When The Onion's lawyer wrote "...Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes. That said, The Onion asked that its letter be considered a formal application to use the seal..."
This is a bold faced lie! While the readers may not have to pay for the privilege of reading this crap, The Onion receives money from advertising.
Just try to go read an article without being forced to read an ad every now and then...
Stop abusing the seals or the polar bears will go hungry!!!
This crap better be commercial free or I am gonna scream. I don't give a rats ass about the economics of advertising dollars paying for the free broadcasting of television shows. I want my shit commercial free. It is bad enough that my TiVo finger is worn out because of all the fast forwarding I do...
The main reason I block ads or just do not click on them is because I am the type of user who is not traversing the web as a shopper. If I am on the web, it is most likely because I am researching a computer related issue, or I am reading my news and blogs, or I am just unwinding and wandering aimlessly through the ether.
In addition to the above reasons, I do not like ads because they tend to lead towards wanting more information from me. I do not want to click on an ad to view something only to find out that I must register or provide my information for marketing purposes. I also do not like the fact when I click my ad, the advertiser is recording my click, and knows where I came from (due to the link I clicked containing a key of some sort so the web master gets paid etc...).
I get that the web master needs to get paid, but the popups and banner ads sometimes get out of hand and are sometimes not in the context of what I am interested in.
You say the services are doing nothing wrong. That's like saying that a gun dealer who sold a gun at a gun show to someone who then turned around and shot someone should not be held responsible. An extreme example, I know, but the same logic applies. The people who write the software or the services that provide the software are responsible. Not only that, but some of these "services" are getting paid with advertising revenue from the built-in ads that show on the screen.
Today's kids (and I would even say yesterday's generation) have no clue of what the legal system is and what the ramifications are. To them, it is easy to download music so they do it. If you want to stop it, go to the source.
You say "Much better to go after the infringers themselves."
If you are walking down the street and you see a brand new music CD just sitting there on the ground and you pick it up and take it home; Is it stealing or did you find it?
I agree with the fact that this is also a moral issue but let's put that aside for the moment. With the internet designed the way it is, you can travel from site to site looking for stuff to download. If you happen to come across a site that allows you to download music for free without any hassle, it is the same as if you found it on the street.
I pay for my music. Whether people agree with that or not does not matter to me. I subscribe to Napster, Rhapsody, and Yahoo Music Engine. I pay my monthly subscription fee every month and I can listen to anything I damn well please. My kids can listen to anything they want and on occasion, I let them burn a CD with their mixes. This is how music should be sold. PERIOD.
What the RIAA needs to do is go after the services like they did Napster. What is so damn different about what the RIAA did to Napster that they cannot do to these other services?
What Congress should do is prevent the services that allow music to be downloaded illegally. Pass a friggin law already...
We have the technical ability to block traffic to those sites, ISP's can block ports that are used for these services etc... There are many deterrents that can be used but it just does not happen.
Until measures are put into place to prevent young girls and boys from downloading, these lawsuits are frivolous and should be tossed out on their ear. Let me hear you say Hell Yeah Brother Puppy!!! Testify!!!
In Appendix C titled Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, Paragraph 38, I interpret this to mean that if my VOIP provider is not connected to the PSTN, then the CALEA rule does not apply. Are there any of them dar lawyers out dar?
Here is the text...
"... As a result, certain VoIP service providers are not subject to CALEA obligations imposed in today's Order. Specifically, today's Order does not apply to those entities not fully interconnected with the PSTN. Because interconnecting with the PSTN can impose substantial costs, we anticipate that many of the entities that elect not to interconnect with the PSTN, and which therefore are not subject to the rules adopted in today's Order, are small entities. Small entities that provide VoIP services therefore also
have some control over whether they will be have to be CALEA compliant. Small businesses may still offer VoIP service without being subject to the rules adopted in today's Order by electing not to provide an interconnected VoIP service..."
I wonder if Google is 99% useful when the fact that their search results can be manipulated is factored in.
I realize that this is an old story about the word failure being associated with the president but Google has done nothing to prevent results manipulation and neither has Microsoft.
So as far as I am concerned any search engine that can prevent results manipulation is the one that I will consider 99% useful.
Quite honestly, it boggles the mind that we are talking about stuff like this and not the fact that these so called search engines are being compromised by googlebombing.
Resistance is Futile.. Well hell yeah it is futile if all I have to do is googlebomb to get you to see me on the top of your search results. I don't know what Microsoft uses as its term for googlebombing, but they are not excluded from it. Can you really trust your search results knowing that the results you see first were manipulated in order to be first on the list?
Focus People!!
Here is another comment that supports my original comment about a standardization for Linux users. There should be only one source for OS updates.
While it is great that there is a bit torrent available, how do I know that this is an authentic release?
One source for OS related updates. PERIOD.
This is exactly my point. You speaking as a long time Linux user/contributor is very relevant to the point I am trying to make.
Microsoft is actively working with hardware vendors to make it easier for them to design hardware that is compatible with the MS OS. What is the Linux community doing? I don't really know the answer to that other than to naively say that most likely, they are reverse engineering the code to work with the hardware instead of the otherway around. Has anyone here ever seen a sticker on a hardware product that says LINUX COMPATIBLE like you see with Windows Compatible products? That's because Microsoft acts based upon their standards where as Linux is a conglomerate of programmers around the world. Unless Linux contributors around the world start using a coding standard, we are always going to deal with these types of incompatibilities.
Cheerio and pip pip to you all...
And how would one know that this new update was available? There are so many distros out there it is too unorganzized to expect any type of standardization.
There should be an autoupdate feature available that runs in the background to tell you when there is an update available. Ooops, there's that pesky Windows reference aqgain.
I totally support the Linux effort but the downside to the model is that you do not have any standardization out there.
I know there are a number of people out there that just get pissed off when newbies have so many questions. But that is just the nature of the beast. Computers are cheap enough for the masses. If Linux ever wants to become more than a grass roots effort, then the model is going to have to change. By that, I mean that the update process must be streamlined. There should be one master update location (with mirrors of course) and all distros should refernece that one site. Software should be easier to install. A user should not have to know how to open a tar file or how to chmod so they can execute a file. Is this making any sense? I know many hard core Linux users out there want to tell me to stick it where the sun does not shine, but this is reality. Otherwise, Linux will remain as nothing more than just a hobbyist OS for most of us. Yes, there are corporations out there using it for more than hobbyist type of activities, but those are not mainstream users. Those are corporate users with technical degrees and backgrounds to support such use.
Like I said, Linuz is great, but not for the masses. Good day...
Slashdot Mirror
When The Onion's lawyer wrote "...Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes. That said, The Onion asked that its letter be considered a formal application to use the seal..." This is a bold faced lie! While the readers may not have to pay for the privilege of reading this crap, The Onion receives money from advertising. Just try to go read an article without being forced to read an ad every now and then... Stop abusing the seals or the polar bears will go hungry!!!
This crap better be commercial free or I am gonna scream. I don't give a rats ass about the economics of advertising dollars paying for the free broadcasting of television shows. I want my shit commercial free. It is bad enough that my TiVo finger is worn out because of all the fast forwarding I do...
The main reason I block ads or just do not click on them is because I am the type of user who is not traversing the web as a shopper. If I am on the web, it is most likely because I am researching a computer related issue, or I am reading my news and blogs, or I am just unwinding and wandering aimlessly through the ether. In addition to the above reasons, I do not like ads because they tend to lead towards wanting more information from me. I do not want to click on an ad to view something only to find out that I must register or provide my information for marketing purposes. I also do not like the fact when I click my ad, the advertiser is recording my click, and knows where I came from (due to the link I clicked containing a key of some sort so the web master gets paid etc...). I get that the web master needs to get paid, but the popups and banner ads sometimes get out of hand and are sometimes not in the context of what I am interested in.
You say the services are doing nothing wrong. That's like saying that a gun dealer who sold a gun at a gun show to someone who then turned around and shot someone should not be held responsible. An extreme example, I know, but the same logic applies. The people who write the software or the services that provide the software are responsible. Not only that, but some of these "services" are getting paid with advertising revenue from the built-in ads that show on the screen.
Today's kids (and I would even say yesterday's generation) have no clue of what the legal system is and what the ramifications are. To them, it is easy to download music so they do it. If you want to stop it, go to the source.
You say "Much better to go after the infringers themselves." If you are walking down the street and you see a brand new music CD just sitting there on the ground and you pick it up and take it home; Is it stealing or did you find it? I agree with the fact that this is also a moral issue but let's put that aside for the moment. With the internet designed the way it is, you can travel from site to site looking for stuff to download. If you happen to come across a site that allows you to download music for free without any hassle, it is the same as if you found it on the street. I pay for my music. Whether people agree with that or not does not matter to me. I subscribe to Napster, Rhapsody, and Yahoo Music Engine. I pay my monthly subscription fee every month and I can listen to anything I damn well please. My kids can listen to anything they want and on occasion, I let them burn a CD with their mixes. This is how music should be sold. PERIOD. What the RIAA needs to do is go after the services like they did Napster. What is so damn different about what the RIAA did to Napster that they cannot do to these other services? What Congress should do is prevent the services that allow music to be downloaded illegally. Pass a friggin law already... We have the technical ability to block traffic to those sites, ISP's can block ports that are used for these services etc... There are many deterrents that can be used but it just does not happen. Until measures are put into place to prevent young girls and boys from downloading, these lawsuits are frivolous and should be tossed out on their ear. Let me hear you say Hell Yeah Brother Puppy!!! Testify!!!
In Appendix C titled Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, Paragraph 38, I interpret this to mean that if my VOIP provider is not connected to the PSTN, then the CALEA rule does not apply. Are there any of them dar lawyers out dar? Here is the text... "... As a result, certain VoIP service providers are not subject to CALEA obligations imposed in today's Order. Specifically, today's Order does not apply to those entities not fully interconnected with the PSTN. Because interconnecting with the PSTN can impose substantial costs, we anticipate that many of the entities that elect not to interconnect with the PSTN, and which therefore are not subject to the rules adopted in today's Order, are small entities. Small entities that provide VoIP services therefore also have some control over whether they will be have to be CALEA compliant. Small businesses may still offer VoIP service without being subject to the rules adopted in today's Order by electing not to provide an interconnected VoIP service..."
I wonder if Google is 99% useful when the fact that their search results can be manipulated is factored in. I realize that this is an old story about the word failure being associated with the president but Google has done nothing to prevent results manipulation and neither has Microsoft. So as far as I am concerned any search engine that can prevent results manipulation is the one that I will consider 99% useful.
Quite honestly, it boggles the mind that we are talking about stuff like this and not the fact that these so called search engines are being compromised by googlebombing. Resistance is Futile.. Well hell yeah it is futile if all I have to do is googlebomb to get you to see me on the top of your search results. I don't know what Microsoft uses as its term for googlebombing, but they are not excluded from it. Can you really trust your search results knowing that the results you see first were manipulated in order to be first on the list? Focus People!!
Here is another comment that supports my original comment about a standardization for Linux users. There should be only one source for OS updates. While it is great that there is a bit torrent available, how do I know that this is an authentic release? One source for OS related updates. PERIOD.
This is exactly my point. You speaking as a long time Linux user/contributor is very relevant to the point I am trying to make. Microsoft is actively working with hardware vendors to make it easier for them to design hardware that is compatible with the MS OS. What is the Linux community doing? I don't really know the answer to that other than to naively say that most likely, they are reverse engineering the code to work with the hardware instead of the otherway around. Has anyone here ever seen a sticker on a hardware product that says LINUX COMPATIBLE like you see with Windows Compatible products? That's because Microsoft acts based upon their standards where as Linux is a conglomerate of programmers around the world. Unless Linux contributors around the world start using a coding standard, we are always going to deal with these types of incompatibilities. Cheerio and pip pip to you all...
And how would one know that this new update was available? There are so many distros out there it is too unorganzized to expect any type of standardization. There should be an autoupdate feature available that runs in the background to tell you when there is an update available. Ooops, there's that pesky Windows reference aqgain. I totally support the Linux effort but the downside to the model is that you do not have any standardization out there. I know there are a number of people out there that just get pissed off when newbies have so many questions. But that is just the nature of the beast. Computers are cheap enough for the masses. If Linux ever wants to become more than a grass roots effort, then the model is going to have to change. By that, I mean that the update process must be streamlined. There should be one master update location (with mirrors of course) and all distros should refernece that one site. Software should be easier to install. A user should not have to know how to open a tar file or how to chmod so they can execute a file. Is this making any sense? I know many hard core Linux users out there want to tell me to stick it where the sun does not shine, but this is reality. Otherwise, Linux will remain as nothing more than just a hobbyist OS for most of us. Yes, there are corporations out there using it for more than hobbyist type of activities, but those are not mainstream users. Those are corporate users with technical degrees and backgrounds to support such use. Like I said, Linuz is great, but not for the masses. Good day...