If you're american, just shut off all peer connections from your comrades in the states.. connect to japanese/canadians/europeans.. I'm sure they'll be happy to share files with you.
I don't think that would help. They can nail you for sharing files, even if the people you are sharing with are outside the USA. I don't believe law enforcement has to prove the other party downloaded anything, just that you were sharing.
What if someone in Germany was sharing a popular MP3. I download it in the USA. Does that make it less of a crime than if I downloaded it from someone sharing in the USA.
But to the point. These laws are stupid. File sharing is no different than what many people did in the 80's when they made tapes of music and shared it. Or taped music off the radio. I remember when radio stations used to not speak when a song started, so you could make a good copy. Now, the RIAA is going nuts and calling it theft. I always believed theft is those guys who profit selling pirated copies. But giving it away for free because you liked a song is not the same thing. Too bad the law disagrees with me. It makes me believe the RIAA used lots of cash to buy legislators to vote their way, after all, running an election is expensive.
If you ask me, the RIAA is a bunch of jackholes. Long before they started suing, they invaded the p2p networks and made available bad copies of mp3's. People would download them, and then realize it was 3 minutes of a screeching sound. I stopped buying music around that time and I remind myself just how friendly those big music companies are. I guess it wasn't good enough when I used to buy CD's and listen to the occasional MP3 on-line. Now they can live without my money.
And look at the trends with television viewing. Everything is going digital, so you won't be able to make a copy of anything. No more VHS, even TiVo is having a new flag which will force anything recorded to be deleted in 7 days (if the station uses the flag). And to top it off, when you want to fast forward commercials, guess what TiVo does? A pop up box with an advertisment is shows. Geez, isn't that why I'm fast forwarding. Lets face it, we live in a world where movie theaters force us to watch 30 minutes of commercials before they start the movie we payed $10 to see with the $6 popcorn and $6 soda. And when the DVD comes out, we are forced to watch previews of the FBI warning screen without the ability to fastforward. And a year later, the same DVD is released with special features.
They exists to rip us off. If they just wanted sales, they would treat the customer with respect. But there are too many people, and there is always someone willing to buy.
Right, so who is forcing the chinese to use this software?
Imagine this. You have some 19 or 20 year old college student in China who wants democoracy. He is not a computer whiz, but he finds software written by 3 programmers from the USA. These programmers say their software will circumvent government censorship.
What choices does the 19 year old Chinese college student have? Say he uses the software expecting to hide his identity, and the government discovers who he is. Does that make the software programers wrong for releasing the software? In the USA, if someone purchases software that doesn't live up to the hype, they can return it. In China, that guy is dead or in jail.
Now if no such software existed, the guy in China couldn't get into trouble. It would require more thought, and better orginization than just installing some software.
I'm just saying if someone is going to throw out a tool for people to use, which a government says is illegal, those people making the tool should be damn sure the tool works.
This goes to a deeper discussion of how much right does one culture have a right to change a different culture. Maybe in China most people really want communism. But 10% want democoracy. Should the USA help those 10% to overthrow the system of government in China, and to destabilize their economy?
I'm not a historian, but most stable countries that changed systems of government had a revolt which originated by native people. In France, it was the working class that overthrew the nobility. In the USA, it was farmers and working people who overthrew the british. In neither case was the revolution inspired or promoted by a forigen power. Sure, the people found friends and allies, but the allies didn't cause the revolution. Now contrast to Iraq where the USA is the source of the revolution. There are not enough Iraqi people who believe in USA values to sustane any form of stable government. That is the reason outside nations should not interfear.
Now, what if the government of China finds people using the software these three USA programmers wrote. China find this software violates their laws. Can China arrest those programmers. Or send operatives to kill them? The Israelis often send mussad agents to track and assasinate people who are not friendly to their nation.
It seems to me to be an unfreindly move by the USA to help dissadents in China.
But the computer smarts of Ron Deibert, Nart Villeneuve, and Michael Hull, combined with their passion for politics and free expression, have led them to develop a highly anticipated software program that allows Internet users inside China and other countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Burma, to get around repressive censorship and not get caught
Those comp sci students better know what they are doing. If someone gets caught using their software to circumvent government censorship, people could die. People have gone to jail for dozens of years for saying the wrong thing.
This is not one world where all people believe the same things. One nation should be allowed to keep its culture, even if another nation disagrees. IF there are stupid laws in china, then it is up to the chinese to have a revolt or change of government. Iraq has taught us that an outside power can't change a people or their culture. No matter what laws the USA or UN or new Iraqi government passes, they will never take precedence over their religious laws.
Imagine if the people of amsterdam decided that drugs should be more available in the USA. Should they help Americans break the law inside the borders of the USA? The government of the USA has assasinated heads of state for not complying with USA drug laws, and imprisioned for life the former head of state Manuel Noriega.
That is something most employers are doing. When hired, the human resources officer says your gaurenteed 15 minutes of paid break time for every 4 hours, gaurenteed by federal law. But as soon as the HR person is gone, the manager of the department says you don't get any breaks. It is like the legal department tells the left hand one thing, and the right hand another. Just as long as the company prints the policy on paper, they can do anything in practice. Who's going to risk a job over two 15 minute breaks?
It reminds me of a job I had before college, in a factory. There were OSHA posters everywhere about what the law required. But nobody did it the OSHA way, unless there was an inspection. It was done the way the person signing the check wanted. I saw people get fired for complaining about not wanting to do a job an unsafe way. I only stayed there a year, but I did notice many white workers who were paid $12-13 an hour were being replaced with mexicans who spoke broken english and one told me he was paid $7 an hour. The mexicans didn't give a crap about OSHA. How does that translate to IT? Well, I guess it is the equivelent of watching your job go to India.
We gotta do it the way the company owner wants, or he'll relocate out of the USA and there will be no jobs. What alternative is there?
Why make a policy that says "you can't read the newspaper at work" when it is easier to just block websites? It seems like those policies exist not because a company wants to penalize people for surfing the web, but because companies want to have a convenient excuse to fire people. I've had a sales job where the top salesperson was allowed to look at porn, buy food and bill the company, anything he wanted and for as long as he wanted. He landed a couple large accounts and managment was afraid of rocking the boat. A different salesperson who was at the bottom was fired for violating the company "no web surfing" policy for visiting yahoo sports to check his fantasy team (literally 5 minutes). Why couldn't they fire him for being bad at sales, why use the no web surfing policy?
My last job with internet access came with restrictive software that blocked most websites the company didn't want employees visiting. There was no news websites, no sports, no entertainment, no shopping. The company also activly added new websites to the filter when the IT people noticed surfing that wasn't explained by a company need. That seems like the better option than telling employees "don't surf". Instead, most people brought a copy of the local newspaper to read.
In the end, though, would you really give a shit if your LiveJournal suddenly went offline?
No.
I don't use livejournal or myspace or any website like that. I don't understand the allure of putting embarrasing photo's on the web, and telling the world about the time I puked in the backseat of my friends car. I figure that employers and anyone can search and find that info.
LJ is a cheap alternative to people who don't want to spend $5 to buy their own domain name and put up a website. Lets face it, that would be 100 times better than livejournal. There would be no restrictions on what you could do. If you wanted to share with the world a mp3 of a song you like, you could do that on your own website. You wouldn't get 100's of people viewing your website searching for something funny or a naked chick, but then would you want everyone to? Maybe you just want a place where friends can have access?
Livejournal is also filled with pages of "If you see this as the first post.... you know what to do". They are kind of annoying. There is nothing interesting on LJ.
I guess what we need is lots of replies with links to interesting livejournal accounts. Lets see the best of livejournal. Is there anything good there?
Will cell phones become a wanted item by criminals? Steal a cell phone, and use it to buy stuff? The only good thing about cell phones is police can use it to track the thief. Or the thief can use the cell phone to buy something, then throw it away under the back seat in a bus.
According to Wikipedia, Facebook has been used in numerous investigations
Facebook is a closed system, not just anyone can look. They require a valid college email address to join, and then limit whos profile you can see. How do the police get around those limits, and see ALL the profiles?
What good is facebook if a police officer graduated from Western Michigan University, but the profile with the incrimination evidence is posted under the profile of someone who went to Michigan State University?
Does Facebook sell accounts that the police and employers can purchase to view all profiles?
God made everything. When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God. And we should admit that science is wrong 99% of the time. Much of what was accepted as scientific fact 100 years ago is now false, just like what was accepted as scientific fact 200 years ago was disproved 100 years ago.
But God has been here FOREVER!! He has been proven to be true. Unlike any other religion or science, God sent Jesus here. Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians. And there were thousands of witnesses to miracles he performed, and that he rose from the dead. That should be proof enough that God created everything.
The researchers found the modern equivalent of the stress hormone receptor in lampreys and hagfish, two surviving jawless primitive species. The team also found two modern equivalents of the receptor in skate, a fish related to sharks.
After looking at the genes that produced them, and comparing the genes' similarities and differences among the genes, the scientists concluded that all descended from a single common gene 450 million years ago, before animals emerged from oceans onto land, before the evolution of bones.
Now there is some circular logic? It is possible these existed exclusive of one another. These "scientists" are as credible as the Koreans who claimed to have cloned people.
What happened was that a glitch produced two copies of the receptor gene in the animal's DNA, a not-uncommon occurrence in evolution. Then, for reasons not understood, two major mutations made one receptor sensitive just to cortisol, leading to the modern version of the stress hormone receptor. The other receptor became specialized for kidney regulation.
And this does not show cause at all. It is possible everything existed. So what? They are claiming that God couldn't have made those enzymes, or the manner in which they function.
We would not be here without God. He made everything, and the rules of the system. Our scientists are nothing more than looking at what God made and trying to understand how it works. Any scientist who denys God is not worthy of being a scientist.
There is nothing without God. What is the difference between a man who is alive one second, and dead the next second. The very second life ends??? The soul!!
Can good content beat Google's pagerank algorithm?
If the content is good, people will link to that page, thus boosting the Pagerank. That's the whole point...
That is not true. I could have 100 websites linked to my website, and it would mean less than having 1 incomming link from a website with a PR of 9.
I was looking at the incomming links to one sucessful DVD website. They had links from hidden places, that people could not see but Google could. For example, they had incomming links from real estate websites, a food service website, a bank. Obviously, someone paid money for those links to be hidden, maybe even had those websites hacked and the links added (same color text as the background, small text).
The other part of PR which does not make sense is they don't value reciprocal links. Why's that? If we both have Star Trek websites, why does Google penalize us if we link to each other? Why does Google want the links to only go one way (from you to me, or me to you, but not both ways)?
Anyone with time to read any of the half a dozen SEO forums can generate a page rank of 6.
Most SEO forums I see are nothing but BS. It is like the guy who tells you he made millions in real estate- and now he wants to make you rich by selling you his program for $99.95. I've spent days at SEO forums reading and trying to figure out what's going on. There is some meaningful guessing, lots of wild speculation, and a large dose of BS.
And once the algorithm is figured out, it is the exact opposite of what's needed to grow a community. Instead of spending time generating interest amoung like minded people, Google wants to see incomming links from larger websites. Try getting a website with a PR of 8+ to link to you. It is damn near impossible without paying them money.
That is unquestionably the most incomprehensible article summary I've ever read. What?
Behind all advertising is the system of tracking advertising. You need to know how much to pay a website for displaying your ad, and to verify a website gets as much traffic as they claim.
But what I would like to know is how the RSS feed scam worked. A year ago, someone found a way to get a top page listing on Yahoo by exploiting Yahoo's algorithm by using a RSS feed.
There are so many different algorithms, that maybe it is a good thing. Maybe what works for Google won't work for you, and you should be thankful that Yahoo uses something different. At the same time, it rewards creative people who can figure out the new algorithm, even if it screws all the surfers.
I have no clue what the original article is about. I have tried to understand SEO but it is a deep beast and the belly stinks so rotten I get headaches after a few hours of reading. AND 90% of the SEO information is bullshit, written by people who want to make money by tossing up a website and getting lots of traffic. Someone who knows a new exploit won't share, they will use it to make money without competition.
BUYER, BEWARE. It highlights what has become a growing worry for online advertisers: They may be overpaying for ads that show up on questionable sites and don't reach their intended audience.
I don't fully understand all the money in advertising. I knew a guy who threw up a website about telcom. He wrote a few articles about new technologies (digital versus analog, j2me versus other tech, etc), and copied a few from other places. He then spammed every blogger to get links to his website. And this guy was making $1,000+ a month from Google from people selling cell phone service plans.
On the flip side, when Google is used for searches, many of these "fake" pages come up in the listings. "Fake" webpages which are nothing more than keyword spamming with links to a commercial website.
Meanwhile, people who want to add original content which is meaningful gets pushed out of the rankings because they are not SEO experts. It is like money ruined search results because there is competition, not for good quality, but for advertising money.
How does Google respond? They sandbox all new domains for 6 months to 1 year. That screws new people, and protects the old. Why did Google do that? A local astronomy group purchased a domain, and they can't get listed on Google no matter what they try. Yahoo lists them, but Google won't.
And why does Google use a pagerank for listings- the weight on how many links a new website has, and how high the pagerank of the incomming links are? It gives too much power to large older websites. It is like a star trek fan website will have a better search listing if they get a link from tv.com, than from 4 or 5 other star trek fan websites (even though the fan websites might generate more interested people).
I would like to see people rewarded for content, not how many links they generate.
Does anyone here make good money from the internet? Is spamming and SEO required? Can good content beat Google's pagerank algorithm?
The project aims to make 'cheap' computers available to children in developing countries. In the article, Negroponte responds to the inevitable criticism from Intel and Microsoft, "When you have both Intel and Microsoft on your case, you know you're doing something right",
They are making a laptop that will cost $100, and perhaps $50 by 2010. Who cares about the specs, it will not be a buisness machine.
Even if they stuffed a PII 400 mhz and had a 12" screen, it would be very usefull. People could write reports, surf the web, and compile programs. When I was in school, I compiled Java programs on a PII266 without any problems. Sure, I could not run a fancy IDE, but it was good enough to get the job done.
I think a $100 laptop is important. The poor get screwed, and go without. Many poor families will be able to afford a $100 laptop. Also, if I was a charity with $5000 to give away, I would much rather give away 50 basic laptops than 5 thousand dollar laptops.
Why do we need a.xxx domain anyway? Will it make easier for people to block these sites?
Why shouldn't companies have the right to block XXX sites? And wouldn't parents like to block XXX websites? They pay for the internet connection, shouldn't they be able to filter obscene content?
You can't get into them unless you pay anyway. Is it better for categorization? All the other sites are in 2-3 TLDs. I just don't see what this would help.
That is not true. Lots of porn is freely available in the.com world. Heck almost all websites that try and sell porn offer samples. By moving that to.xxx, they could remove all porn sales from.com.
Too bad they can not have a.spam domain for all the crap cluttering up.com.
Actually, I did stop going to theaters... and advertising was one of the reasons. When Star Theaters started showing ads, I stopped going there and only went to AMC. Unfortunately AMC started showing ads too a few months later. I occasionally still make it to a theater for a movie that I want to see on the big screen (LoTR, Star Wars, etc)... But other than that, nope, don't really like the theaters anymore. Add in the insanely high ticket prices and the adolescents that just can't stop talking about so and so and their boyfriend and ohmygod and it's a real blast:)
Unfortunately, it didn't seem to make any difference, as I hear that they still run those commercials @ the beginning. So yes, we're out there... we're just outnumbered by idiots:) And it seems as though society nowadays has moved away from "survival of the fittest" to something more like "survival of the dumbest"...
The theater chains say people like the advertising. I have an idea. If people like the advertising so much, why not show it at the end of the movie? LOL. How many would stay in their seats to watch the advertising?
I don't go to the theaters very often. I mostly go to second run theaters, because they are mom and pop run, and they don't play advertising. They also charge about $2 per movie, and a popcorn costs half as much as the mega chain theaters. The second run theaters play the same movies, just two months later.
Recently, one of the second run theaters started playing advertising, but in a different way. It was a slide show, with no audio, and it advertised local buisnesses, not Toyota or some cell phone carrier. And they were all slides- one slide was a picture of a realtors buisness card. Another slide was a picture of a pizza resturant. What made those ad's okay is they were not intrusive. The lights were not turned off. There was no audio blasting. And they only played them for a few minutes, not 20 minutes. It was still possible to chat with the group you came with, while waiting for the movie to start.
This will probably encourage the trend of people listening to music or talking on the phone *all the time*, in this case just so they don't have to hear the advertisements. I fail to see how this could be successful.
We brought this upon ourselves.
Where were the people who complained when movie theaters started showing commercials before a movie starts? Where are the people who complained when theaters expanded these commercials to over 20 minutes before a movie starts? Did anyone stop going to the theater?
Did anyone stop shopping at stores that plastered advertising in the parking lot? You know, the shopping centers that started installing advertising, like rotating posters telling you where to shop? Did anyone boycott stores that used that form of advertising?
Or are people sheep? Do you see a coke product, not as traditional advertising, but as a product placement in a movie, and you go and buy it? Will you buy pizza hut pizza if you see Jessica Simpson eat it in a movie. Do you think eating that pizza will give you her body? Or do you think that drinking a budwiser beer will turn you into a sports star?
Did anyone stop buying from a company that has no humans in their call centers? Did we say it is okay to be on hold for 30 minutes, while we listen to advertising, while trying to get the automated system to help up with a product we PAID for?
Come on, we are the problem. They will keep selling us crap if we keep buying it. They will keep invading our sensibilities if we allow it.
What is next? Will AT&T change the service agreement, so before each phone call, we will have to listen to a short 30 second recording... "This phone call was brought to you by Sam Adams, always a good chioce. Thank you for using AT&T, your call will now be completed".
And the amazing things is, the programmer and the MBA type were able to remain friends.
No necessarily.. The Firing may have been more friendly than it looked like on the surface. Perhaps the Programmer guy had done all the programming he wanted to do and wasn't that interested in being a manager.
He might have also been able to see that the company was headed for the big red ink pool sooner or later. (despite what MBA types may thinks, most programmers can spin circles around them when it comes to crunching the numbers -- especially if they have the necessary inside data).
If the MBA type gave the programmer a golden enough handshake with the 'firing', I can see the programmer being very happy about being 'fired', and then being able to sit back and watch the MBA captain the ship into Davy Jones' locker.
You have to watch the movie, it was pretty good.
The programmer did not want to be pushed out. There was tension because the MBA wanted more advanced programmers, and didn't want to have the lead programmer be the founder. The founder would tell the programming staff to do one thing, and the founding programmer would have the staff do something else.
It all boiled over when the MBA type was set to fire the programmer, and told the programmer to take a few weeks off. The programmer was walking out the building and called his lawyer for advice. The lawyer said "Get back to work now! Don't leave, don't take a vacation, get back and don't agree to anything". To make a long story short, the MBA was able to push the founding programmer out. There was a scene of the programmer as he was leaving the building, and he was misty eyed and sad. The MBA went as far as changing all the locks. And when the programmer tried to return to his office, security threw him out of the building.
The interesting thing is the timeline and when they cashed out.
The founder who cashed out the first chance he had, ended up with more money than the founding programmer who wanted to stay with the company forever. That founder who cashed out tried to destroy the company, telling anyone who would listen that he would sue if they did not pay him a sevrence package he wanted. This was right before getting more VC, and the MBA type crumbled and paid. He could not risk losing VC. But the programmer, who was loyal and made it all happen, he got the least. He was pushed out when the MBA type wanted different programmers.
The world may close up tight. Imagine the day when different countries have different laws about how DRM can work. What is legal in the USA might be illegal in France. And what is legal in Canada might be illegal in England. China might decide to have government controlled DRM, a phone home system that tells government what you're installing and what you're doing. It might be somewhat easier for people to break the law, but when the law is directed at a company, the company must comply or shut down.
I know in this instance France wants Apple to open their DRM. But who is to say that another state might want to close DRM?
What we might end up with is worse than DVD's that are region coded. We might get the hardware that is region specific, and no other method of opening data (music, files, movies).
I think the world will move in that direction. What other reason would Sony or Universal have for forcing regions with DVD's? Why are they opposed of me buying movies from Spain or Germany? And if a company is so paranoid, just imagine nation-states that are worried their culture is being corroded away.
He was reassigned. He won't need to come into the office. He can do this job from home. Call it early retirement, but without pension.
This reminds me of a movie Startup.Com (http://imdb.com/title/tt0256408/). It was about a couple guys who had an idea- to have a website that sold city services. Instead of going to the city to buy a license plate sticker, they sold it on-line. Want to pay a parking ticket? Do it at their website. Good idea.
So, early on, one of the founders decides to cash in for a couple hundred thousand. His strategy was, be a founder but as soon as the company gets any VC money, that he will cash out. He also threatened the group with lawsuits if they did not pay him what he wanted. Everyone agreed, he was the prick who wanted money the first chance he could get it.
Of the 2 founders left, one was a MBA type, and the other was the programmer. So the MBA type did all the dealings with VC, he designed the company structure, everything. While the company was making money hand over fist, everyone was happy. The MBA type even shelled out for a vacation for ALL his employees, over a 100.
But the moment competition showed its ugly head, and profits were threatened, guess who got fired? The MBA type fired his best friend, the programmer. They talked about how they loved each other. I guess money is thicker than freindship.
So, what is the smart thing to do? Be the guy who cashes out in under a year? Be the guy who designs and programs the system but gets screwed? Be the MBA type who manages the company?
I think the company eventually went bankrupt. And the amazing things is, the programmer and the MBA type were able to remain friends.
If you were in the same class as me, I would prevent you from using your laptop. I can't think with clicking noises. I paid for that class too, and I have a right to learn just as much as you do.
What if those clicking noises helped me to think? Surely I have as much right as you?
What really helps me think is talking to the people sitting next to me. Don't I have a right to talk with them about what the professor is speaking about? Or do you have a right to be in a class with no disruptions?
I'll give a perfect example. Chem lab was set for 3 hours. Some students could finish in 1 hour, while others took all 3 hours. I wanted to be one of the students who was done in an hour. So rather than listen to the professor give his pre-lab lecture, I want to talk with my lab partner about how we're going to do the lab. But the problem is the dang people sitting around us would complain because they could not concentrate. Who's rights are most important? The whole class? Or my rights to learn as best fits my needs?
And what about those professors who say "no food or drink in my class"? What if I need a little more energy than the rest of the class? Can't I take a healthy bowl of curry veggies to class? Sure, it will fill the room with a beautiful smell, and some might be distracted by the smell, but it helps me learn the best.
The point is, when alone, we can learn any way we wish. But in a class, the teacher has a responsibility to each student. Otherwise we will have a class with 2 people clicking their keyboard, another 2 having a conversation in the corver, a fifth guy with curry fried veggies, and a sixth with his I-Pod playing tunes while reading the handouts. If that is the case, why not just videotape the professor giving his lecture, and have everyone study at home? The professor can keep office hours where each student gets 1 hour of questions a week.
Its been my experiance that professors tend to enforce certain rules to satisfy their pet peeves.
That is true, there are good professors and bad ones. When I was in college, student government started a "review" for teachers. The student government office had a box filled with index cards, where students could write reviews of classes and teachers. After a year, when professors started to notice that some classes could not get any students, and others were overbooked, the university banned the professor reviews by students. I guess teachers with bad reviews and empty classrooms complained.
Some profs care if you attend, others don't -- regardless of whether you learn more while in class or not.
I've seen this split between departments, and it is logical. You can not miss a science class or lab and understand the material. It is impossible to learn a labratory experience at home. But when it comes to History or Sociology, you can read the book and take the exam. It is never a waste of time to show up for class.
I always hated when they tried to make me learn "their way".
I agree. Colleges are filled with professors who have PhD's, but they don't know how to teach. A highschool teacher needs to be certified, and they change teaching methods to reflect newer trends in education. Why shouldn't a college professor do the same?
For example, what if one student learns well by reading, and seeing. Another learnes by conceptualizing. And a third learns best by listening. A teacher who stands in front of the class and talks for an hour is only reaching 1 of those learning methods. But a teacher who gives a lecture, while using visual aids, and stopping every now and then to give questions and illustrate points will reach all three.
Or better yet, why not give a small test to new students that informs the student what learning style they are using. Then classify courses as to what style the teacher employs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that would help. They can nail you for sharing files, even if the people you are sharing with are outside the USA. I don't believe law enforcement has to prove the other party downloaded anything, just that you were sharing.
What if someone in Germany was sharing a popular MP3. I download it in the USA. Does that make it less of a crime than if I downloaded it from someone sharing in the USA.
But to the point. These laws are stupid. File sharing is no different than what many people did in the 80's when they made tapes of music and shared it. Or taped music off the radio. I remember when radio stations used to not speak when a song started, so you could make a good copy. Now, the RIAA is going nuts and calling it theft. I always believed theft is those guys who profit selling pirated copies. But giving it away for free because you liked a song is not the same thing. Too bad the law disagrees with me. It makes me believe the RIAA used lots of cash to buy legislators to vote their way, after all, running an election is expensive.
If you ask me, the RIAA is a bunch of jackholes. Long before they started suing, they invaded the p2p networks and made available bad copies of mp3's. People would download them, and then realize it was 3 minutes of a screeching sound. I stopped buying music around that time and I remind myself just how friendly those big music companies are. I guess it wasn't good enough when I used to buy CD's and listen to the occasional MP3 on-line. Now they can live without my money.
And look at the trends with television viewing. Everything is going digital, so you won't be able to make a copy of anything. No more VHS, even TiVo is having a new flag which will force anything recorded to be deleted in 7 days (if the station uses the flag). And to top it off, when you want to fast forward commercials, guess what TiVo does? A pop up box with an advertisment is shows. Geez, isn't that why I'm fast forwarding. Lets face it, we live in a world where movie theaters force us to watch 30 minutes of commercials before they start the movie we payed $10 to see with the $6 popcorn and $6 soda. And when the DVD comes out, we are forced to watch previews of the FBI warning screen without the ability to fastforward. And a year later, the same DVD is released with special features.
They exists to rip us off. If they just wanted sales, they would treat the customer with respect. But there are too many people, and there is always someone willing to buy.
Imagine this. You have some 19 or 20 year old college student in China who wants democoracy. He is not a computer whiz, but he finds software written by 3 programmers from the USA. These programmers say their software will circumvent government censorship.
What choices does the 19 year old Chinese college student have? Say he uses the software expecting to hide his identity, and the government discovers who he is. Does that make the software programers wrong for releasing the software? In the USA, if someone purchases software that doesn't live up to the hype, they can return it. In China, that guy is dead or in jail.
Now if no such software existed, the guy in China couldn't get into trouble. It would require more thought, and better orginization than just installing some software.
I'm just saying if someone is going to throw out a tool for people to use, which a government says is illegal, those people making the tool should be damn sure the tool works.
This goes to a deeper discussion of how much right does one culture have a right to change a different culture. Maybe in China most people really want communism. But 10% want democoracy. Should the USA help those 10% to overthrow the system of government in China, and to destabilize their economy?
I'm not a historian, but most stable countries that changed systems of government had a revolt which originated by native people. In France, it was the working class that overthrew the nobility. In the USA, it was farmers and working people who overthrew the british. In neither case was the revolution inspired or promoted by a forigen power. Sure, the people found friends and allies, but the allies didn't cause the revolution. Now contrast to Iraq where the USA is the source of the revolution. There are not enough Iraqi people who believe in USA values to sustane any form of stable government. That is the reason outside nations should not interfear.
Now, what if the government of China finds people using the software these three USA programmers wrote. China find this software violates their laws. Can China arrest those programmers. Or send operatives to kill them? The Israelis often send mussad agents to track and assasinate people who are not friendly to their nation.
It seems to me to be an unfreindly move by the USA to help dissadents in China.
Those comp sci students better know what they are doing. If someone gets caught using their software to circumvent government censorship, people could die. People have gone to jail for dozens of years for saying the wrong thing.
This is not one world where all people believe the same things. One nation should be allowed to keep its culture, even if another nation disagrees. IF there are stupid laws in china, then it is up to the chinese to have a revolt or change of government. Iraq has taught us that an outside power can't change a people or their culture. No matter what laws the USA or UN or new Iraqi government passes, they will never take precedence over their religious laws.
Imagine if the people of amsterdam decided that drugs should be more available in the USA. Should they help Americans break the law inside the borders of the USA? The government of the USA has assasinated heads of state for not complying with USA drug laws, and imprisioned for life the former head of state Manuel Noriega.
That is something most employers are doing. When hired, the human resources officer says your gaurenteed 15 minutes of paid break time for every 4 hours, gaurenteed by federal law. But as soon as the HR person is gone, the manager of the department says you don't get any breaks. It is like the legal department tells the left hand one thing, and the right hand another. Just as long as the company prints the policy on paper, they can do anything in practice. Who's going to risk a job over two 15 minute breaks?
It reminds me of a job I had before college, in a factory. There were OSHA posters everywhere about what the law required. But nobody did it the OSHA way, unless there was an inspection. It was done the way the person signing the check wanted. I saw people get fired for complaining about not wanting to do a job an unsafe way. I only stayed there a year, but I did notice many white workers who were paid $12-13 an hour were being replaced with mexicans who spoke broken english and one told me he was paid $7 an hour. The mexicans didn't give a crap about OSHA. How does that translate to IT? Well, I guess it is the equivelent of watching your job go to India.
We gotta do it the way the company owner wants, or he'll relocate out of the USA and there will be no jobs. What alternative is there?
My last job with internet access came with restrictive software that blocked most websites the company didn't want employees visiting. There was no news websites, no sports, no entertainment, no shopping. The company also activly added new websites to the filter when the IT people noticed surfing that wasn't explained by a company need. That seems like the better option than telling employees "don't surf". Instead, most people brought a copy of the local newspaper to read.
No.
I don't use livejournal or myspace or any website like that. I don't understand the allure of putting embarrasing photo's on the web, and telling the world about the time I puked in the backseat of my friends car. I figure that employers and anyone can search and find that info.
LJ is a cheap alternative to people who don't want to spend $5 to buy their own domain name and put up a website. Lets face it, that would be 100 times better than livejournal. There would be no restrictions on what you could do. If you wanted to share with the world a mp3 of a song you like, you could do that on your own website. You wouldn't get 100's of people viewing your website searching for something funny or a naked chick, but then would you want everyone to? Maybe you just want a place where friends can have access?
Livejournal is also filled with pages of "If you see this as the first post.... you know what to do". They are kind of annoying. There is nothing interesting on LJ.
I guess what we need is lots of replies with links to interesting livejournal accounts. Lets see the best of livejournal. Is there anything good there?
Show me the profiles of people that might be later used to screw them out of a job or used by over zelous prosecutors.
Lets see all those profiles with crime and pictures from spring break.
Facebook is a closed system, not just anyone can look. They require a valid college email address to join, and then limit whos profile you can see. How do the police get around those limits, and see ALL the profiles?
What good is facebook if a police officer graduated from Western Michigan University, but the profile with the incrimination evidence is posted under the profile of someone who went to Michigan State University?
Does Facebook sell accounts that the police and employers can purchase to view all profiles?
God made everything. When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God. And we should admit that science is wrong 99% of the time. Much of what was accepted as scientific fact 100 years ago is now false, just like what was accepted as scientific fact 200 years ago was disproved 100 years ago.
But God has been here FOREVER!! He has been proven to be true. Unlike any other religion or science, God sent Jesus here. Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians. And there were thousands of witnesses to miracles he performed, and that he rose from the dead. That should be proof enough that God created everything.
After looking at the genes that produced them, and comparing the genes' similarities and differences among the genes, the scientists concluded that all descended from a single common gene 450 million years ago, before animals emerged from oceans onto land, before the evolution of bones.
Now there is some circular logic? It is possible these existed exclusive of one another. These "scientists" are as credible as the Koreans who claimed to have cloned people.
What happened was that a glitch produced two copies of the receptor gene in the animal's DNA, a not-uncommon occurrence in evolution. Then, for reasons not understood, two major mutations made one receptor sensitive just to cortisol, leading to the modern version of the stress hormone receptor. The other receptor became specialized for kidney regulation.
And this does not show cause at all. It is possible everything existed. So what? They are claiming that God couldn't have made those enzymes, or the manner in which they function.
We would not be here without God. He made everything, and the rules of the system. Our scientists are nothing more than looking at what God made and trying to understand how it works. Any scientist who denys God is not worthy of being a scientist.
There is nothing without God. What is the difference between a man who is alive one second, and dead the next second. The very second life ends??? The soul!!
If the content is good, people will link to that page, thus boosting the Pagerank. That's the whole point...
That is not true. I could have 100 websites linked to my website, and it would mean less than having 1 incomming link from a website with a PR of 9.
I was looking at the incomming links to one sucessful DVD website. They had links from hidden places, that people could not see but Google could. For example, they had incomming links from real estate websites, a food service website, a bank. Obviously, someone paid money for those links to be hidden, maybe even had those websites hacked and the links added (same color text as the background, small text).
The other part of PR which does not make sense is they don't value reciprocal links. Why's that? If we both have Star Trek websites, why does Google penalize us if we link to each other? Why does Google want the links to only go one way (from you to me, or me to you, but not both ways)?
Most SEO forums I see are nothing but BS. It is like the guy who tells you he made millions in real estate- and now he wants to make you rich by selling you his program for $99.95. I've spent days at SEO forums reading and trying to figure out what's going on. There is some meaningful guessing, lots of wild speculation, and a large dose of BS.
And once the algorithm is figured out, it is the exact opposite of what's needed to grow a community. Instead of spending time generating interest amoung like minded people, Google wants to see incomming links from larger websites. Try getting a website with a PR of 8+ to link to you. It is damn near impossible without paying them money.
Behind all advertising is the system of tracking advertising. You need to know how much to pay a website for displaying your ad, and to verify a website gets as much traffic as they claim.
But what I would like to know is how the RSS feed scam worked. A year ago, someone found a way to get a top page listing on Yahoo by exploiting Yahoo's algorithm by using a RSS feed.
There are so many different algorithms, that maybe it is a good thing. Maybe what works for Google won't work for you, and you should be thankful that Yahoo uses something different. At the same time, it rewards creative people who can figure out the new algorithm, even if it screws all the surfers.
I have no clue what the original article is about. I have tried to understand SEO but it is a deep beast and the belly stinks so rotten I get headaches after a few hours of reading. AND 90% of the SEO information is bullshit, written by people who want to make money by tossing up a website and getting lots of traffic. Someone who knows a new exploit won't share, they will use it to make money without competition.
I don't fully understand all the money in advertising. I knew a guy who threw up a website about telcom. He wrote a few articles about new technologies (digital versus analog, j2me versus other tech, etc), and copied a few from other places. He then spammed every blogger to get links to his website. And this guy was making $1,000+ a month from Google from people selling cell phone service plans.
On the flip side, when Google is used for searches, many of these "fake" pages come up in the listings. "Fake" webpages which are nothing more than keyword spamming with links to a commercial website.
Meanwhile, people who want to add original content which is meaningful gets pushed out of the rankings because they are not SEO experts. It is like money ruined search results because there is competition, not for good quality, but for advertising money.
How does Google respond? They sandbox all new domains for 6 months to 1 year. That screws new people, and protects the old. Why did Google do that? A local astronomy group purchased a domain, and they can't get listed on Google no matter what they try. Yahoo lists them, but Google won't.
And why does Google use a pagerank for listings- the weight on how many links a new website has, and how high the pagerank of the incomming links are? It gives too much power to large older websites. It is like a star trek fan website will have a better search listing if they get a link from tv.com, than from 4 or 5 other star trek fan websites (even though the fan websites might generate more interested people).
I would like to see people rewarded for content, not how many links they generate.
Does anyone here make good money from the internet? Is spamming and SEO required? Can good content beat Google's pagerank algorithm?
They are making a laptop that will cost $100, and perhaps $50 by 2010. Who cares about the specs, it will not be a buisness machine.
Even if they stuffed a PII 400 mhz and had a 12" screen, it would be very usefull. People could write reports, surf the web, and compile programs. When I was in school, I compiled Java programs on a PII266 without any problems. Sure, I could not run a fancy IDE, but it was good enough to get the job done.
I think a $100 laptop is important. The poor get screwed, and go without. Many poor families will be able to afford a $100 laptop. Also, if I was a charity with $5000 to give away, I would much rather give away 50 basic laptops than 5 thousand dollar laptops.
Why shouldn't companies have the right to block XXX sites? And wouldn't parents like to block XXX websites? They pay for the internet connection, shouldn't they be able to filter obscene content?
You can't get into them unless you pay anyway. Is it better for categorization? All the other sites are in 2-3 TLDs. I just don't see what this would help.
That is not true. Lots of porn is freely available in the .com world. Heck almost all websites that try and sell porn offer samples. By moving that to .xxx, they could remove all porn sales from .com.
Too bad they can not have a .spam domain for all the crap cluttering up .com.
Unfortunately, it didn't seem to make any difference, as I hear that they still run those commercials @ the beginning. So yes, we're out there... we're just outnumbered by idiots :) And it seems as though society nowadays has moved away from "survival of the fittest" to something more like "survival of the dumbest"...
The theater chains say people like the advertising. I have an idea. If people like the advertising so much, why not show it at the end of the movie? LOL. How many would stay in their seats to watch the advertising?
I don't go to the theaters very often. I mostly go to second run theaters, because they are mom and pop run, and they don't play advertising. They also charge about $2 per movie, and a popcorn costs half as much as the mega chain theaters. The second run theaters play the same movies, just two months later.
Recently, one of the second run theaters started playing advertising, but in a different way. It was a slide show, with no audio, and it advertised local buisnesses, not Toyota or some cell phone carrier. And they were all slides- one slide was a picture of a realtors buisness card. Another slide was a picture of a pizza resturant. What made those ad's okay is they were not intrusive. The lights were not turned off. There was no audio blasting. And they only played them for a few minutes, not 20 minutes. It was still possible to chat with the group you came with, while waiting for the movie to start.
We brought this upon ourselves.
Where were the people who complained when movie theaters started showing commercials before a movie starts? Where are the people who complained when theaters expanded these commercials to over 20 minutes before a movie starts? Did anyone stop going to the theater?
Did anyone stop shopping at stores that plastered advertising in the parking lot? You know, the shopping centers that started installing advertising, like rotating posters telling you where to shop? Did anyone boycott stores that used that form of advertising?
Or are people sheep? Do you see a coke product, not as traditional advertising, but as a product placement in a movie, and you go and buy it? Will you buy pizza hut pizza if you see Jessica Simpson eat it in a movie. Do you think eating that pizza will give you her body? Or do you think that drinking a budwiser beer will turn you into a sports star?
Did anyone stop buying from a company that has no humans in their call centers? Did we say it is okay to be on hold for 30 minutes, while we listen to advertising, while trying to get the automated system to help up with a product we PAID for?
Come on, we are the problem. They will keep selling us crap if we keep buying it. They will keep invading our sensibilities if we allow it.
What is next? Will AT&T change the service agreement, so before each phone call, we will have to listen to a short 30 second recording... "This phone call was brought to you by Sam Adams, always a good chioce. Thank you for using AT&T, your call will now be completed".
He might have also been able to see that the company was headed for the big red ink pool sooner or later. (despite what MBA types may thinks, most programmers can spin circles around them when it comes to crunching the numbers -- especially if they have the necessary inside data).
If the MBA type gave the programmer a golden enough handshake with the 'firing', I can see the programmer being very happy about being 'fired', and then being able to sit back and watch the MBA captain the ship into Davy Jones' locker.
You have to watch the movie, it was pretty good.
The programmer did not want to be pushed out. There was tension because the MBA wanted more advanced programmers, and didn't want to have the lead programmer be the founder. The founder would tell the programming staff to do one thing, and the founding programmer would have the staff do something else.
It all boiled over when the MBA type was set to fire the programmer, and told the programmer to take a few weeks off. The programmer was walking out the building and called his lawyer for advice. The lawyer said "Get back to work now! Don't leave, don't take a vacation, get back and don't agree to anything". To make a long story short, the MBA was able to push the founding programmer out. There was a scene of the programmer as he was leaving the building, and he was misty eyed and sad. The MBA went as far as changing all the locks. And when the programmer tried to return to his office, security threw him out of the building.
The interesting thing is the timeline and when they cashed out.
The founder who cashed out the first chance he had, ended up with more money than the founding programmer who wanted to stay with the company forever. That founder who cashed out tried to destroy the company, telling anyone who would listen that he would sue if they did not pay him a sevrence package he wanted. This was right before getting more VC, and the MBA type crumbled and paid. He could not risk losing VC. But the programmer, who was loyal and made it all happen, he got the least. He was pushed out when the MBA type wanted different programmers.
It is a good flick to rent. Check it out.
I know in this instance France wants Apple to open their DRM. But who is to say that another state might want to close DRM?
What we might end up with is worse than DVD's that are region coded. We might get the hardware that is region specific, and no other method of opening data (music, files, movies).
I think the world will move in that direction. What other reason would Sony or Universal have for forcing regions with DVD's? Why are they opposed of me buying movies from Spain or Germany? And if a company is so paranoid, just imagine nation-states that are worried their culture is being corroded away.
This reminds me of a movie Startup.Com (http://imdb.com/title/tt0256408/). It was about a couple guys who had an idea- to have a website that sold city services. Instead of going to the city to buy a license plate sticker, they sold it on-line. Want to pay a parking ticket? Do it at their website. Good idea.
So, early on, one of the founders decides to cash in for a couple hundred thousand. His strategy was, be a founder but as soon as the company gets any VC money, that he will cash out. He also threatened the group with lawsuits if they did not pay him what he wanted. Everyone agreed, he was the prick who wanted money the first chance he could get it.
Of the 2 founders left, one was a MBA type, and the other was the programmer. So the MBA type did all the dealings with VC, he designed the company structure, everything. While the company was making money hand over fist, everyone was happy. The MBA type even shelled out for a vacation for ALL his employees, over a 100.
But the moment competition showed its ugly head, and profits were threatened, guess who got fired? The MBA type fired his best friend, the programmer. They talked about how they loved each other. I guess money is thicker than freindship.
So, what is the smart thing to do? Be the guy who cashes out in under a year? Be the guy who designs and programs the system but gets screwed? Be the MBA type who manages the company?
I think the company eventually went bankrupt. And the amazing things is, the programmer and the MBA type were able to remain friends.
I would have kicked his ass...
What if those clicking noises helped me to think? Surely I have as much right as you?
What really helps me think is talking to the people sitting next to me. Don't I have a right to talk with them about what the professor is speaking about? Or do you have a right to be in a class with no disruptions?
I'll give a perfect example. Chem lab was set for 3 hours. Some students could finish in 1 hour, while others took all 3 hours. I wanted to be one of the students who was done in an hour. So rather than listen to the professor give his pre-lab lecture, I want to talk with my lab partner about how we're going to do the lab. But the problem is the dang people sitting around us would complain because they could not concentrate. Who's rights are most important? The whole class? Or my rights to learn as best fits my needs?
And what about those professors who say "no food or drink in my class"? What if I need a little more energy than the rest of the class? Can't I take a healthy bowl of curry veggies to class? Sure, it will fill the room with a beautiful smell, and some might be distracted by the smell, but it helps me learn the best.
The point is, when alone, we can learn any way we wish. But in a class, the teacher has a responsibility to each student. Otherwise we will have a class with 2 people clicking their keyboard, another 2 having a conversation in the corver, a fifth guy with curry fried veggies, and a sixth with his I-Pod playing tunes while reading the handouts. If that is the case, why not just videotape the professor giving his lecture, and have everyone study at home? The professor can keep office hours where each student gets 1 hour of questions a week.
That is true, there are good professors and bad ones. When I was in college, student government started a "review" for teachers. The student government office had a box filled with index cards, where students could write reviews of classes and teachers. After a year, when professors started to notice that some classes could not get any students, and others were overbooked, the university banned the professor reviews by students. I guess teachers with bad reviews and empty classrooms complained.
Some profs care if you attend, others don't -- regardless of whether you learn more while in class or not.
I've seen this split between departments, and it is logical. You can not miss a science class or lab and understand the material. It is impossible to learn a labratory experience at home. But when it comes to History or Sociology, you can read the book and take the exam. It is never a waste of time to show up for class.
I always hated when they tried to make me learn "their way".
I agree. Colleges are filled with professors who have PhD's, but they don't know how to teach. A highschool teacher needs to be certified, and they change teaching methods to reflect newer trends in education. Why shouldn't a college professor do the same?
For example, what if one student learns well by reading, and seeing. Another learnes by conceptualizing. And a third learns best by listening. A teacher who stands in front of the class and talks for an hour is only reaching 1 of those learning methods. But a teacher who gives a lecture, while using visual aids, and stopping every now and then to give questions and illustrate points will reach all three.
Or better yet, why not give a small test to new students that informs the student what learning style they are using. Then classify courses as to what style the teacher employs.