I think this phenomenon of Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, and other so-called Web 2.0 sites, as well as blogs, is quite amazing.
Unfortunately, it reveals the truth. Or is it fortunate that the truth is revealed?
I've read here before of a comment "wait until the next generation of politicians," in the context of what these websites and blogs and simple email will do for skeletons in the closet.
I guess the safe thing in life would be to walk around and say "all the right things," right? I mean, why ever be honest? Can anyone be trusted?
There are plenty of proverbs about this stuff. This is hardly a proverb - "never write anything down."
Well, I would like to think that in the future, there will be dirt on everyone. There will be long forgotten emails written, under the influence, under stress/duress, during trying circumstances. Email is so common now, compared to loose talking before there was email.
Heck, how about archived chats? That is even looser talk (er, text).
I don't think it is worth going through life walking on egg shells. If somebody gets drunk and wants to post a photo of himself, and it is in fun, then what is the harm? He won't get elected to the City Council in 2032? That's crazy.
Most people drink. Most people have gotten drunk. A lot of people have taken drugs. Everybody makes a fool out of himself from time to time. The fact that some people choose to make images of these incidents public doesn't change the truth.
So if there are consequences in the future, I don't see them. Because if employers want to avoid people who drink, smoke, do drugs, or make fools out of themselves at one time or another during their lives, then they won't find anybody to hire.
I think this stuff is getting overblown and I think the more stuff that is posted about what is truth - real life experiences - the better. If the school wants to send the photos to local cops and have people arrested for minor consumption, that's one thing. But banning photos and blogs and stuff like that simply because it could be embarrassing, I think that's to the point of ridiculous.
It costs about $45 for cable broadband. It costs about $40-45 for DSL when including the cost of the land line. For satellite, it's $60 (Direcway). Some broadcast wireless plans range from $40-60 for consumer accounts.
That is far too much money for what is usually a relatively poor service. Sure, it's a great deal faster than dial-up, but considering the many hiccups and service interruptions, the service is lousy.
Practically speaking here, I absolutely need to have broadband Internet or else the service isn't worth it to me. Most of us here know how it feels - to get broadband and not look back. If I'm forced to use somebody's dial-up account, I'll usually just get the absolute necessary information and log off.
But here in the States, the cost of broadband is ridiculous. For the pipes that these companies have, they should be offering better service, faster service, and chiefly, LESS EXPENSIVE service.
I have a condo in an association with about 53 other people. The building used to be a hub for US West's neighborhood network. So beneath our building is one of the biggest pipes in our metro area, yet our association has so far refused to tap into that. We could get a contract with any one of a number of providers and split the cost amongst all occupants. But of course, some people want freedom to choose and don't want the product pushed onto them.
Heck, these people complain that we have a bulk cable contract.
But to sum up, there is far too much available bandwidth and plenty of demand if the price was right. If it was lowered to $30 or even $20, we would see a huge surge in broadband connections.
The $45 price point right now is too much. It's actually to the point where I might discontinue the service because I am only using it during the weekdays and that's after spending hours online at work.
It's an easy $45 to cut. If it were $20, it would be tough to justify denying the convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this phenomenon of Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, and other so-called Web 2.0 sites, as well as blogs, is quite amazing.
Unfortunately, it reveals the truth. Or is it fortunate that the truth is revealed?
I've read here before of a comment "wait until the next generation of politicians," in the context of what these websites and blogs and simple email will do for skeletons in the closet.
I guess the safe thing in life would be to walk around and say "all the right things," right? I mean, why ever be honest? Can anyone be trusted?
There are plenty of proverbs about this stuff. This is hardly a proverb - "never write anything down."
Well, I would like to think that in the future, there will be dirt on everyone. There will be long forgotten emails written, under the influence, under stress/duress, during trying circumstances. Email is so common now, compared to loose talking before there was email.
Heck, how about archived chats? That is even looser talk (er, text).
I don't think it is worth going through life walking on egg shells. If somebody gets drunk and wants to post a photo of himself, and it is in fun, then what is the harm? He won't get elected to the City Council in 2032? That's crazy.
Most people drink. Most people have gotten drunk. A lot of people have taken drugs. Everybody makes a fool out of himself from time to time. The fact that some people choose to make images of these incidents public doesn't change the truth.
So if there are consequences in the future, I don't see them. Because if employers want to avoid people who drink, smoke, do drugs, or make fools out of themselves at one time or another during their lives, then they won't find anybody to hire.
I think this stuff is getting overblown and I think the more stuff that is posted about what is truth - real life experiences - the better. If the school wants to send the photos to local cops and have people arrested for minor consumption, that's one thing. But banning photos and blogs and stuff like that simply because it could be embarrassing, I think that's to the point of ridiculous.
It costs about $45 for cable broadband. It costs about $40-45 for DSL when including the cost of the land line. For satellite, it's $60 (Direcway). Some broadcast wireless plans range from $40-60 for consumer accounts.
That is far too much money for what is usually a relatively poor service. Sure, it's a great deal faster than dial-up, but considering the many hiccups and service interruptions, the service is lousy.
Practically speaking here, I absolutely need to have broadband Internet or else the service isn't worth it to me. Most of us here know how it feels - to get broadband and not look back. If I'm forced to use somebody's dial-up account, I'll usually just get the absolute necessary information and log off.
But here in the States, the cost of broadband is ridiculous. For the pipes that these companies have, they should be offering better service, faster service, and chiefly, LESS EXPENSIVE service.
I have a condo in an association with about 53 other people. The building used to be a hub for US West's neighborhood network. So beneath our building is one of the biggest pipes in our metro area, yet our association has so far refused to tap into that. We could get a contract with any one of a number of providers and split the cost amongst all occupants. But of course, some people want freedom to choose and don't want the product pushed onto them.
Heck, these people complain that we have a bulk cable contract.
But to sum up, there is far too much available bandwidth and plenty of demand if the price was right. If it was lowered to $30 or even $20, we would see a huge surge in broadband connections.
The $45 price point right now is too much. It's actually to the point where I might discontinue the service because I am only using it during the weekdays and that's after spending hours online at work.
It's an easy $45 to cut. If it were $20, it would be tough to justify denying the convenience.