Except you forget the part where the peak amount of bandwidth usage is the only actual factor that matters. It doesn't matter one bit how much bandwidth I use per month...it only matters how many people are using it at a time. The whole $/gb model doesn't even make sense. It's based upon a bunch of greedy bullshit. The ISPs don't seem to have any issues upgrading their infrastructure with the 100's of millions of dollars they make not to mention they built that infrastructure with our tax dollars. I might be sympathetic if they weren't putting absurdly low limits on this kind of stuff. My friend in Canada has to limit the games he downloads and buys from Steam because of the bandwidth limits...that's kind of retarded. This seems to be a fairly regular activity these days along with streaming movies and watching Youtube. I don't really think that all those bandwidth hogs are really going to be seen as that for much longer.
Because people are naturally more inclined to be angry at things that affect them? Is that even a real question? And who is to say how angry anyone is or isn't at the rest of the world. I routinely talk about the UK to 1984 and exclaim that the book wasn't meant to be used as a handbook.
Furthermore, this is a US site, with people concerned primarily with US affairs and the people in those countries that have the most heinous blocks have a real hard time complaining about it behind the great firewall. And lastly, I wasn't aware you could only be angry with 1 thing at a time.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but getting arrested and being CONVICTED are different things, yes? What exactly gives them the right to publish these on Facebook before you've been convicted of a crime? Sure, I guess if you are later convicted that's somewhat okay (though they are giant douches for it), but when you've merely been arrested? That seems a little draconian to me. That seems like a slander lawsuit waiting to happen.
Re:A Gnome user that wants to give this a try...
on
KDE 4.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Try ArchLinux. I've used Arch for a while now and I love it. I went to Arch after I got tired of compiling everything by hand in Gentoo. You'll get your updates muuuch faster than Ubuntu as well. Rolling software updates are SO much better than the retarded release cycle that Ubuntu does. Arch is also pretty nice to use and it's flexible. I like that. I can install it minimal like I did Gentoo or you can have a nice installer CD with bells and whistles if you don't feel like dicking with it.
No kidding. I love that the Tor project exists but I get tired of it being thrown out as a solution to every conceivable issue. No, running ALL of my browsing through something that makes it slow down to near-dial-up speeds is not actually a solution. The actual solution is to actually have people respect my privacy. In a country like the US I should not NEED to use Tor.
And if a site that you log into also tracks you? I suppose you're safe if the tracking cookie actually comes from another domain but what if it doesn't? Trying to use the internet without cookies enabled is a pain in the ass.
Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. This guy is an idiot. It's like he hasn't considering that um...duh...people can still pirate that DLC. Is he really that retarded? Or is he implying that maybe some people will be more willing to pay for things that are cheaper or something? I really just don't get it.
What? It's $2,250 per song. Didn't you even read the SUMMARY, for crying out loud? Total reward was $67,500. That is still insane. Making someone pay $67k (the price of a really crappy house basically) is absurd. Many people have already mentioned that this law was intended to apply to COMMERCIAL copyright infringement. These people made no money at all. The damages sustained are VERY much arguable. The amount they ended up with is ridiculous and this person will probably STILL have to claim bankruptcy. These people are being abused, plain and simple. I cannot state clearly enough what a gross abuse of the legal system this is. They're printing money. That's not what these laws are for.
Who said anything about kids? You get a tax break for having kids...why do you get the benefits just for being married? If you want to have kids, yes, I can somewhat agree with giving tax breaks...kids are expensive. But a tax break just for being married? Why, exactly? To encourage people to have kids? I don't know about you, but I don't really think it's the government's place to do that, just like it isn't the government's place to tell people whether or not it is okay to be gay in the first place.
Really this all just falls back to the fact that the government really shouldn't be regulating marriage in the first place. If they need a legal way of binding people (for benefits, kids, etc), then they need to make something that everyone has access to. Don't call it marriage and make EVERYONE use the same process. Something you can't ban the gays, blacks, Mexicans, or anything else from. You can use Civil Unions if you like, but you make the straight people get them too if they want legal benefits. In other words if you want to actually get MARRIED, you can walk down to your church and do that. Then you can apply to the state for a civil union. If you're gay, you can find a church that will take you if you want to get married or if you just want legal benefits, you go to the same office and get the same civil union. These things need to be separated. Why is the government sticking it's nose into marriage and WHY, if it is sticking it's nose in, is it discriminating people for it? Separate but equal was stricken down a pretty long time ago. This has happened before...don't people learn from history? Pull your bigoted heads out of your asses for a minute.
Except that the way our government functions is supposed to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority rather specifically. The will of the majority does not trample the RIGHTS of the minority. That's the important part. Everyone has rights and it isn't supposed to be based on their color, sex, or sexual orientation. That's what this country is supposed to stand for. It doesn't matter how offended these bigots are because their opinion is of no consequence to people's rights. It's ridiculous this anti-gay culture still prevails in this day and age. The fact that Obama pretty much refused to comment on gay rights during the debates and stuff is deplorable (and hell, I like the guy). All politicians have to either divert or proclaim they aren't going to let the gays marry or find some politically correct way to say "don't worry, I won't let those homos marry each other." I've heard the argument that it makes normal marriages worth less and I seriously want to scream. It enrages me in a way I cannot describe. I'm married to a woman and I find no problems letting a man marry another man or a woman marry another woman. They're people too, are they not? The very fact anyone would find that offensive pretty much means they find being gay at all offensive. They try to dress it up with pretty words but people aren't stupid. I have gay friends and if they want to marry each other, that's awesome. I just don't understand why people are so fucking concerned with what OTHER people are doing. It's none of your god damn business and it shouldn't matter anyway.
It's funny because it's the same sort of discrimination that black people endured for so long and yet that same group of people is perfectly fine with the gays being denied rights too. The hypocrisy is just sickening. All around. Christians are supposed to love their fellow man and treat them well. Or something. I don't know, I'm not a Christian. It sure as hell doesn't look that way to me. I know a person that is struggling with the fact that he's gay but is Christian at the same time and is literally afraid of being gay. He's starting to come around and stop trying to make himself conform, but I still think it's sad that he lived so long thinking he was doing something evil. It's not okay. It really isn't. Making someone feel that way for being born a certain way is one of the worst kinds of evil.
I live in Canada, and I am on the 3 mbit plan with Rogers. When I'm downloading, I almost always max it out. Others I know on faster plans are also able to max out their 5 mbit and 10 mbit connections all the tims
. Maybe things are different in the US, but I really hope things are this bad.
Is that a typo or your Canadian addiction to Tim Horton's?!!
First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft.
Why is it that these arguments generally involve someone "imagining" Google *could* do something evil but they haven't actually done it yet. Look, I don't trust any company 100% but honestly, I get tired of this new "Google is evil" meme floating around. They haven't hardly done shit. No, they aren't perfect, but honestly, pull your head out of the ground and look at the landscape. What exactly makes Google evil? They still seem like pretty upstanding guys...what other company would have bought VP8 and open sourced it for the good of the internet? Yeah, maybe they have ulterior motives, but you know what, I still think they've been pretty damn good for the most part.
With a choice between Google, Microsoft, and Apple...who would you take? I know my answer.
Unfortunately, if you go into the future kicking and screaming you will indeed find some "features" are missing. It sucks, but sometimes you just need to sit down and adapt. Hell, you may eventually come to like it. Yes, I will fully agree there is some really irritating shit in Windows Vista/7. Notably the network center...GOD I hate that. However, I imagine it will eventually bother me less as I get used to it.
Really though, the point I'm trying to make is that all the things you are bitching about are inconsequential and that the OS is honestly quite good. And this is coming from a person that was using Linux more than Windows at one point. I actually LIKE Windows 7. It's pretty nice.
You do not use an authorization number to do a refund. The same authorization number can be given out from the same bank more than once on the same DAY. This number means nothing. You do, in fact, need the card, but that data can be looked up by the processor or even the software they use on their computers. I'm guessing the computer though, because processors (like the one I work for) don't usually store the name from the card in their system. That is something specifically done at the point of sale and it is taken from the card itself. Your name is there because that's part of verifying that you are the person that is supposed to use the card. You can't have security without having a way to verify the person using the card SHOULD be using the card.
That is pointless anyway though because we all know that no one actually checks the name or signature, but still. They have the data because it was actually necessary at the time of sale and the system probably just stores it with all the other data. It's not that they're trying to breach your privacy...they used the data at one point for something valid. You may have a point about them storing it afterward though. I don't see why that is okay. You'd think the security standards would frown upon this. They are actually quite strict about this thing. You aren't even allowed to have the card number print on any copy of the receipt (including the merchant copy) anymore. Hell, our terminals won't show it ANYWHERE anymore. Receipts, reports, on the terminal itself...nowhere. They don't dick around with this stuff and they don't take it very lightly (usually).
Not that I support this, but they're doing this because they want to put movies out on Pay-Per-View sooner than they do now but they won't do it without this retarded DRM. Good luck guys...I stopped paying for cable a long time ago. They're shooting themselves in the foot when people with analog TVs can't watch movies. I honestly can't understand why they are such assholes to their paying customers. They don't seem to get that everything they do is eventually going to get undone by pirates. Quit trying and just give me my god damn movie and let me play it without your bullshit. That's all I want. I do indeed still buy movies, games, and music...I've been doing it more and more as I have more money to spend on it. If I like something I pay for it...quit trying to screw me.
The problem is complaining that other devices don't do things well and then talking about how great another device is because it doesn't have problems with things like that. In other words, if you used your netbook like you used your iPad, I'm willing to bet you'd have no problems. Using a windows computer just to check email, browse the web a little, and check your Facebook is not going to run afoul of a single thing the parent had mentioned. In other words, if you're going to complain, you should try and actually compare the devices doing the same things.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how your problems COULD apply to an iPad. Obviously you can't plug it into a PBX and it's wireless so...not switch. You could just use a windows laptop with wireless or a netbook. Most people DON'T run into drivers issues and shit because they don't use other things. They don't replace the graphics cards and the like. This is a straw man...the iPad doesn't have any of the problems you mention because you CAN'T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. Yes, the more you restrict what can be done on a device, the less problems you'll have when people simply can't attempt to DO those things.
Yeah, have them open up bidding and watch Cox get replaced by Comcast. Seriously. In my area, they're the only other cable competitor (they're in Tucon, I'm near Phoenix). You think Cox is so bad...take a look at all the other crooked fuckers out there. Cox is still 100x better than Time Warner or Comcast. They haven't been actively trying to fuck me like those 2 have.
I'm a Cox customer in AZ. I have to say honestly...nothing of value has been lost here. Anyone that seriously uses Usenet does not use the Usenet that their ISP provides. It is atrocious. Completion is awful, retention is laughably small, and it's quite frankly not worth using.
I've been with them for quite a long time. I have no idea why the guy a few posts up thinks they suck...except that maybe their help desk people are idiots. I've pretty well come to expect that and after working at my own job for a while and talking to other ISPs to help people out, I've concluded that they are ALL fucking morons. A pretty vast number of people in call centers are mindless idiots who don't know what they're doing and are just following the steps. Not a script per se, or even a flow chart, they're just doing what people have said worked and have no idea why. That is why when something unexpected comes up...mind fucking blown.
At any rate, I am not surprised about this at all. No one uses their ISP's usenet service anymore. They're awful. My current provider has over a year of binary retention. Cox has like...less than a month. This service is USELESS because they haven't invested enough time and effort into it because they have better things to do. Hell, they've bumped our bandwidth caps up for free several times over the years I've had them and I don't expect them to lower the price of their service for dropping a completely useless service. Not useless in that no one uses it...useless in that it was piss poor to begin with. They just had it there because it's always been there.
So you think Apple SHOULD be able to sue HTC into the ground for ridiculous patents? Really? I'd think it was actually a GOOD thing if HTC could get a leg up on all of that. To have a patent portfolio to fire right back at Apple would work out well for everyone. I don't want to see HTC sued over a bunch of stupid patents and I don't think HTC having their own to keep Apple at bay is going to damage anyone. Apple is bad enough about these things as it is...they don't need more patents to get sue happy with.
I honestly can't believe I just read that. What is wrong with you?
Remember this the next time ICANN comes up again. Remember this when you go to ask "why can't the United States give up control?" This. This is exactly why. We may not be perfect, but free speech is paramount in this country.
Would they be sued into oblivion and possibly forced to take down their servers in the process? Absolutely. Would the US set up their own blocking mechanisms? No. This is ridiculous. Blocking "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright" ? Seriously? I mean our government is pretty retarded sometimes but even they wouldn't get away with THAT. Remember countries like Australia, China, and the UK are part of the UN. Remember that when you think of handing them control. They all have a say. I'm not one of those "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" type people, but this is one of those times where I truly believe something is done best here.
The first amendment is the first one for a reason. We may not always do it in the best way but honestly? We still do it better than most other countries. The keys to the internet should be held by the country least likely to censor the shit out of it. I do not trust the UN or any other body to do that and I do actually believe in the UN for other things. This is one of those things though that cannot be compromised on. The internet must stay free. If the US ever were to threaten that, THEN I would be 100% for giving control over to whoever will mess it up less.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you forget the part where the peak amount of bandwidth usage is the only actual factor that matters. It doesn't matter one bit how much bandwidth I use per month...it only matters how many people are using it at a time. The whole $/gb model doesn't even make sense. It's based upon a bunch of greedy bullshit. The ISPs don't seem to have any issues upgrading their infrastructure with the 100's of millions of dollars they make not to mention they built that infrastructure with our tax dollars. I might be sympathetic if they weren't putting absurdly low limits on this kind of stuff. My friend in Canada has to limit the games he downloads and buys from Steam because of the bandwidth limits...that's kind of retarded. This seems to be a fairly regular activity these days along with streaming movies and watching Youtube. I don't really think that all those bandwidth hogs are really going to be seen as that for much longer.
Because people are naturally more inclined to be angry at things that affect them? Is that even a real question? And who is to say how angry anyone is or isn't at the rest of the world. I routinely talk about the UK to 1984 and exclaim that the book wasn't meant to be used as a handbook.
Furthermore, this is a US site, with people concerned primarily with US affairs and the people in those countries that have the most heinous blocks have a real hard time complaining about it behind the great firewall. And lastly, I wasn't aware you could only be angry with 1 thing at a time.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but getting arrested and being CONVICTED are different things, yes? What exactly gives them the right to publish these on Facebook before you've been convicted of a crime? Sure, I guess if you are later convicted that's somewhat okay (though they are giant douches for it), but when you've merely been arrested? That seems a little draconian to me. That seems like a slander lawsuit waiting to happen.
Try ArchLinux. I've used Arch for a while now and I love it. I went to Arch after I got tired of compiling everything by hand in Gentoo. You'll get your updates muuuch faster than Ubuntu as well. Rolling software updates are SO much better than the retarded release cycle that Ubuntu does. Arch is also pretty nice to use and it's flexible. I like that. I can install it minimal like I did Gentoo or you can have a nice installer CD with bells and whistles if you don't feel like dicking with it.
It can be disabled. It says that right there in the summary. Geez dude, did you just read the title and call it a day? :p
No kidding. I love that the Tor project exists but I get tired of it being thrown out as a solution to every conceivable issue. No, running ALL of my browsing through something that makes it slow down to near-dial-up speeds is not actually a solution. The actual solution is to actually have people respect my privacy. In a country like the US I should not NEED to use Tor.
And if a site that you log into also tracks you? I suppose you're safe if the tracking cookie actually comes from another domain but what if it doesn't? Trying to use the internet without cookies enabled is a pain in the ass.
Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. This guy is an idiot. It's like he hasn't considering that um...duh...people can still pirate that DLC. Is he really that retarded? Or is he implying that maybe some people will be more willing to pay for things that are cheaper or something? I really just don't get it.
What? It's $2,250 per song. Didn't you even read the SUMMARY, for crying out loud? Total reward was $67,500. That is still insane. Making someone pay $67k (the price of a really crappy house basically) is absurd. Many people have already mentioned that this law was intended to apply to COMMERCIAL copyright infringement. These people made no money at all. The damages sustained are VERY much arguable. The amount they ended up with is ridiculous and this person will probably STILL have to claim bankruptcy. These people are being abused, plain and simple. I cannot state clearly enough what a gross abuse of the legal system this is. They're printing money. That's not what these laws are for.
Who said anything about kids? You get a tax break for having kids...why do you get the benefits just for being married? If you want to have kids, yes, I can somewhat agree with giving tax breaks...kids are expensive. But a tax break just for being married? Why, exactly? To encourage people to have kids? I don't know about you, but I don't really think it's the government's place to do that, just like it isn't the government's place to tell people whether or not it is okay to be gay in the first place.
Really this all just falls back to the fact that the government really shouldn't be regulating marriage in the first place. If they need a legal way of binding people (for benefits, kids, etc), then they need to make something that everyone has access to. Don't call it marriage and make EVERYONE use the same process. Something you can't ban the gays, blacks, Mexicans, or anything else from. You can use Civil Unions if you like, but you make the straight people get them too if they want legal benefits. In other words if you want to actually get MARRIED, you can walk down to your church and do that. Then you can apply to the state for a civil union. If you're gay, you can find a church that will take you if you want to get married or if you just want legal benefits, you go to the same office and get the same civil union. These things need to be separated. Why is the government sticking it's nose into marriage and WHY, if it is sticking it's nose in, is it discriminating people for it? Separate but equal was stricken down a pretty long time ago. This has happened before...don't people learn from history? Pull your bigoted heads out of your asses for a minute.
Except that the way our government functions is supposed to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority rather specifically. The will of the majority does not trample the RIGHTS of the minority. That's the important part. Everyone has rights and it isn't supposed to be based on their color, sex, or sexual orientation. That's what this country is supposed to stand for. It doesn't matter how offended these bigots are because their opinion is of no consequence to people's rights. It's ridiculous this anti-gay culture still prevails in this day and age. The fact that Obama pretty much refused to comment on gay rights during the debates and stuff is deplorable (and hell, I like the guy). All politicians have to either divert or proclaim they aren't going to let the gays marry or find some politically correct way to say "don't worry, I won't let those homos marry each other." I've heard the argument that it makes normal marriages worth less and I seriously want to scream. It enrages me in a way I cannot describe. I'm married to a woman and I find no problems letting a man marry another man or a woman marry another woman. They're people too, are they not? The very fact anyone would find that offensive pretty much means they find being gay at all offensive. They try to dress it up with pretty words but people aren't stupid. I have gay friends and if they want to marry each other, that's awesome. I just don't understand why people are so fucking concerned with what OTHER people are doing. It's none of your god damn business and it shouldn't matter anyway.
It's funny because it's the same sort of discrimination that black people endured for so long and yet that same group of people is perfectly fine with the gays being denied rights too. The hypocrisy is just sickening. All around. Christians are supposed to love their fellow man and treat them well. Or something. I don't know, I'm not a Christian. It sure as hell doesn't look that way to me. I know a person that is struggling with the fact that he's gay but is Christian at the same time and is literally afraid of being gay. He's starting to come around and stop trying to make himself conform, but I still think it's sad that he lived so long thinking he was doing something evil. It's not okay. It really isn't. Making someone feel that way for being born a certain way is one of the worst kinds of evil.
I live in Canada, and I am on the 3 mbit plan with Rogers. When I'm downloading, I almost always max it out. Others I know on faster plans are also able to max out their 5 mbit and 10 mbit connections all the tims
. Maybe things are different in the US, but I really hope things are this bad.
Is that a typo or your Canadian addiction to Tim Horton's?!!
First, The perception of the Google "do no evil" is simply a fantasy. If you hit parts of the market which affect Google, I could imagine them being as nasty as Microsoft.
Why is it that these arguments generally involve someone "imagining" Google *could* do something evil but they haven't actually done it yet. Look, I don't trust any company 100% but honestly, I get tired of this new "Google is evil" meme floating around. They haven't hardly done shit. No, they aren't perfect, but honestly, pull your head out of the ground and look at the landscape. What exactly makes Google evil? They still seem like pretty upstanding guys...what other company would have bought VP8 and open sourced it for the good of the internet? Yeah, maybe they have ulterior motives, but you know what, I still think they've been pretty damn good for the most part.
With a choice between Google, Microsoft, and Apple...who would you take? I know my answer.
The 90's called, they want their "'x' called, they want their 'y' back" back.
(Enjoy the recursion.)
The recursion is broken. You didn't properly nest the quotes. :p
Maybe not already, but it certainly is now... _
Unfortunately, if you go into the future kicking and screaming you will indeed find some "features" are missing. It sucks, but sometimes you just need to sit down and adapt. Hell, you may eventually come to like it. Yes, I will fully agree there is some really irritating shit in Windows Vista/7. Notably the network center...GOD I hate that. However, I imagine it will eventually bother me less as I get used to it.
Really though, the point I'm trying to make is that all the things you are bitching about are inconsequential and that the OS is honestly quite good. And this is coming from a person that was using Linux more than Windows at one point. I actually LIKE Windows 7. It's pretty nice.
You do not use an authorization number to do a refund. The same authorization number can be given out from the same bank more than once on the same DAY. This number means nothing. You do, in fact, need the card, but that data can be looked up by the processor or even the software they use on their computers. I'm guessing the computer though, because processors (like the one I work for) don't usually store the name from the card in their system. That is something specifically done at the point of sale and it is taken from the card itself. Your name is there because that's part of verifying that you are the person that is supposed to use the card. You can't have security without having a way to verify the person using the card SHOULD be using the card.
That is pointless anyway though because we all know that no one actually checks the name or signature, but still. They have the data because it was actually necessary at the time of sale and the system probably just stores it with all the other data. It's not that they're trying to breach your privacy...they used the data at one point for something valid. You may have a point about them storing it afterward though. I don't see why that is okay. You'd think the security standards would frown upon this. They are actually quite strict about this thing. You aren't even allowed to have the card number print on any copy of the receipt (including the merchant copy) anymore. Hell, our terminals won't show it ANYWHERE anymore. Receipts, reports, on the terminal itself...nowhere. They don't dick around with this stuff and they don't take it very lightly (usually).
Not that I support this, but they're doing this because they want to put movies out on Pay-Per-View sooner than they do now but they won't do it without this retarded DRM. Good luck guys...I stopped paying for cable a long time ago. They're shooting themselves in the foot when people with analog TVs can't watch movies. I honestly can't understand why they are such assholes to their paying customers. They don't seem to get that everything they do is eventually going to get undone by pirates. Quit trying and just give me my god damn movie and let me play it without your bullshit. That's all I want. I do indeed still buy movies, games, and music...I've been doing it more and more as I have more money to spend on it. If I like something I pay for it...quit trying to screw me.
The problem is complaining that other devices don't do things well and then talking about how great another device is because it doesn't have problems with things like that. In other words, if you used your netbook like you used your iPad, I'm willing to bet you'd have no problems. Using a windows computer just to check email, browse the web a little, and check your Facebook is not going to run afoul of a single thing the parent had mentioned. In other words, if you're going to complain, you should try and actually compare the devices doing the same things.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how your problems COULD apply to an iPad. Obviously you can't plug it into a PBX and it's wireless so...not switch. You could just use a windows laptop with wireless or a netbook. Most people DON'T run into drivers issues and shit because they don't use other things. They don't replace the graphics cards and the like. This is a straw man...the iPad doesn't have any of the problems you mention because you CAN'T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. Yes, the more you restrict what can be done on a device, the less problems you'll have when people simply can't attempt to DO those things.
Yeah, have them open up bidding and watch Cox get replaced by Comcast. Seriously. In my area, they're the only other cable competitor (they're in Tucon, I'm near Phoenix). You think Cox is so bad...take a look at all the other crooked fuckers out there. Cox is still 100x better than Time Warner or Comcast. They haven't been actively trying to fuck me like those 2 have.
I'm a Cox customer in AZ. I have to say honestly...nothing of value has been lost here. Anyone that seriously uses Usenet does not use the Usenet that their ISP provides. It is atrocious. Completion is awful, retention is laughably small, and it's quite frankly not worth using.
I've been with them for quite a long time. I have no idea why the guy a few posts up thinks they suck...except that maybe their help desk people are idiots. I've pretty well come to expect that and after working at my own job for a while and talking to other ISPs to help people out, I've concluded that they are ALL fucking morons. A pretty vast number of people in call centers are mindless idiots who don't know what they're doing and are just following the steps. Not a script per se, or even a flow chart, they're just doing what people have said worked and have no idea why. That is why when something unexpected comes up...mind fucking blown.
At any rate, I am not surprised about this at all. No one uses their ISP's usenet service anymore. They're awful. My current provider has over a year of binary retention. Cox has like...less than a month. This service is USELESS because they haven't invested enough time and effort into it because they have better things to do. Hell, they've bumped our bandwidth caps up for free several times over the years I've had them and I don't expect them to lower the price of their service for dropping a completely useless service. Not useless in that no one uses it...useless in that it was piss poor to begin with. They just had it there because it's always been there.
I believe the word you were looking for was "sugar." If you're going to be witty, do try and get it right.
So you think Apple SHOULD be able to sue HTC into the ground for ridiculous patents? Really? I'd think it was actually a GOOD thing if HTC could get a leg up on all of that. To have a patent portfolio to fire right back at Apple would work out well for everyone. I don't want to see HTC sued over a bunch of stupid patents and I don't think HTC having their own to keep Apple at bay is going to damage anyone. Apple is bad enough about these things as it is...they don't need more patents to get sue happy with.
I honestly can't believe I just read that. What is wrong with you?
Remember this the next time ICANN comes up again. Remember this when you go to ask "why can't the United States give up control?" This. This is exactly why. We may not be perfect, but free speech is paramount in this country.
Would they be sued into oblivion and possibly forced to take down their servers in the process? Absolutely. Would the US set up their own blocking mechanisms? No. This is ridiculous. Blocking "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright" ? Seriously? I mean our government is pretty retarded sometimes but even they wouldn't get away with THAT. Remember countries like Australia, China, and the UK are part of the UN. Remember that when you think of handing them control. They all have a say. I'm not one of those "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" type people, but this is one of those times where I truly believe something is done best here.
The first amendment is the first one for a reason. We may not always do it in the best way but honestly? We still do it better than most other countries. The keys to the internet should be held by the country least likely to censor the shit out of it. I do not trust the UN or any other body to do that and I do actually believe in the UN for other things. This is one of those things though that cannot be compromised on. The internet must stay free. If the US ever were to threaten that, THEN I would be 100% for giving control over to whoever will mess it up less.