Truly enough, the traditional monopolies of the telecom companies are what's keeping the prices high up.
Yes, although the wording of the article ("national communications") implies that if the backbone wasn't a government-controlled monopoly, the free market would take over. I only skimmed the first page of TFA, but nothing seemed to say otherwise.
Pardon my tinfoil hat, but it looks like this is just fodder for yet another World Bank/IMF push to privatize yet one more thing, and push yet another industry into the hands of a profiteering corporate monopoly (sigh, I know, as opposed to a profiteering corrupt government).
Am I crazy and just reading it wrong, or is there something to this?
...you use your ipod for nothing but your own performances, and/or public domain playback? Why is it you should pay this levy then?
You don't have to.
You, and other groups like non-profits or companies with big IT budgets for backups, can apply for "zero-rated" certification from the Canadian Private Copying Collective.
Essentially, the way it works is that instead of paying a levy that goes to the CPCC, you pay the CPCC directly to receive a one-year certification, and have to purchase blank media from them or from an authorized seller.
Needless to say, the CPCC has figured out the "2. ???" that comes before "3. Profit!"
It's really sad that I almost got into trouble for spending 30 minutes helping an elderly man figure out how to use his computer and install his internet properly when I was supposed to "Refer him to the company he bought the computer from and tell him to call back."
Your good service reflects (positively) on the company, and when your clients' friends are trying to convince them of how terrible Comcast's support is, the client will insist "no, I had an excellent experience with their technical support people."
If the company wants to portray themselves as a bunch of dicks, best to just go along with it. Nobody will know who you are from the other end.
True random number generators have been around in hardware form for a while based on a number of different processes, not quantum only. Yes, and this one even reveals its source!
Using the client's whole computer, hard drive contents included, to sell ads is just wrong. Seriously. It's so much easier to just cut to the chase and display ads for porn, sex toys, and escort services.
Yes, although the comment "The reaction was: Hey, that's cool... because of this tax my pirating is legal" was echoed by the Supreme Court in their decision regarding filesharing.
The recording industry has their cake, but don't have utensils--yet. (I guess that makes us the sneezeguard?)
True, it's not Robin Hood, but it isn't too big a problem (for the charities).
Since they are donations, and (presumably) not purchases, the only cost of these non-donations is administrative. If they're big enough to accept credit cards, they're presumably also big enough to have a competent treasurer (or accounting department, if they're really big) who will include this form of loss-of-revenue in the budgets.
For the stores whose goods are purchased after the cards are verified, life will suck a lot more.
"The elegant new enclosure will somewhat resemble the current white iMac but is said to feature a shorter space below the actual display, where most of the internals are housed." But... where will I post my stickies?
Slashdot Mirror
- RG>
Just because there's a pulse doesn't mean there's any neural activity going on.
- RG>
Yes, although the wording of the article ("national communications") implies that if the backbone wasn't a government-controlled monopoly, the free market would take over. I only skimmed the first page of TFA, but nothing seemed to say otherwise.
Pardon my tinfoil hat, but it looks like this is just fodder for yet another World Bank/IMF push to privatize yet one more thing, and push yet another industry into the hands of a profiteering corporate monopoly (sigh, I know, as opposed to a profiteering corrupt government).
Am I crazy and just reading it wrong, or is there something to this?
- RG>
They might have gotten the facts wrong, but they got the statistics right!
- RG>
You don't have to.
You, and other groups like non-profits or companies with big IT budgets for backups, can apply for "zero-rated" certification from the Canadian Private Copying Collective.
Essentially, the way it works is that instead of paying a levy that goes to the CPCC, you pay the CPCC directly to receive a one-year certification, and have to purchase blank media from them or from an authorized seller.
Needless to say, the CPCC has figured out the "2. ???" that comes before "3. Profit!"
- RG>
Hm... maybe it would be a lot simpler if we just put a levy on mp3s purchased legitimately online!
- RG>
Yes, but "exile to Alaska" wasn't exactly the same thing as what people refer to these days when they talk about "freezing of assets".
- RG>
There's MS's problem right there. They need to develop a chair that is fatal when thrown.
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
That joke would have been a lot funnier if you had cited your source (which, by the way, is required by xkcd's cc license).
- RG>
Your good service reflects (positively) on the company, and when your clients' friends are trying to convince them of how terrible Comcast's support is, the client will insist "no, I had an excellent experience with their technical support people."
If the company wants to portray themselves as a bunch of dicks, best to just go along with it. Nobody will know who you are from the other end.
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
- RG>
You haven't been paying attention.
Step two is "embarrass/lobby/pay the local government into changing the laws (and their enforcement) to favour the big labels even more"
- RG>
Yes, although the comment "The reaction was: Hey, that's cool... because of this tax my pirating is legal" was echoed by the Supreme Court in their decision regarding filesharing.
The recording industry has their cake, but don't have utensils--yet. (I guess that makes us the sneezeguard?)
- RG>
I take it that /. removed it from the link.
I dunno, I didn't follow the link.
- RG>
You don't need the algorithm, true, but not for the reason you stated.
Godwin's law beats DRM discussion any day.
- RG>
Wait, is that in the first 100,000,000 bytes of Wikipedia?
If so, then NO RECURSING!
- RG>
Exactly.
Someone wants a list? Check out the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
This includes both natural and artificial wonders.
- RG>
I suspect that is so that as the DoD's battery efficiency improves, the definition of "half the current weight" follows.
- RG>
True, it's not Robin Hood, but it isn't too big a problem (for the charities).
Since they are donations, and (presumably) not purchases, the only cost of these non-donations is administrative. If they're big enough to accept credit cards, they're presumably also big enough to have a competent treasurer (or accounting department, if they're really big) who will include this form of loss-of-revenue in the budgets.
For the stores whose goods are purchased after the cards are verified, life will suck a lot more.
- RG>
GP implied that now everybody can read ODF in MS Word, and I was pointing out that no, not everybody can.
- RG>
- RG>