The definition or standards for decency vary but porn is porn everywhere. Child porn involves minors, those under the age of 18--so children (and babies) 0 to 17 years old.
Because, of course, whatever stance the courts take must be right?! This is all about bringing down a giant. My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success. I don't think any law invalidates that.
And, FYI, a monopoly, by definition, is "when there is only one seller of a common commodity." There is nothing precluding competitors in this market.
Also from http://answers.com/ "In economics, a monopoly is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."
"Monopolies may exist in a particular industry if a company controls a major natural resource, produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production, or is granted government permission to be the sole producer of a product or service in a given area."
Using the standards as they have been applied to Microsoft, Pepsi and Coke are monopolies--all successful brands are.
Microsoft dominates the OS market. It isn't a monopoly because, as you yourself mentioned, it is not the only option. And, there are arguably superior products.
Its success comes from popularity, and tradition. That's not a monopoly, IMO.
And so they build products to compliment their OS.
I don't know what illegal actions you're referring to. Certainly MS doesn't force manufacturers to use their expensive OS. If they've entered into an exclusive contract with MS then your beef should be with them. Unless it's just that you don't like MS.
The problem is that "monopoly" has been redefined and distorted. You keep saying "their product" and that's my point. This isn't a finite resource. There is room for competitors--nothings stopping them except their own conformity.
There is no reason for Microsoft to set the standard. And even then they should not be punished for success. Especially when your goal is to build your success off of their success--that, to me, sounds like pure greed and laziness.
The other OSs need to step up to the plate, IMO. Macintosh and Firefox are only starting points. Eventually Microsoft will lose it's dominance but that will happen faster if people invest their efforts in alternative products, not constantly contributing to the same ole thing.
If Microsoft is truly so bad, make something better.
How exactly are they criminals, even if they've lobbied governments?
I'll never understand the animosity directed at Microsoft--unless it is just jealousy.
Are these same complainers building their products to work on Mac and Linux? I doubt it. Maybe progress is stagnant due to laziness?
You'd think some genius would go and build an alternative instead of continued attempts at making them open up to competitors. I can't imagine any other brand being forced to be so friendly with its rivals. I don't care what their current marketshare is, it isn't permanent. You simply build a better product and their reign would be over.
That's what we should be striving toward. This obsession with Microsoft is what's the problem.
Why let who knows how many people drag on your connection when the routers themselves are already cheap? Additionally, there are plenty free hotspots. Why should we build up some network that charges a fee?
If this was an effort to broaden free access nationwide that would be totally different. As it is it's about getting some company richer. I'll pass.
The proposed legislation would continue to enforce existing laws against double dipping. Resulting in fines for any telecoms caught prioritizing their (or their partner's) content over competitors.
This isn't about the government monitoring Internet usage. You're already guaranteed free speech. However, people already risk prosecution for illegal acts committed on the net, including cyber stalking and "pervert" laws.
I didn't differentiate big from small when I stated that the publishers drive us to the Internet. I was speaking in general. It's the wealth of content and the interactivity that distinguishes the Internet from all other forms of media.
I do believe that Yahoo and Google, and several others (e.g. Amazon, Microsoft), could easily turn this on the telecoms. I don't think it's likely to happen but it would be poetic to give them a taste of their own medicine. In the end the telecoms need them.
Publishers have created the infrastructure that most rely on. They should not be charged for providing that vital service. Especially when they give it for free.
Assuming you pay $40-50+ a month for high speed Internet service, wouldn't you be at least a little pissed if the connection started to drag every time you accessed your favorite website because said site decided not to pay several dozen companies nationwide some absurd fee? (Potentially millions.)
Well, I know I will be. While I am outraged at the idea of the telecoms double dipping I am incensed at the idea that they think they can regulate what I do on the Internet.
Furthermore, will these tariffs only apply to American-based websites? Do they expect international publishers to submit to extortion? What if they won't or simply can't afford to? That amounts to censorship, IMO.
Cleland's commentary sounds completely made up, if not slightly delusional. As if Google, Microsoft and Yahoo send the same chills down your spine as AT&T and Comcast.
How does net neutrality translate into government surveillance? This sounds like someone trying to mottle the issue. Why lie unless your view is faulty?
He's totally misrepresenting the issue, as though publishers are trying to get a free pass while in reality all they're trying to do is avoid being double charged for simply existing--providing the very services that lure us to the Internet.
The whole issue is rather or not the telecoms should be allowed to charge web publishers for access to their subscribers (who already pay $40-50+ for their service).
There was a time when ISPs were seen as gateways to the Internet. Now they want to redefine themselves as stewards. I think they need a reality check. If it wasn't for those big name publishers few of us would have any interest in the Internet.
Perhaps Google and Yahoo should start charging them? (Regardless of the outcome.) They certainly have the influence. How many would stay with a provider if they couldn't get to their favorite websites?
I don't see how it being "open" makes much difference. Using your logic there should be no laws of trespass, in the event that you leave your door open/unlocked.
And, though it might be hard to prove, the person who actually committs the crime is responsible.
Anyways, I don't see how this can be good for business. I would be a little nervous using their connection even if I was a paying customer, trying hard to keep track of my receipt. It just seems fanatical. Like the little old person who'll run you off for coming too close to their lawn.
It seems easy enough to reduce the strength of their signal. My wireless at home doesn't even register on my patio.
I received this same letter and ranted and raved about it. . . I'm still pissed.
I don't see why the media isn't outraged yet, despite that they report these stories they just gloss over them like it doesn't matter. And then they obsess over the horror of identity theft and what WE can do about it. All of our efforts are mute when the a$$hole companies/agencies are just handing data out.
I do believe that, at a minimum, 10% of my loans should be forgiven as recompense.
Why should Google or Yahoo pay to improve their site? They need a search feature regardless. Even with the added radio option to "search the web" how does this benefit already well-known search engines?
I agree, anytime you have an audience there's the potential that something you say will come back to bite you. However, if the NSA plans to monitor everything we do on the web, as they do with phones--even if that's simply logging URIs--that's totally unacceptable.
I don't need "the man" looking over my shoulder 24/7. I can't imagine being in my own home scared to do whatever the h#ll I want because I know some fool is watching. And not because what I'm doing is illegal or even necessarily embarrassing, it's simply nobodies GD business.
Slashdot Mirror
The definition or standards for decency vary but porn is porn everywhere. Child porn involves minors, those under the age of 18--so children (and babies) 0 to 17 years old.
Considering the laws against child porn, do you really want to accidentally venture onto one of those sites?
Does this also work with gay porn? I doubt it.
Because, of course, whatever stance the courts take must be right?! This is all about bringing down a giant. My stance is that you shouldn't be punished for success. I don't think any law invalidates that.
And, FYI, a monopoly, by definition, is "when there is only one seller of a common commodity." There is nothing precluding competitors in this market.
Also from http://answers.com/
"In economics, a monopoly is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."
"Monopolies may exist in a particular industry if a company controls a major natural resource, produces (even at a reasonable price) all the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production, or is granted government permission to be the sole producer of a product or service in a given area."
Using the standards as they have been applied to Microsoft, Pepsi and Coke are monopolies--all successful brands are.
Microsoft dominates the OS market. It isn't a monopoly because, as you yourself mentioned, it is not the only option. And, there are arguably superior products.
Its success comes from popularity, and tradition. That's not a monopoly, IMO.
And so they build products to compliment their OS.
I don't know what illegal actions you're referring to. Certainly MS doesn't force manufacturers to use their expensive OS. If they've entered into an exclusive contract with MS then your beef should be with them. Unless it's just that you don't like MS.
The problem is that "monopoly" has been redefined and distorted. You keep saying "their product" and that's my point. This isn't a finite resource. There is room for competitors--nothings stopping them except their own conformity.
There is no reason for Microsoft to set the standard. And even then they should not be punished for success. Especially when your goal is to build your success off of their success--that, to me, sounds like pure greed and laziness.
The other OSs need to step up to the plate, IMO. Macintosh and Firefox are only starting points. Eventually Microsoft will lose it's dominance but that will happen faster if people invest their efforts in alternative products, not constantly contributing to the same ole thing.
If Microsoft is truly so bad, make something better.
How exactly are they criminals, even if they've lobbied governments?
I'll never understand the animosity directed at Microsoft--unless it is just jealousy.
Are these same complainers building their products to work on Mac and Linux? I doubt it. Maybe progress is stagnant due to laziness?
You'd think some genius would go and build an alternative instead of continued attempts at making them open up to competitors. I can't imagine any other brand being forced to be so friendly with its rivals. I don't care what their current marketshare is, it isn't permanent. You simply build a better product and their reign would be over.
That's what we should be striving toward. This obsession with Microsoft is what's the problem.
What's stopping neighbors from sharing now?
Why let who knows how many people drag on your connection when the routers themselves are already cheap? Additionally, there are plenty free hotspots. Why should we build up some network that charges a fee?
If this was an effort to broaden free access nationwide that would be totally different. As it is it's about getting some company richer. I'll pass.
The BBB is evil. I filed a complaint against a tire shop and they went ahead and fowarded my name, phone and address to the company.
I guess I should be grateful they only called and cussed me out.
The reform bill is about advertisements, not commentary. Furthermore, it specifically excludes the Internet.
The proposed legislation would continue to enforce existing laws against double dipping. Resulting in fines for any telecoms caught prioritizing their (or their partner's) content over competitors.
This isn't about the government monitoring Internet usage. You're already guaranteed free speech. However, people already risk prosecution for illegal acts committed on the net, including cyber stalking and "pervert" laws.
I didn't differentiate big from small when I stated that the publishers drive us to the Internet. I was speaking in general. It's the wealth of content and the interactivity that distinguishes the Internet from all other forms of media.
I do believe that Yahoo and Google, and several others (e.g. Amazon, Microsoft), could easily turn this on the telecoms. I don't think it's likely to happen but it would be poetic to give them a taste of their own medicine. In the end the telecoms need them.
Publishers have created the infrastructure that most rely on. They should not be charged for providing that vital service. Especially when they give it for free.
History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutralityi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252rh.txt.pdf2 006hearing1823/hearing.htm
The Bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg
Testimony (from the House): http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/0330
Contact Congress: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
Assuming you pay $40-50+ a month for high speed Internet service, wouldn't you be at least a little pissed if the connection started to drag every time you accessed your favorite website because said site decided not to pay several dozen companies nationwide some absurd fee? (Potentially millions.)
Well, I know I will be. While I am outraged at the idea of the telecoms double dipping I am incensed at the idea that they think they can regulate what I do on the Internet.
Furthermore, will these tariffs only apply to American-based websites? Do they expect international publishers to submit to extortion? What if they won't or simply can't afford to? That amounts to censorship, IMO.
Cleland's commentary sounds completely made up, if not slightly delusional. As if Google, Microsoft and Yahoo send the same chills down your spine as AT&T and Comcast.
How does net neutrality translate into government surveillance? This sounds like someone trying to mottle the issue. Why lie unless your view is faulty?
He's totally misrepresenting the issue, as though publishers are trying to get a free pass while in reality all they're trying to do is avoid being double charged for simply existing--providing the very services that lure us to the Internet.
The whole issue is rather or not the telecoms should be allowed to charge web publishers for access to their subscribers (who already pay $40-50+ for their service).
There was a time when ISPs were seen as gateways to the Internet. Now they want to redefine themselves as stewards. I think they need a reality check. If it wasn't for those big name publishers few of us would have any interest in the Internet.
Perhaps Google and Yahoo should start charging them? (Regardless of the outcome.) They certainly have the influence. How many would stay with a provider if they couldn't get to their favorite websites?
I don't see how it being "open" makes much difference. Using your logic there should be no laws of trespass, in the event that you leave your door open/unlocked.
And, though it might be hard to prove, the person who actually committs the crime is responsible.
It may be a condition of his parole.
Anyways, I don't see how this can be good for business. I would be a little nervous using their connection even if I was a paying customer, trying hard to keep track of my receipt. It just seems fanatical. Like the little old person who'll run you off for coming too close to their lawn.
It seems easy enough to reduce the strength of their signal. My wireless at home doesn't even register on my patio.
They cannot (and do not) cuff you for any reason. There has to be some threat or a risk of flight, etc.
Wrong. This about privacy, not data. We all have a right to privacy, it is already the law.
http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm
Robbery involves forcibly taking. These companies/agencies are essentially giving data away. For that, h#ll yeah they should be held accountable.
At the very least it's negligence.
I received this same letter and ranted and raved about it. . . I'm still pissed.
I don't see why the media isn't outraged yet, despite that they report these stories they just gloss over them like it doesn't matter. And then they obsess over the horror of identity theft and what WE can do about it. All of our efforts are mute when the a$$hole companies/agencies are just handing data out.
I do believe that, at a minimum, 10% of my loans should be forgiven as recompense.
Why should Google or Yahoo pay to improve their site? They need a search feature regardless. Even with the added radio option to "search the web" how does this benefit already well-known search engines?
Will these fees also apply to international publishers? What if they're unwilling or unable to pay?
Essentially blocking/limiting our access is censorship, IMO.
I agree, anytime you have an audience there's the potential that something you say will come back to bite you. However, if the NSA plans to monitor everything we do on the web, as they do with phones--even if that's simply logging URIs--that's totally unacceptable.
I don't need "the man" looking over my shoulder 24/7. I can't imagine being in my own home scared to do whatever the h#ll I want because I know some fool is watching. And not because what I'm doing is illegal or even necessarily embarrassing, it's simply nobodies GD business.