Oh wow. Let me get this straight. After about a dozen or so posts of you telling us how illegal it is to share any file, you encourage everyone to go download a movie? Please. Get real. I mean, at least tell us to download Linux or something useful like Open Office. But wait, that would defeat your purpose, wouldn't it? Wow.
I do have a question for you though. You say that all P2P should be illegal and should not be allowed. What do you propose to do about the game companies that push updates to their clients, people that pay for a game and a service (WoW, EQ2, Steam/Valve games etc.) by using P2P software? Do you have a better idea about how they should do this? Should they go back to the old days of having their servers crash when they patch games or when a new game is released? Please help me understand this a bit better. Since you are such a great and awesome god of understanding how P2P works.
I saw in a, either NY Times or CNN, article this morning that the blogger was actually a former friend of the model. So doesn't that mean that she may have had some insight that the rest of us didn't as to whether or not the model was a skank or not?
Um. I'm guessing you don't understand the phrase "generation older." By definition all parents are a generation older than their offspring AND they are probably not going to be "hip" on the latest and greatest social networking site/place/location/item etc. that their children will be involved in. And I call bullshit on the fact that todays parents don't know about social networking. Most of todays parents, with teenage children, are in their mid 30's to early 40's. This means that they grew up with early chat rooms, AOL, Yahoo, MSN, and do undestand social networking.
Even their parents understand social networking. Only they didn't do it online. They did it at school dances, malt shops, drive in movie theaters, etc. And they had just as many problems there as my generation (mid 30's) did in the early chat days and as their grandchildren (my children) will have in social networking websites.
So to say that they [parents] don't know what is going on is a blatent lie. Most parents choose to not look at what is going in. As Mike said, if I choose to not educate my children on who they should not talk to, regardless of the situation (web or real life) then I have no one to blame but myself. How dare I rely on the government or schools to teach them something so important? Most of the teachers and politicians are older than I am. So they, according to you, know even less about social networking than I do.
Yes but only English Majors worry about just little things as grammer and spelling. Those of us in the real world are more concerned about the overall value of the information. And if there are tiny spelling/grammer errors, so what. That's not that big of a deal. We deal with real world people all day long that may not have the best spelling or grammer but that know a whole hell of a lot more than we do in a given technical area.
For example, I would not trust my brother to write his own resume becuase he struggles with writing the english language. But if I need some work done on high power electrical equipment, or some power poles climbed and hardware replaced, well then I'm calling him. And by the way, they have to have a working knowledge of high level math to intimatly understand what is going to happen if the cross A with C. And not just that it may be something bad.
Actually it's not that "sweet". My Grandmother is on Medicare and they are in a worse place perscription wise than people on different types of insurance. They keep taking money away from the plan and raising the cost that the seniors have to pay. For people on a fixed income, retirment payments or othewise, this is very bad news. This means that they now have to spend more of their money on medicine and docter visits than the month before. Meaning they have even less money to spend on things like food, transportation, and neccessities.
So yes, those over the age of 65, and those that help care for them, do care.
I love the way your write in your comments. If this happens I will be one of the first to check it out. I would even be willing to pay a modest sum ($5-$15 depending on the size of the book) for such a book, based on how you write your comments. Keep the comments coming.
I read TechDirt first for the insights of the community (i.e. the writers) and disagree with some of what is said, but agree with more of it. I read it second to find your comments and get a bit of a laugh for my day. Most of the time it is perfectly placed in my day and brings much needed relief.
Thanks again. And I hope Mike takes you up on this offer.
Actually this is a misunderstanding...on your part.
GV only makes use of my mobile minutes if I have it set to call my cell phone. However, I can set it to call any number I want it to. For example, I have it set to call my work number between 7:30am and 4:30pm weekdays and my cell phone any other time. So it would only use my cell minutes if it called my cell. However, it does not use my cell minutes for long distance or international calls. It is only a local call to my cell phone no matter what number I dial.
The way it works is that you purchase international minutes directly from GV. With rates substantially lower than the rates that POTS or even cell providers offer.
So what the second commenter (tony) said, that some people had trouble understanding, makes sense. If you have a cell plan that allows for free incoming calls, i.e. it does not charge against your cell plan minutes. Then GV truly does not cost you anything. GV calles your phone via your GV number, so that call is free to you, then GV completes the call to the person you are trying to reach using the POTS. Again, not using any of your cell minutes.
So really, the only way that GV can impact the price you have to pay AT&T, or any provider, is if you have it set to allow SMS messages to be sent to your phone. And that's only if you don't have a $20 unlimited text plan.
I'm interested in knowing why you say that those of us in the 30-40 age range bracket are "not...AFRAID of technology...[but]unfamiliar with it."
I seem to remember growing up with all of this technology, learning how it works and making it work for me. I seem to remember somthing about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs not being that much older than me (I'm 31, almost 32) and creating (or stealing, but making popular) all of the technology you see around you today.
In my humble opinion, you would not have the level of technology you have today if the 30-40 year olds of today had been afraid or, hell, even unfamiliar with, technology.
I spent close to ten years working in the grocery industry in California. Near the end of my time with them, the grocery chain I worked for had almost bi-weekly, unscheduled visits from weights and measures. Now this wasn't because my particular store was doing anything wrong, but that there were three or four stores that had been nailed for improper pricing and sales.
Basically what this means is that even if an employee screwed up making signage or placing tags, the price that that was in front of the item better match what it scanned at the register. If it didn't, and it didn't matter if it was low or high, the store and the chain were fined. And it was a fine in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It got to the point that we were so paranoid that we were triple checking everything in the store, not just the department we worked in. If anything was wrong, we had to be prepared to honor it at that price. If that meant that a $80 bottle of scotch was sold for $20, then so be it.
All due to regulations by the state, and possibly federal government, department called Weights and Measures. This applies to any store that sells anything. Not just to items that have to be weighed first. If the item once scanned does not match the price that the sign says, the store is in violation of regulations.
Here's an experiment to try. Go to your local Wal-Mart and find a display of an item that has a price that looks too good to be true. Using your trusty Cell Phone camera, start recording video. You might want to make sure that you have a phone with a memory card in it and set your video to full size recording. Record the display, maybe your watch (with date and time), the price on the display, and leave your camera running. Go get in line and make your purchase. Now the fun part. If the item scans at a higher price, tell the cashier and watch the fun. They will send a manager to check on the display. The manager will come back and tell you that you were wrong, of course, and that the display sign matches the price scanned. Now, go back to the display with the manager and you will see that yes, it does match. But, just 5 minutes ago, it didn't. Now you get to pull out your cell phone, still recording of course, and show the manager the video. Then see what happens. You will probably get kicked out of the store for videotaping without permission and they will not sell you the item.
This may seem like an extreme condition, but it's happened to me at least twice, and to other people I know several times. The only way to get them to honor that price is to force them to with the proof.
Now when it comes to a website deal, screenshots rule. Don't let them try to fake you out like that.
Actually this was the funniest thing in that article:
"BMI and ASCAP represent about 97 percent of all U.S. songwriters and composers who write music for today's recording artists. SESAC represents the rest."
According to this reporter 100% of the songwriters and composers who write music belong to one of these associations. That is such a blatent lie it's funny. For example one of my co-workers, an IT professional by trade, is a musician/songwriter in his off time. One of his greatest accomplishments was getting a song, he wrote, into a movie. He was so proud of the fact that when we were discussing the music industry the other day he made sure to tell me that when his song is listed in the credits...There is no ASCAP or BMI next to his name.
The best part of this...Even though he doesn't have one of those associations to "get his fair share" for him...The contract he was able to do himself, alows him to still recieve residuals from that song. Now it's not a lot, but it's still something.
It's just amazing how much these associations will blatently lie to get their point across.
Wait a minute. The editors don't want to be seen as endorsing the credibility of the link, but they want us to believe that all of the information they used is credible? There's something wrong with that.
In College, we are told to include all of our source information when we write papers. The reason for this is because the Instructor needs to validate the CREDIBILITY of our source. Could you imagine if we tried to use an argument like that editor?
“Well, see her Prof. I didn't tell you the source for that info because I didn't want to be responsible for its credibility.” The professor would so laugh you out of class.