A number of people are suggesting disabling javascript as a solution. The problem of course is that many sites use javascript for the forces of good rather than evil.
One solution is for browsers to have an option to disable javascript's ability to open new windows. I use OmniWeb on Mac OS X and it has exactly this option. In fact your choices are to allow javascript to open windows always, only in response to a link being clicked, or never. A very useful feature and one reason I will ultimately hand money over for this software.
This is not a problem of how difficult it is but one of skills. My dad would tell it's a breeze to completely disassemble an engine and put it back together again but I have to constantly help him with his single computer. I on the other hand can just barely change my oil but I maintain a network at home, at my office, and at my parents office.
These NPO's are full of people who just want their computers to work. They don't have the time or the inclination to figure out we take for granted. But then what they take for granted may baffle us. What seems uncomplicated to us because we are immersed in it is incomprehensible to those just trying to complete a grant application and print it.
The bottom line for NPO's is: can they afford to pay for tech support? Looking at some of the invoices I've sent out just for network maintenance and knowing from the inside what an NPO's budget situation is, I'd say 90% of NPO's can not afford the level of tech support necessary to maintain 15 computers that are being used by people not capable of maintaining them themselves.
I don't remember denying that the federal program existed just that it doesn't appear to be directly related to Alberta's Supernet project. No conspiracy just different, related programs.
You can't buy a product that doesn't exist and given the cost of laying fibre across the province (Americans, check a map and note just how much land area Alberta covers, then note there are only 3 million people in the province and 2/3 of those live in the two major cities and the corridor between them) the Telcos aren't interested in doing it without a major investor. The Alberta government has decided to play the role of investor.
When comes down to it, this program is very NOT socialist. No private corporations will be harmed and the final product will be privately owned. The government is just a customer who wants high speed access to its offices across the province and has $200 million to drop on it.
But if you want a big fat pipe now and your just an ordinary consumer in rural Alberta you'll have to move to the city where we've had broadband for 4 years.
That was a poorly researched/. response. The program announced in the story is a provincial intiative for rural Alberta and, ASFAIK, not part of the Federal programs you mention.
A look through the Alberta government Supernet Site does not reveal any connection to the Canarie project. This one is an all Alberta project using Alberta seed money.
FWIW, the Liberal Red Book III still contains unfullfilled promises from 1993's Red Book I. I don't put a lot faith that anything in the book will actually become policy.
Who protects the artists' rights, Jon? They do. They are grownups who should know better. They protect themselves the same way every successful entertainer, actor and athelete does: With a good lawyer, agent and accountant.
Adulthood and maturity are derived (in part) from experience. Most of the artists being pulled in by the record companies have none. All they have is a naive vision of fame and fortune. They are ripe to be pulled in by the very people you say should protect them: the lawyers, agents and accountants who work the entertainment business. These people make money the same way the record companies do, by taking a cut from the artists. An agent stands to make more money playing the record company game than by not. The artists are still responsible for their own mistakes but to suggest that somehow the agents and lawyers of the business should or would protect the artists strikes me as naive.
Don't like and want to change the system? Try this.
Don't buy new CD's or tapes.
I buy directly from artist when I can or through independent distributers when possible
Don't listen to commercial radio stations or support advertisers (if at all possible) who advertise on commercial radio stations.
I don't. I listen to a listener supported station in my area. When you take away the playlists, todays versions of payolla, and give control of airplay to the DJ's it's amazing how the quality and variety of music goes up.
Don't buy concert tickets.
I haven't been to to an arena sized show in years. I tend to go festivals and gigs where the money flow is more directly to the performers.
Convince future artists not to sing contracts and contribute to the ongoing fodder. (Don't be surprised when you find out this takes time and committment).
It takes time and commitment on the artists part. What we as consumers can contribute is support. We can buy the albums and see the shows of artists we like who are trying to make a go of it bucking the system. The trick is to find these artists. If all we do is listen to commercial radio all we will here are big label artists. I would suggest finding listener supported station in your area and on the Net as well looking for downloadable samples. A big thing is to support alternative methods of distribution. Record labels are distibuters, their fear of the Net derives from its potential as an alternative. If an artist can promote and sell their music without a major label and all the costs associated with that many will. This is true of the artists who are working the scene I am familiar with.
Okay, just for the record: Address: foo@bar.ca; Education: enough to see through this garbage; Marital Status: Non-Breeding Male; Ethnic Origin: um, er, Canadian?; Employment, Social Assistance and Income Tax history: uh-uh, forget it-- there's no way I'll let the government have that information...
Maybe I'm missing a level of sarcasm here but you can not hide your social assistance and income tax history from the government in the same way you can not hide your birth information from your mother.
There's only like, what, forty thousand nukes extant on earth, each capable of wiping out millions of lives in five minutes? Many capable of poisoning an entire planet for millenia if detonated close enough to the ground? ALL of them are owned by warmongering, jingoistic, pathologically disturbed political entities who have NO QUALMS whatsoever about using nuclear warheads whenever it is convenient?
And yet none of them have. Perhaps in the 55 years since the last time a nuclear weapon was used in an act of aggression it just hasn't been convenient. Or perhaps despite the fact we have these things even the most pathological of those who have them don't. This is not to say some loon won't get one and use it, but the chance of a nuclear armegedon is remote. The chance of losing a city is another story.
I think we have more to fear from the things that we do not see the danger in than from those whose dangers are obvious. If we are destroyed it will be like every other great moment in science: "Oops."
Disclaimer: I've seen the Matrix once. I thought it was a comedy. What philosophy there was in it was, IMO, either blatantly misrepresented (the Agent's statements on evolution) or laughably simplistic versions of stuff that has been hashed through a great deal. Which brings me to PKD. While it is arguable that the Matrix pulled much from William Gibson it's whole premise is one that PKD would have recognised from his whole writing career. PKD obsessively wrote about what is real and what is not and the ambiguity therein. Which is probably why the Matrix did little for me. There is very little ambiguity in the movie. Very early on it is clear what the two worlds are and what the characters roles are in them. After that its just a matter of how many shell casings will fall in slow motion until the bad guys bite it. If you want some ambiguity in a VR plotted movie, check out the Thirteenth Floor. Almost zero special effects, very little violence, no music video moments, but a lot of story, character and thought.
The goal of capitolism is to make as MUCH money as possible.
The goal of corporations is to make as much money as possible. Capitalism has no goal anymore than any other tool has a goal. Capitalism is tool we use constuct our society, and it is not always the best tool.
The intended goal of government (and one that is very rarely applied as of late) is to work for what is best for the individuals of its society. Large corporations making as much money as possible is not always what is best for the individual members of a society.
Luckily we live in a "free" society and you dont have to buy MS products if you dont want to.
Freedom is lost whether it is a government telling you are free to encryt your data as long they have the key or Microsoft telling us we can buy that other OS as long as we don't mind waiting an extra year for every new application (or never getting it at all).
Why do car makers make cars powered by gasoline and not natural gas?
They do make cars powered by natural gas but they are not for most part hot sellers because of the overhead. Natural gas has to be stored under a great deal of pressure, meaning that in a vehicle it is stored in very large, thick walled tanks. One tank of this gas will not get you very far. Outside of city driving natural gas is not a good idea for travel. This is likely why the place you see natural gas in use is in transit busses and city maintenance vehicles (at least where I live).
Slashdot Mirror
A number of people are suggesting disabling javascript as a solution. The problem of course is that many sites use javascript for the forces of good rather than evil.
One solution is for browsers to have an option to disable javascript's ability to open new windows. I use OmniWeb on Mac OS X and it has exactly this option. In fact your choices are to allow javascript to open windows always, only in response to a link being clicked, or never. A very useful feature and one reason I will ultimately hand money over for this software.
So what you're saying is that they're the Jehovah's Witnesses of the Internet?
This is not a problem of how difficult it is but one of skills. My dad would tell it's a breeze to completely disassemble an engine and put it back together again but I have to constantly help him with his single computer. I on the other hand can just barely change my oil but I maintain a network at home, at my office, and at my parents office.
These NPO's are full of people who just want their computers to work. They don't have the time or the inclination to figure out we take for granted. But then what they take for granted may baffle us. What seems uncomplicated to us because we are immersed in it is incomprehensible to those just trying to complete a grant application and print it.
The bottom line for NPO's is: can they afford to pay for tech support? Looking at some of the invoices I've sent out just for network maintenance and knowing from the inside what an NPO's budget situation is, I'd say 90% of NPO's can not afford the level of tech support necessary to maintain 15 computers that are being used by people not capable of maintaining them themselves.
I don't remember denying that the federal program existed just that it doesn't appear to be directly related to Alberta's Supernet project. No conspiracy just different, related programs.
Provincial gov'ts are not federal ministries.
You can't buy a product that doesn't exist and given the cost of laying fibre across the province (Americans, check a map and note just how much land area Alberta covers, then note there are only 3 million people in the province and 2/3 of those live in the two major cities and the corridor between them) the Telcos aren't interested in doing it without a major investor. The Alberta government has decided to play the role of investor.
When comes down to it, this program is very NOT socialist. No private corporations will be harmed and the final product will be privately owned. The government is just a customer who wants high speed access to its offices across the province and has $200 million to drop on it.
But if you want a big fat pipe now and your just an ordinary consumer in rural Alberta you'll have to move to the city where we've had broadband for 4 years.
That was a poorly researched /. response.
The program announced in the story is a provincial intiative for rural Alberta and, ASFAIK, not part of the Federal programs you mention. A look through the Alberta government Supernet Site does not reveal any connection to the Canarie project. This one is an all Alberta project using Alberta seed money.
FWIW, the Liberal Red Book III still contains unfullfilled promises from 1993's Red Book I. I don't put a lot faith that anything in the book will actually become policy.
Who protects the artists' rights, Jon? They do. They are grownups who should know better. They protect themselves the same way every successful entertainer, actor and athelete does: With a good lawyer, agent and accountant.
Adulthood and maturity are derived (in part) from experience. Most of the artists being pulled in by the record companies have none. All they have is a naive vision of fame and fortune. They are ripe to be pulled in by the very people you say should protect them: the lawyers, agents and accountants who work the entertainment business. These people make money the same way the record companies do, by taking a cut from the artists. An agent stands to make more money playing the record company game than by not. The artists are still responsible for their own mistakes but to suggest that somehow the agents and lawyers of the business should or would protect the artists strikes me as naive.
Don't like and want to change the system? Try this.
Don't buy new CD's or tapes.
I buy directly from artist when I can or through independent distributers when possible
Don't listen to commercial radio stations or support advertisers (if at all possible) who advertise on commercial radio stations.
I don't. I listen to a listener supported station in my area. When you take away the playlists, todays versions of payolla, and give control of airplay to the DJ's it's amazing how the quality and variety of music goes up.
Don't buy concert tickets.
I haven't been to to an arena sized show in years. I tend to go festivals and gigs where the money flow is more directly to the performers.
Convince future artists not to sing contracts and contribute to the ongoing fodder. (Don't be surprised when you find out this takes time and committment).
It takes time and commitment on the artists part. What we as consumers can contribute is support. We can buy the albums and see the shows of artists we like who are trying to make a go of it bucking the system. The trick is to find these artists. If all we do is listen to commercial radio all we will here are big label artists. I would suggest finding listener supported station in your area and on the Net as well looking for downloadable samples. A big thing is to support alternative methods of distribution. Record labels are distibuters, their fear of the Net derives from its potential as an alternative. If an artist can promote and sell their music without a major label and all the costs associated with that many will. This is true of the artists who are working the scene I am familiar with.
I mean did that stop us from seeing all the highlanders?
...in my case.
Yes!
Okay, just for the record: Address: foo@bar.ca; Education: enough to see through this garbage; Marital Status: Non-Breeding Male; Ethnic Origin: um, er, Canadian?; Employment, Social Assistance and Income Tax history: uh-uh, forget it-- there's no way I'll let the government have that information...
Maybe I'm missing a level of sarcasm here but you can not hide your social assistance and income tax history from the government in the same way you can not hide your birth information from your mother.
There's only like, what, forty thousand nukes extant on earth, each capable of wiping out millions of lives in five minutes? Many capable of poisoning an entire planet for millenia if detonated close enough to the ground? ALL of them are owned by warmongering, jingoistic, pathologically disturbed political entities who have NO QUALMS whatsoever about using nuclear warheads whenever it is convenient?
And yet none of them have. Perhaps in the 55 years since the last time a nuclear weapon was used in an act of aggression it just hasn't been convenient. Or perhaps despite the fact we have these things even the most pathological of those who have them don't. This is not to say some loon won't get one and use it, but the chance of a nuclear armegedon is remote. The chance of losing a city is another story.
I think we have more to fear from the things that we do not see the danger in than from those whose dangers are obvious. If we are destroyed it will be like every other great moment in science: "Oops."
Disclaimer: I've seen the Matrix once. I thought it was a comedy. What philosophy there was in it was, IMO, either blatantly misrepresented (the Agent's statements on evolution) or laughably simplistic versions of stuff that has been hashed through a great deal. Which brings me to PKD. While it is arguable that the Matrix pulled much from William Gibson it's whole premise is one that PKD would have recognised from his whole writing career. PKD obsessively wrote about what is real and what is not and the ambiguity therein. Which is probably why the Matrix did little for me. There is very little ambiguity in the movie. Very early on it is clear what the two worlds are and what the characters roles are in them. After that its just a matter of how many shell casings will fall in slow motion until the bad guys bite it. If you want some ambiguity in a VR plotted movie, check out the Thirteenth Floor. Almost zero special effects, very little violence, no music video moments, but a lot of story, character and thought.
The goal of capitolism is to make as MUCH money as possible.
The goal of corporations is to make as much money as possible. Capitalism has no goal anymore than any other tool has a goal. Capitalism is tool we use constuct our society, and it is not always the best tool.
The intended goal of government (and one that is very rarely applied as of late) is to work for what is best for the individuals of its society. Large corporations making as much money as possible is not always what is best for the individual members of a society.
Luckily we live in a "free" society and you dont have to buy MS products if you dont want to.
Freedom is lost whether it is a government telling you are free to encryt your data as long they have the key or Microsoft telling us we can buy that other OS as long as we don't mind waiting an extra year for every new application (or never getting it at all).
Why do car makers make cars powered by gasoline and not natural gas?
They do make cars powered by natural gas but they are not for most part hot sellers because of the overhead. Natural gas has to be stored under a great deal of pressure, meaning that in a vehicle it is stored in very large, thick walled tanks. One tank of this gas will not get you very far. Outside of city driving natural gas is not a good idea for travel. This is likely why the place you see natural gas in use is in transit busses and city maintenance vehicles (at least where I live).