I heard an interview with Peter Frampton back in September where he was discussing how the music business has changed over the years. He said that before the internet, bands toured to promote their albums, now they release their music to promote their tours.
I read the linked statements from Comcast and TWC and neither one clearly states why their peering costs are not covered by their clients' subscription fees.
Corporations are owned by the shareholders, not the CEO or board of directors. When you tax a corporation, you are really taxing their stockholders. Do you have a 401K or any investments like a mutual fund? It's a double dip - tax corporate profits, then tax them again as the shareholder's profits.
You must not be a parent. It's a parent's responsibility to censor everything that they see fit to censor. In this situation, whether you, or me, or the government agrees or not, it's the parents who decide what is harmless.
Why? What's the big deal? If someone under 18 wants a mature rated game, they can get their parents to buy it for them. Isn't that the whole point of the rating system? To provide some basic filtering for parents who know nothing about the game in question.
Please list some examples of "cool files" that you would hope to find or that you expect to leave.
This idea is moronic. Are you expecting some kind of exclusive data not available anywhere else? People excited about this must get really excited about surprises like the prize in a box of cracker jacks or what's behind door number 2 on Let's Make a Deal. It reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Peter is offered a prize of either a boat or a mystery box.
"A boat is a boat, but a mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat!"
The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off.
If by companies, you mean corporations, then your perception of corporations is a bit anthropomorphic. If you have any investments in a mutual fund, you should probably look in the mirror and get pissed off at yourself because you most likely financially benefited, in some measure, from their use of tax loopholes. Corporations aren't "rich" in the sense that a person is rich. Their profits are distributed among their stockholders. The stockholders are wide variety of companies and people that include all income levels. The bottom line is that although the corporation may physically pay the taxes, the money comes either from the stockholders or from increased prices on the corporation's products.
Well, actually... good for Fidelity Investments, BlackRock, Vanguard Group and all the other investment groups that are the top 10 Google stockholders.
Well, actually... good for anybody who is a Google stockholder, or has a 401k with an investment company holding Google stock, or anybody who buys services from Google, because corporate taxes are a cost of doing business and those costs would have been recovered from higher fees.
I bet a lot of slashdot readers benefited in some way from Google's perfectly legal tax strategy.
Sure, blame the business men. The government has been salivating to control the internet for a while now. Facebook privacy issues are just an excuse to try to convince the citizens they're doing it to help and protect them. If the government was simply responding to bad business practices, why has there been no sensible policy or discussion about net neutrality, or why do I still pay $3 to make ATM withdrawals or pay a $30 NSF fee for a $1 overdraft, etc., etc.? It's because it is not in the government's self interest.
(I am becoming more cynical and paranoid of government the older I get....or am I?)
Yeah, the whole point of Facebook is to post private information about yourself for others to see.
If you don't want people to have access to certain information, don't post it at all....duh.
"compliance issues"
HIPAA regulations can be a real roadblock to a developers or testers. Time is never allocated to properly scrub and copy production data to test environments. Plus, I've never seen a test environment that could functionally match a production environment. Licensing issues force some 3rd party modules to be limited in how many environments they can be installed. But you got to do the best with what you got. That's why you get paid the big bucks, right?...yeah, right
I view it as more like documenting my own life. If something happens that I can hear with my own 2 ears or see with my own 2 eyes, why shouldn't I be able to record it also, with or without anybody's consent. It's not the actual recording of events that harms another person, it's the use of the recorded material. Using a recording for legal protection, documenting events or conversations, etc. should be legal.
What would happen if police action is captured on a security camera that is in a fixed position? Would that also be a violation of the Maryland wiretapping law? I'm sure that it happens every time a cop has to arrest someone inside a store.
Let's not rush to start regulating the internet in the name of net neutrality. So far, the market/publicity/etc. has kept problems regarding net neutrality in check. The government has a bad record of piggybacking a lot of bad legislation in the name of the hot issue of the day. I would prefer that legislation that could have such far reaching effects comes from debate in congress, not an unelected commision.
eFuse is also used on printer ink cartridges to disable the cartridge after a predetermined number a pages have been printed so the user cannot refill the cartridge themselves and keep using it.
The project spent $20 million in federal money on laptops distributed to 21 middle schools whose students were permitted to take the machines home. Another 21 schools that did not receive funds for laptops were designated as control schools.
$20 million for 21 laptops and tracking the grades for 42 kids. Now there's some bang for your bucks. I could have done it for $1 million.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I heard an interview with Peter Frampton back in September where he was discussing how the music business has changed over the years. He said that before the internet, bands toured to promote their albums, now they release their music to promote their tours.
I read the linked statements from Comcast and TWC and neither one clearly states why their peering costs are not covered by their clients' subscription fees.
Sort of like museums?
That's what competition does.
Corporations are owned by the shareholders, not the CEO or board of directors. When you tax a corporation, you are really taxing their stockholders. Do you have a 401K or any investments like a mutual fund?
It's a double dip - tax corporate profits, then tax them again as the shareholder's profits.
Jane, you ignorant bitch.
You must not be a parent. It's a parent's responsibility to censor everything that they see fit to censor. In this situation, whether you, or me, or the government agrees or not, it's the parents who decide what is harmless.
Why? What's the big deal? If someone under 18 wants a mature rated game, they can get their parents to buy it for them. Isn't that the whole point of the rating system? To provide some basic filtering for parents who know nothing about the game in question.
This idea is moronic. Are you expecting some kind of exclusive data not available anywhere else?
People excited about this must get really excited about surprises like the prize in a box of cracker jacks or what's behind door number 2 on Let's Make a Deal.
It reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Peter is offered a prize of either a boat or a mystery box.
but I'd like to believe that they won't win the suit.
If by companies, you mean corporations, then your perception of corporations is a bit anthropomorphic.
If you have any investments in a mutual fund, you should probably look in the mirror and get pissed off at yourself because you most likely financially benefited, in some measure, from their use of tax loopholes. Corporations aren't "rich" in the sense that a person is rich. Their profits are distributed among their stockholders. The stockholders are wide variety of companies and people that include all income levels. The bottom line is that although the corporation may physically pay the taxes, the money comes either from the stockholders or from increased prices on the corporation's products.
Good for Google.
Well, actually... good for Fidelity Investments, BlackRock, Vanguard Group and all the other investment groups that are the top 10 Google stockholders.
Well, actually... good for anybody who is a Google stockholder, or has a 401k with an investment company holding Google stock, or anybody who buys services from Google, because corporate taxes are a cost of doing business and those costs would have been recovered from higher fees.
I bet a lot of slashdot readers benefited in some way from Google's perfectly legal tax strategy.
Sure, blame the business men. The government has been salivating to control the internet for a while now. Facebook privacy issues are just an excuse to try to convince the citizens they're doing it to help and protect them.
...or am I?)
If the government was simply responding to bad business practices, why has there been no sensible policy or discussion about net neutrality, or why do I still pay $3 to make ATM withdrawals or pay a $30 NSF fee for a $1 overdraft, etc., etc.? It's because it is not in the government's self interest.
(I am becoming more cynical and paranoid of government the older I get.
Yeah, the whole point of Facebook is to post private information about yourself for others to see. ...duh.
If you don't want people to have access to certain information, don't post it at all.
I see Slackware releases announced here.
"compliance issues" ...yeah, right
HIPAA regulations can be a real roadblock to a developers or testers. Time is never allocated to properly scrub and copy production data to test environments. Plus, I've never seen a test environment that could functionally match a production environment. Licensing issues force some 3rd party modules to be limited in how many environments they can be installed. But you got to do the best with what you got. That's why you get paid the big bucks, right?
His haircut is comical.
I view it as more like documenting my own life. If something happens that I can hear with my own 2 ears or see with my own 2 eyes, why shouldn't I be able to record it also, with or without anybody's consent. It's not the actual recording of events that harms another person, it's the use of the recorded material. Using a recording for legal protection, documenting events or conversations, etc. should be legal.
Because, by definition, hyperbole is mostly bullshit.
What would happen if police action is captured on a security camera that is in a fixed position? Would that also be a violation of the Maryland wiretapping law? I'm sure that it happens every time a cop has to arrest someone inside a store.
Let's not rush to start regulating the internet in the name of net neutrality. So far, the market/publicity/etc. has kept problems regarding net neutrality in check. The government has a bad record of piggybacking a lot of bad legislation in the name of the hot issue of the day. I would prefer that legislation that could have such far reaching effects comes from debate in congress, not an unelected commision.
eFuse is also used on printer ink cartridges to disable the cartridge after a predetermined number a pages have been printed so the user cannot refill the cartridge themselves and keep using it.
$20 million for 21 laptops and tracking the grades for 42 kids. Now there's some bang for your bucks. ;)
I could have done it for $1 million.
Students get deep discounts on software, unless you are talking about games and movies.
It figures that the NSA would post a video that has no user controls.
Did anyone else think that was weird?