How else do you propose to allocate it? By handing it out to political cronies? By giving it to whichever special interest group squeals the loudest? By letting [water] be another kind of pork that representatives can fight over? Or you could just leave it unregulated, and give the [water] to whoever wins the war to have the most powerful [pump].
All IT jobs should be considered on the same "Skilled Trade" tier as plumbers, welders, electricians, etc.
I.T. is very different from almost all other jobs: people can start young.* Other careers might have people who learn and practice, but nothing compared to making a website, for example. The cost and physical restrictions that apply to plumbers and welders, doesn't apply to lots of IT work. A new person in the IT job market might have 10 years experience doing exactly the sort of work they are getting hired for.
What makes you think anyone outside slashdot wants voting to be secured by cryptography? It might as well be magic for most people, not just that they couldn't implement it, but that they don't even understand what it really means. SSL on websites makes it clear that people may trust it, sort of, but they sure don't understand it. A paper ballot though? Everyone can understand how that system works and whether it's fair or not.
If, in '98, the recording industry had worked with pioneers such as Napster, rather than trying to close pandoras box after everything had fled, this would be a very different story.
No... they would have lost a decade of great profits! The record companies haven't lost any opporatunaties here:
They are making deals with Apple, BitTorrent, etc... to their terms
They got to try DRM/Rootkit tactics (and got partial wins with Vista and iTunes)
They had an decade to adjust their business: hire web developers, learn about the net, hear lots of "advice" about how their business could/should change
They convinced the US and most of the world that:
music is property, and it is "stealing" to copy it
Copyright needs to be extended and strengthened around the world
the kids are stealing music and adults should be stopping them, i.e. school administrators should monitor networks, coffee shops should block torrents...
"information wants to be free" is dead and they only way forward is an ownership model (does any one even debate this anymore?)
I just had to go look at the Fusion IO page and their FAQ and... well, let's just say, does anyone have an URL for marketting-bullshit-bingo to English babelfish please?
Add "msdn." right before "microsoft.com" and it usually clears up.
Interesting approach for the next version: you only ever connect to your friends. All traffic is through the 5 or 10 people who you have said that you trust, so no RIAA snooping IP addresses.
They talk about it in the context of China and other Governments, but they never addressed the big issue: if the NSA has AT&T in it's pocket then they also know your friends.
But I think we can almost all agree that Joel made the show (literally and figuratively), a fact supported by its demise once he left. That's a pretty absurd claim to make, given that Joel left halfway through season 5, and the show ran 10 seasons. In truth, the show went on just fine without Joel, though personally I preferred Joel's screen persona to Mike's. Happy Days was still on the air even after the Fonz jumped the shark.
Believe it or not, Comcast charging the government is in your best interest.
...they are providing an additional layer of checks and balances to our government.
Think about this as an extension of the military industrial complex: The government has co-opted ISP's, providing them with financial incentive to spy on citizens. There is someone in a Comcast office right now thinking, "What other customer surveillance can we sell?", and the government isn't against paying.
I already donate to the EFF, and I do need the t-shirt!
I'm sure this sounds stupid, but I bet most people here hate shopping. When I went shopping 3 months ago I looked for t-shirts and couldn't find well made, all cotton, non-moronic t-shirts. Having the opportunity to put off shopping by donating to a cause I like would be great. I'm wearing my EFF t-shirt right now.:)
"You could even be legally responsible if a virus happened to alter the file"
I love the smell of FUD in the morning...
Seriously. Watermarks are progress.You disagree, that's fine, but lets debate it on its merits and not base our opinions on fear-mongering and FUD.
Unbelievable. That Slashdot could mod-up such crap.
After RIAA lawsuits against dead people, grandmothers and childeren.
After DMCA with felony crimes.
After Copyright infringement can be enforced by Federal/State prosocuters.
To be fair, the U.S. already has a system to censor commercials. The big corporations do it, and the FCC fines them if they do something outside the unwritten rules.
Don't believe me? When's the last time you saw a commercial about abortion?..or hard liquor?..or protesting war?
... I try as hard as possible to avoid "well they were just stupid"-type conclusions.
Everyone liked the lie, just like with Social Security. You don't have to say it's all just stupidity or meanness. The retirement of a generation is a strong emotional issue as well as financial one.
They don't want to deal with Youtube because they want to sell the advertising, and keep the ~90% share of it.
It's just a gradual step from: 1. Control everything (Portal) 2. Control the advertising but not the distribution (CBS making deals with partners) 3. Let others control advertising and distribution for a kickback (Youtube model, which they are all panicked about) 4. Give it away for promotion
What seems strange to me is that I can't get a torrent of Survivor with advertising, only one without advertising. If they want to control advertising but not distribution... why aren't they making the shows available, all nicely packaged in different formats, free to share, and with advertising embedded?
There are plenty of "free media" outlets who could campaign speeches. You know why they don't have as much coverage? They can't afford it.
..so some smaller media don't cover all events? OK.
I'm not talking about the private-venue events, I'm talking about the campaign trail where candidates repeat everything until it bleeds from their ears and
The quality of the speach is not in question. (Politicians do suck, do repeat themselves, and do get away with sound bites rather then meaningful statements.)
the "free media" has to piggyback on coverage paid for by someone else or choose their two events per year to attend.
again, the issue is the control of the material, not how big the company collecting it is.
"Free and open political discourse" isn't being owned by anyone. The video production of an event, like any other video production of any other news event, is controlled by the people who paid for it.
Why do they get to control it? Because the US grants them a copyright: a limited monopoly, for the good of our society. Now I ask again, why should media companies be granted this gift?
If you want complete control over these events, then have them hosted by the government and filmed by CSPAN. And then STFU when you complain about the 15 cents in taxes it'll cost you to make it happen. Sometimes things cost money.
Or we could have control by taking away the copyright for our own Presidential campaigns.
So we as a society need to grant MSNBC a multi-year monopoly control over this debate material, because otherwise they won't have any reason to create it? Is that you're argument?
Oh noes!!1! How ever will the politicians afford a soap box to stand on without the media to pay for it?
Free and open political discourse is so important, that it should not be owned by anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=Google+Sprint
Lets apply your argument to water rights:
You can't back date your prediction like that!
* I first read this in Joel on Software
What makes you think anyone outside slashdot wants voting to be secured by cryptography? It might as well be magic for most people, not just that they couldn't implement it, but that they don't even understand what it really means. SSL on websites makes it clear that people may trust it, sort of, but they sure don't understand it. A paper ballot though? Everyone can understand how that system works and whether it's fair or not.
- They are making deals with Apple, BitTorrent, etc... to their terms
- They got to try DRM/Rootkit tactics (and got partial wins with Vista and iTunes)
- They had an decade to adjust their business: hire web developers, learn about the net, hear lots of "advice" about how their business could/should change
They convinced the US and most of the world that:Packets must remove any frame footers before boarding.
22C3: Lecture on Freenet's new algorithm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2894489251637986433&q=google+video+freenet&total=112&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
Interesting approach for the next version: you only ever connect to your friends. All traffic is through the 5 or 10 people who you have said that you trust, so no RIAA snooping IP addresses.
They talk about it in the context of China and other Governments, but they never addressed the big issue: if the NSA has AT&T in it's pocket then they also know your friends.
Joel was great.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/30/1415224
Qwest service is mess, but once up and running I've found DSL to be very stable.
I already donate to the EFF, and I do need the t-shirt!
:)
I'm sure this sounds stupid, but I bet most people here hate shopping. When I went shopping 3 months ago I looked for t-shirts and couldn't find well made, all cotton, non-moronic t-shirts. Having the opportunity to put off shopping by donating to a cause I like would be great. I'm wearing my EFF t-shirt right now.
Interesting that they are staying with DX and doing a port. They just re-wrote the client because the graphics were getting dated. http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=493
The video codecs for moonlight will be provided as binary blobs, directly from the Microsoft website and licensed only to be used in moonlight.
Cash and Short Term Investments
11,935.92
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=NAS
AT&T
Cash and Short Term Investments
2,364.00
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=NYS
*I assume the numbers are in millions, but it doesn't actually say.
After RIAA lawsuits against dead people, grandmothers and childeren.
After DMCA with felony crimes.
After Copyright infringement can be enforced by Federal/State prosocuters.
After "attempted" copyright infringement...
To be fair, the U.S. already has a system to censor commercials. The big corporations do it, and the FCC fines them if they do something outside the unwritten rules.
..or hard liquor? ..or protesting war?
Don't believe me? When's the last time you saw a commercial about abortion?
Even if you argue that it's a problem for the government (allowing theft to be common place) why "solve" it by requiring Windows?
They don't want to deal with Youtube because they want to sell the advertising, and keep the ~90% share of it.
It's just a gradual step from:
1. Control everything (Portal)
2. Control the advertising but not the distribution (CBS making deals with partners)
3. Let others control advertising and distribution for a kickback (Youtube model, which they are all panicked about)
4. Give it away for promotion
What seems strange to me is that I can't get a torrent of Survivor with advertising, only one without advertising. If they want to control advertising but not distribution... why aren't they making the shows available, all nicely packaged in different formats, free to share, and with advertising embedded?
This could become the next "Divest from South Africa" cause for universities and corporations, so it's possible this could change without legislation.
So we as a society need to grant MSNBC a multi-year monopoly control over this debate material, because otherwise they won't have any reason to create it? Is that you're argument?
Oh noes!!1! How ever will the politicians afford a soap box to stand on without the media to pay for it?
Free and open political discourse is so important, that it should not be owned by anyone.