmark despite totally different population densities.
Policies have everything to do with penetration. It's just that the developed part of USA usually have less moronic government so they get better Internet access (Still quite expensive though).
I personally can select phone and Internet from three different lines and the phone-line can be connected to countless alternatives (just like in the rest of the EU). And there's no need for any net neutrality regulations from the government (there still has to be private deals, of course) as I would just change operator if they start pulling some crap.
You don't need any flywheel. If the system is connected to the main power grid, there will be no problems even if there is the unlikely event that the system should generate more energy than it produces for a while.
"and do not result in vendor lock-in"
That should be emphasized much more. When you're buying properiatary software you're basically giving away control to the company you're buying from. It's like buying a car that you have no right to do any kind of service on, and you don't even know if the GPS is connected to a deadswitch that will turn the engine off if you drive in a state where you don't have a license. Generally if you just want a little more out of your properiatary application, it will cost you a lot.
Or to put it frankly: Properiary software may be way more expensive than expected and you'll lose your job!
There is a huge difference between free things to select from and to select different versions of the same thing that you have to pay for crippled in different ways.
Think about this:
Do you want a thepiratebay where you can download only 2 songs or one where you can download thousands?
Do you want to be able to buy an album in 8 slightly different versions or just have it in one version?
What linked article are you referring to? http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/246413/mac-os-surges-towards-10-market-share.html says that Linux has increased from 0.6% to 0.83% market-share, which is an increase of 33%. If Linux keeps that up, the market-share will be 17% in 10 years.
Anyone has the right to tell ME to work on something, but it will never work anyway because it's the most broken Windows ever made.
Well, the wheel has to be reinvented every time you build a new vehicle because you can't use a bike-wheel on a tractor.
The goal is to make a distribution that is suitable for Russian and the Russian state's needs. It should work fine to use Cyrillic letter everywhere, the Russian spelling-controls, translators and interfaces to programs generally used in Russia. These things will probably be used by other distributions too.
EU and especially not USA don't have the same need to make some special effort as basically all distributions already take into account the special needs of our countries.
We do need to put some effort on demanding open source though, because that will save loads of money in the long run.
I think the way to go as an advertiser is to select a site whose visitors you want as customers. Then pay that site for every sale to someone that is also a member of the other site. In this way you get away from screaming "Come and buy!" and get more into sponsoring which is generally giving a more positive thing.
The publishers would show the ads that make branding (not selling ads) on their pages according to how the advertiser want them. When the ad is shown, it's done so in an iframe that sets a cookie. If the customer goes directly to the advertiser to buy (regardless of following the link) without passing any other publisher's ads of the same kind, then the first publisher get credits. The advertiser can also write "We are considered a good seller by: Slashdot, Elftown .. and so on" on their site.
This would take us away from the damn "forcing the user to click" hell. With this method the advertisers can buy trust from the site they are playing the ad on, instead of visibility, and it's often way more important.
This kind of advertising would work great both for advertisers and publishers on sites like Slashdot or my own Elftown. It would not work for the crap-sites (well, no advertiser would use them) that has no valuable content, no returning customers, but that make huge amounts of money on that people click on their ads to get away from the site.
The downside for advertisers is that they have to pay for their old customers that return, but the price for that is lower than paying for "new customers" that usually aren't old, but fraud or allowed but similar type of clicks.
I don't make much money at all and can't live on it, but I guess they made more money by having really crappy content so that people are more likely to click the ads.
Is there any better ways to make money from a free website except by forcing people to click on links? It is great advertising to be present on my site, but my visitors will simply not click on ads and advertisers don't pay for branding.
It can also be used to buy old movies, computer-games and similar things free if the deal is cheap enough.
Paying people per page they produce is a very bad idea though.
It would be way worse if the center of the supercapacitors suddenly could turn into vapor and therefore cause a huge explosion that causes death all across the block instead of using its energy to melt metal and road.
Simple!