Actually, it's more like a food counter with different chefs paying rent for their kitchen space (more rent = more space), customers paying at the counter (which then takes a cut) when they order, and some chefs also paying rent at the counter to be allowed to serve their food faster. Except that the counter and the kitchen are owned by two separate companies, which already have an agreement to allow the food traffic to flow freely.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides? If Netflix wants to push terabits of data through a network, why shouldn't the network owner be able to charge Netflix for that? You baldly state "The problem..." and provide no support as to why your "problem" is just that. Given that it's the way the internet currently works, how do we know prohibiting such behavior would result in any improvement?
The first thing wrong, here, is your understanding of the issue. Netflix pays their provider already, and they push their data through their provider; that provider, then, pushes the data through the next provider, and so on, and so forth, until it reaches the intended user. In essence, it is not Netflix pushing the data through each provider, but rather each consecutive provider pushing the data to the next, and they all have peering agreements which should cover situations where there is an imbalance in traffic. None of this is, nor should be, of any concern to Netflix or the end user, so long as they are both paying their respective providers.
Post a package from the US to China. Do it. Pick a random address in China, put a random item in a box, drive to the post office, and send the box to that address. How many providers carry that box? At least 2. How many do you pay? One. We're talking about the same concept, here.
Nothing apologist about it, just calling out racism where I see it. Statistically yes, at least in the US, it does appear that black males who offend tend to do so more violently and more frequently than other offenders, but let's tow the racism party line by insinuating that all black men are offenders. This is just a case of the few ruining it for the many.
In reality, it's only something like 1% of that 7% of the population, with something like another 5% of that population involved in violent crime or robbery and 10% involved in nonviolent crime (I'm excluding drug use here for a reason). The remaining 84% of that group, comprising 5.88% of the population are, at the least, well-meaning people, and many of them are even pleasant to be around.
The same argument could be used to defend slavery.
No, not really; tribal Africa had plenty of food (and everyone got what they needed) when white people were buying slaves from the tribal leaders, so they were already being fed at that point. Now, poor people in Africa starve to death, which means anything that provides them a job is an actual improvement; very different from slavery, but that was a nice try.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post, which was essentially "they don't have to stop this guy from using their trademark, they can simply license it to him under specific terms" which is actually what they tried to do. Also, here's my citation (PDF alert); where's yours?
Grab your soldering gun, we're gonna have some fun! There's no reason you can't connect them to a power supply that spins each drive up for a minute or so every week (one at a time, so the PSU doesn't even need to be beefy). Hell, it could monitor starting/running current and light up an LED next to any drives that show a sudden increase in power draw, so you know that drive might not spin up next week (e.g. so you can move the data to a new disk).
What would be involved in continually verifying the viability of a warehouse full of tapes and mark failing tapes for replacement before they become unreadable?
First, you say he knowingly planted Mansanto seed, then you say he found some seeds that were Roundup resistant. Which is it? Because surreptitiously finding Roundup resistant seed is quite a far cry from knowingly harvesting and planting Mansanto seed. The courts never found that he knowingly planted Mansanto seed; in fact, the courts, as far as I am aware, never made a ruling regarding the source of the seed, as it was irrelevant in the face of their ruling that the source of the seed did not matter, so long as the genetics matched.
For one, I never said Monsanto has ever sued anyone over cross-pollination; that said, don't be fooled by Mansanto's own claim that they don't take legal action against farmers. They specifically state they've never sued over "trace amounts" and state that the courts have acknowledged that they've never once sued, or threatened to sue, an organic farm. This is a far cry from claiming it's never happened, which they simply can't do, because it has. And they won.
They have also sued, and continue to sue, for seed-reuse. That is, buying more seed than you'll use this year and using the excess next year, or harvesting and using seed produced by Mansanto-seeded crop. I can't fault them for suing farmers who harvest and replant after signing an agreement stating that they will not do this, but then I ask, how do they determine whether the seed was stores or harvested? Simply put, they can't, and the result is suing people for storing seed.
Remember, if it happens just once, you can no longer say it doesn't happen. It's doubly-bad for one's reputation to not only do something others will disapprove of, but then to slyly attempt to convince them that it never happened in the first place. Mansanto has done just this, and the fact that they're full of shit is a matter of public record, so yes, I'm going to call them out on it.
How about this, a compromise: You create a GMO strain of a plant, great, go ahead and patent it. If I replicate your patented strain and sell the seed, sue me. If I happen to be growing a similar plant, downwind of a neighboring farm that grows your strain, and the resultant seed from that contains some of the genetic material from your strain, then sue nature because I didn't do that shit.
It does pay, because Slashdot is not, as you insist, free. There are actual paying members, and the rest of us get ads. Sure, they give top contributors the option to disable ads (I've got it in the top right corner of my page), but few of us do so, as we'd like to support this site, as least until Beta becomes mandatory.
Even better, get it working with as-close-to-bog-standard-as-possible Linux, simply as proof that it works. The small subset of people and corporations out there that just have too much money, so they spend it on whatever the latest-and-greatest thing is will buy it, thereby funding development of the custom-tailored high-performance OS and applications, while driving down the cost of the Linux solution for the end-user who only needs that level of performance. Best of both worlds, IMO.
Yes, that's the American Way, not the American Dream. The American Dream is what gets crammed down our throats to make us accept the American Way. Please, don't confuse the two, as that only serves to further convince people that the two are actually, in some way, related.
Except for the all the countries where this is a normal everyday occurrence (Canada, Holland, England/UK, to name a few) and life just carries on like it's no big deal. Because it's not.
Please, sir, I implore you to go back and re-read the last sentence of my post. Here, I'll make it easy for you (while correcting a typo): Mind you, he completely lacks any of the kind of influence required to sway the opinions of our representatives and bring them back in line with that the general populace wants; but, then, that being necessary in the first place is a failing of congress, not the presidency.
I'm sensitive to perfumes, as well; I get debilitating migraines from most of them. They're not much of a problem if worn properly, though, so that only the person you're letting get *that* close to you can smell them. And they last 10x longer, to boot!
And, we have emissions regulations (well, some states, at least) for a reason; I get just as annoyed at the drivers of vehicles which clearly did/will not pass smog testing.
The point I was making, which you so clearly missed, is the same one you were making; minimize the impact your choices have on others.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's more like a food counter with different chefs paying rent for their kitchen space (more rent = more space), customers paying at the counter (which then takes a cut) when they order, and some chefs also paying rent at the counter to be allowed to serve their food faster. Except that the counter and the kitchen are owned by two separate companies, which already have an agreement to allow the food traffic to flow freely.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides? If Netflix wants to push terabits of data through a network, why shouldn't the network owner be able to charge Netflix for that? You baldly state "The problem..." and provide no support as to why your "problem" is just that. Given that it's the way the internet currently works, how do we know prohibiting such behavior would result in any improvement?
The first thing wrong, here, is your understanding of the issue. Netflix pays their provider already, and they push their data through their provider; that provider, then, pushes the data through the next provider, and so on, and so forth, until it reaches the intended user. In essence, it is not Netflix pushing the data through each provider, but rather each consecutive provider pushing the data to the next, and they all have peering agreements which should cover situations where there is an imbalance in traffic. None of this is, nor should be, of any concern to Netflix or the end user, so long as they are both paying their respective providers.
Post a package from the US to China. Do it. Pick a random address in China, put a random item in a box, drive to the post office, and send the box to that address. How many providers carry that box? At least 2. How many do you pay? One. We're talking about the same concept, here.
Thanks for the backup; I've had a busy weekend and it's left me mentally incapable of forming a meaningful reply to the GP post.
Nothing apologist about it, just calling out racism where I see it. Statistically yes, at least in the US, it does appear that black males who offend tend to do so more violently and more frequently than other offenders, but let's tow the racism party line by insinuating that all black men are offenders. This is just a case of the few ruining it for the many.
Tribal leaders love the shiny.
In reality, it's only something like 1% of that 7% of the population, with something like another 5% of that population involved in violent crime or robbery and 10% involved in nonviolent crime (I'm excluding drug use here for a reason). The remaining 84% of that group, comprising 5.88% of the population are, at the least, well-meaning people, and many of them are even pleasant to be around.
The same argument could be used to defend slavery.
No, not really; tribal Africa had plenty of food (and everyone got what they needed) when white people were buying slaves from the tribal leaders, so they were already being fed at that point. Now, poor people in Africa starve to death, which means anything that provides them a job is an actual improvement; very different from slavery, but that was a nice try.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post, which was essentially "they don't have to stop this guy from using their trademark, they can simply license it to him under specific terms" which is actually what they tried to do. Also, here's my citation (PDF alert); where's yours?
So then, the courts said you can be sued for planting seeds you find on your own property. And Schmeiser's the idiot?
Our team? I'm sorry, I don't vote partisan, I vote for the best candidate; sadly, in the last 2 elections, that was Obama.
Actually...
The "on the box" specs for the PS3 also changed in that time; not so much with Kingston and PNY.
Grab your soldering gun, we're gonna have some fun! There's no reason you can't connect them to a power supply that spins each drive up for a minute or so every week (one at a time, so the PSU doesn't even need to be beefy). Hell, it could monitor starting/running current and light up an LED next to any drives that show a sudden increase in power draw, so you know that drive might not spin up next week (e.g. so you can move the data to a new disk).
What would be involved in continually verifying the viability of a warehouse full of tapes and mark failing tapes for replacement before they become unreadable?
First, you say he knowingly planted Mansanto seed, then you say he found some seeds that were Roundup resistant. Which is it? Because surreptitiously finding Roundup resistant seed is quite a far cry from knowingly harvesting and planting Mansanto seed. The courts never found that he knowingly planted Mansanto seed; in fact, the courts, as far as I am aware, never made a ruling regarding the source of the seed, as it was irrelevant in the face of their ruling that the source of the seed did not matter, so long as the genetics matched.
No, they have to act to protect their trademark; the list of protective actions also includes licensing.
For one, I never said Monsanto has ever sued anyone over cross-pollination; that said, don't be fooled by Mansanto's own claim that they don't take legal action against farmers. They specifically state they've never sued over "trace amounts" and state that the courts have acknowledged that they've never once sued, or threatened to sue, an organic farm. This is a far cry from claiming it's never happened, which they simply can't do, because it has. And they won.
They have also sued, and continue to sue, for seed-reuse. That is, buying more seed than you'll use this year and using the excess next year, or harvesting and using seed produced by Mansanto-seeded crop. I can't fault them for suing farmers who harvest and replant after signing an agreement stating that they will not do this, but then I ask, how do they determine whether the seed was stores or harvested? Simply put, they can't, and the result is suing people for storing seed.
Remember, if it happens just once, you can no longer say it doesn't happen. It's doubly-bad for one's reputation to not only do something others will disapprove of, but then to slyly attempt to convince them that it never happened in the first place. Mansanto has done just this, and the fact that they're full of shit is a matter of public record, so yes, I'm going to call them out on it.
How about this, a compromise: You create a GMO strain of a plant, great, go ahead and patent it. If I replicate your patented strain and sell the seed, sue me. If I happen to be growing a similar plant, downwind of a neighboring farm that grows your strain, and the resultant seed from that contains some of the genetic material from your strain, then sue nature because I didn't do that shit.
Fossil fuels: They've got CO2; they've got what plants CRAVE!
It does pay, because Slashdot is not, as you insist, free. There are actual paying members, and the rest of us get ads. Sure, they give top contributors the option to disable ads (I've got it in the top right corner of my page), but few of us do so, as we'd like to support this site, as least until Beta becomes mandatory.
Even better, get it working with as-close-to-bog-standard-as-possible Linux, simply as proof that it works. The small subset of people and corporations out there that just have too much money, so they spend it on whatever the latest-and-greatest thing is will buy it, thereby funding development of the custom-tailored high-performance OS and applications, while driving down the cost of the Linux solution for the end-user who only needs that level of performance. Best of both worlds, IMO.
Yes, that's the American Way, not the American Dream. The American Dream is what gets crammed down our throats to make us accept the American Way. Please, don't confuse the two, as that only serves to further convince people that the two are actually, in some way, related.
Except for the all the countries where this is a normal everyday occurrence (Canada, Holland, England/UK, to name a few) and life just carries on like it's no big deal. Because it's not.
And it's BIGGER! That's EVEN BETTER!
Please, sir, I implore you to go back and re-read the last sentence of my post. Here, I'll make it easy for you (while correcting a typo): Mind you, he completely lacks any of the kind of influence required to sway the opinions of our representatives and bring them back in line with that the general populace wants; but, then, that being necessary in the first place is a failing of congress, not the presidency.
I'm sensitive to perfumes, as well; I get debilitating migraines from most of them. They're not much of a problem if worn properly, though, so that only the person you're letting get *that* close to you can smell them. And they last 10x longer, to boot!
And, we have emissions regulations (well, some states, at least) for a reason; I get just as annoyed at the drivers of vehicles which clearly did/will not pass smog testing.
The point I was making, which you so clearly missed, is the same one you were making; minimize the impact your choices have on others.