I highly doubt such a thing would be possible. Otherwise, then YouTube could also be held liable for any infringement that happens, because presumably they filter the videos beforehand for copyrighted material.
Nope. One can release just the engine/source code under the GPL, and keep the art assets and stuff under a different licence, or not license them at all. id does this with all of their game engines.
Selling it is illegal, but not for the reason you said. The pirated Lugaru was distributed with the original art assets, which were released under a different license that does not allow distribution for commercial purposes.
Who says we're looking for the total overthrow of the US Government? We're asking for a change in our representation and leadership. And we've been peaceably doing that for over 200 years.
Freedom to travel is a right. Driving is not, however. There are plenty of other ways to get where you want to go. Buses, taxis, bicycles, trains, planes, etc.
Is it really an invasion of privacy if no one else is notified of it? It doesn't report you to the authorities, it just stops the engine from starting. I agree there are other problems with the system, but privacy is not one of them.
They're the only ones who can really do Outlook/Exchange integration, not to mention the rest of Office.
See, I think the way to capitalize on this is to make apps for Outlook and Office on every mobile platform. There are millions of people who would pay upwards of $20 to get Office on their iOS or Android device. Rumor has it that $20 is about what MS is licensing out WP7 for. Instead of putting all those resources into creating a new OS, and working with hardware, etc, they could just bring Office to everything else. They don't have to compete with Apple and Google, and no matter which of them wins, MS wins.
Since the European countries have voluntarily demoted themselves to "member states" they no longer count.
Complete bullshit on your part to make your argument seem the least bit plausible. Ok.
I also left out any other country which is so small, that the US State of Alaska is bigger than them. Like to like. I only listed countries that spanned all or most of a continent, for the same reason you compare yellow apples to red apples, not oranges or grapes or peanuts.
So in a comparison within the US, you'd leave out states like Rhode Island, and New Jersey, right? I mean, they aren't relevant when talking about California and Texas, right?
Also, it doesn't matter if they have some service there or not. All that matters is if the ISP is currently providing the desired level of service. If they are either unwilling or unable to do so, then they should get the hell out of the way and let someone who can do it.
If there is no profit in providing service to a town, why should a private corporation spend the money to provide that service?
The problem isn't that there's NO profit in doing so, its that there isn't ENOUGH profit for them. However, they should be legally barred from interfering with anyone else that chooses to, even if that is the local municipality. The past few years are full of stories where the local telcom was happy to keep people on shitty service, but then went ape shit when those people decided they wanted better and tried to do it themselves.
So why aren't those ancient cables being upgraded? Why shouldn't the telco be required to either upgrade the cables, or sell them off to someone who will? Or at the very least, not bitch when the locality decides to tell them to fuck off and lay upgraded cable themselves.
If their backend can't handle the demands of the users, who are only using WHAT THEY PAID FOR, then that's solely the ISP's fault, and they need to upgrade their backend.
Your numbers are wrong. Well, they aren't incorrect per se, however, you did cherry pick those numbers. You left out a shit ton of other countries. In real terms, we're about 31st on the list.
Telling people to move is a cop out. Its not like your surfing analogy. Its not possible to move the oceans. However, it is possible to provide high quality broadband to rural areas.
See, the problem is, they haven't tried it. Of course now they think that the current state of affairs is peachy. "Why would I want news on demand when I can get it from the paper?" "Why would I want movies on demand when I can just watch whatever the local station says I should watch?"
Why the fuck would you want to do that? That idea is just retarded.
However, connecting San Diego, California, to Vancouver, BC, with high speed rail, stopping in the major points along the way, that would make sense. As would connecting many of the other regional areas like the Eastern Seaboard, the Upper Midwest, and the South West.
The problem is, without that push, its likely your ISP will decide to just let their equipment stagnate, instead of continually investing in their equipment. As more media moves to the internet, and more people have multiple internet connected devices in their house, more bandwidth is needed to take advantage of it. So yeah, you're happy with your service now. But what about 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road? Would you prefer your ISP started making their improvements now, or after your connection becomes inadequate?
I don't see why Verizon shouldn't be made to maintain those lines. They don't have to run FIOS through there, but they should be made to maintain the lines such that decent connectivity can be had. Otherwise sell it off.
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt such a thing would be possible. Otherwise, then YouTube could also be held liable for any infringement that happens, because presumably they filter the videos beforehand for copyrighted material.
Nope. One can release just the engine/source code under the GPL, and keep the art assets and stuff under a different licence, or not license them at all. id does this with all of their game engines.
Selling it is illegal, but not for the reason you said. The pirated Lugaru was distributed with the original art assets, which were released under a different license that does not allow distribution for commercial purposes.
Who says we're looking for the total overthrow of the US Government? We're asking for a change in our representation and leadership. And we've been peaceably doing that for over 200 years.
Freedom to travel is a right. Driving is not, however. There are plenty of other ways to get where you want to go. Buses, taxis, bicycles, trains, planes, etc.
I like how your post was full of "Me, me, me." "I did this" and "I did that". Completely ignoring that there are other people in the world.
Is it really an invasion of privacy if no one else is notified of it? It doesn't report you to the authorities, it just stops the engine from starting. I agree there are other problems with the system, but privacy is not one of them.
They're the only ones who can really do Outlook/Exchange integration, not to mention the rest of Office.
See, I think the way to capitalize on this is to make apps for Outlook and Office on every mobile platform. There are millions of people who would pay upwards of $20 to get Office on their iOS or Android device. Rumor has it that $20 is about what MS is licensing out WP7 for. Instead of putting all those resources into creating a new OS, and working with hardware, etc, they could just bring Office to everything else. They don't have to compete with Apple and Google, and no matter which of them wins, MS wins.
Since the European countries have voluntarily demoted themselves to "member states" they no longer count.
Complete bullshit on your part to make your argument seem the least bit plausible. Ok.
I also left out any other country which is so small, that the US State of Alaska is bigger than them. Like to like. I only listed countries that spanned all or most of a continent, for the same reason you compare yellow apples to red apples, not oranges or grapes or peanuts.
So in a comparison within the US, you'd leave out states like Rhode Island, and New Jersey, right? I mean, they aren't relevant when talking about California and Texas, right?
Also, it doesn't matter if they have some service there or not. All that matters is if the ISP is currently providing the desired level of service. If they are either unwilling or unable to do so, then they should get the hell out of the way and let someone who can do it.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention these last few years. Google Monticello, MN, and Wilson, NC, and be enlightened.
If there is no profit in providing service to a town, why should a private corporation spend the money to provide that service?
The problem isn't that there's NO profit in doing so, its that there isn't ENOUGH profit for them. However, they should be legally barred from interfering with anyone else that chooses to, even if that is the local municipality. The past few years are full of stories where the local telcom was happy to keep people on shitty service, but then went ape shit when those people decided they wanted better and tried to do it themselves.
[Citation Needed]
So why aren't those ancient cables being upgraded? Why shouldn't the telco be required to either upgrade the cables, or sell them off to someone who will? Or at the very least, not bitch when the locality decides to tell them to fuck off and lay upgraded cable themselves.
If their backend can't handle the demands of the users, who are only using WHAT THEY PAID FOR, then that's solely the ISP's fault, and they need to upgrade their backend.
Your numbers are wrong. Well, they aren't incorrect per se, however, you did cherry pick those numbers. You left out a shit ton of other countries. In real terms, we're about 31st on the list.
Telling people to move is a cop out. Its not like your surfing analogy. Its not possible to move the oceans. However, it is possible to provide high quality broadband to rural areas.
See, the problem is, they haven't tried it. Of course now they think that the current state of affairs is peachy. "Why would I want news on demand when I can get it from the paper?" "Why would I want movies on demand when I can just watch whatever the local station says I should watch?"
Why the fuck would you want to do that? That idea is just retarded.
However, connecting San Diego, California, to Vancouver, BC, with high speed rail, stopping in the major points along the way, that would make sense. As would connecting many of the other regional areas like the Eastern Seaboard, the Upper Midwest, and the South West.
Even among the seaboards, the places where that ISN'T available dwarf the places where it is.
A duopoly doesn't really ensure competition.
Why, if his home connection would be fast enough to do that?
The problem is, without that push, its likely your ISP will decide to just let their equipment stagnate, instead of continually investing in their equipment. As more media moves to the internet, and more people have multiple internet connected devices in their house, more bandwidth is needed to take advantage of it. So yeah, you're happy with your service now. But what about 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road? Would you prefer your ISP started making their improvements now, or after your connection becomes inadequate?
Because 640K ought to be enough for anybody, amirite?
I don't see why Verizon shouldn't be made to maintain those lines. They don't have to run FIOS through there, but they should be made to maintain the lines such that decent connectivity can be had. Otherwise sell it off.