Re: Re: Re: Ten years ago Internet was much better
Also, how in the world can you call Geocities pages 'better functioning' than the cookie-cutter blogs of today??? The Geocities pages may have been more interesting but I certainly don't recall better functionality. Half of the pages were broken, and the other half should have been - a Wordpress blog may contain crap, but it's code is perfectly functional. :)
Re: Re: Re: Ten years ago Internet was much better
You seem to assuming that I wasn't there as well. I was there. I had a Geocities page and a surprisingly low IRC number. I just disagree with you.
I believe that the Internet had a monopoly of giants that all of the others followed slavishly then, as well. (The name changes but the song's the same.) There are still innumerable chat providers, and you can hardly complain that having a few major players is a problem for everyone, when it's everyone's choice of whom to patronize.
People are still blogging today without exposing their information to Google, because Google offers just one of many blogging platforms. A Wordpress blog is just about the easiest thing in the world to throw up on your own piece of Internet, and it's cheaper than ever to have your own piece, meaning that many, many more people can take advantage of the Internet today.
In fact, that's where I think that you're mistaken. In the beginning, the Internet was full of a small portion of people, making it seem variable and fantastic. Now, everyone has the resources and know-how to use the Internet, and the resulting flood of sheep-like people is making the Internet look... Well. Sheep-like.
The Internet hasn't changed. The quality of Internet users has.
You mean, the Internet was better looking? I guess I'm trying to say that it seems like your problem is with design and ownership, which was the same them. One company owned Geocities, which was like Facebook for the HTML inclined, and it was IRC and chat rooms instead of Twitter.
Sure, blogs today look very similar, but I think it beats the weird, crazy sites that only someone new to HTML could love (or read) and the availability of the look-alike sites means that even people who can't code a website can still take part in the social exchange, the exchange of fun, and the exchange of knowledge.
So smaller people shouldn't be help responsible for their actions? How are you supposed to turn them loose on the world at 18, if they've spent 18 years without responsibility?
How do you expect parents to teach their children without letting them make mistakes? Or do you think that they're going to wholeheartedly listen to what their parents tell them?
How far does this go? Are parents responsible if the State issues a license to a 17 year old, who then gets into a crash? How about a 16 year old who gets his girl pregnant? Are the parents responsible for the new baby?
Do you think that parents should monitor their children 24/7, and never let them out of their sight, for fear that they might break a law?
What happens if the parent does monitor computer use at home, and the child shares files at school, at the library, on a borrowed computer, or in a computer cafe? Who's responsible then? What happens if the 16 year old purchases his own netbook and then drives his own car to Starbucks, where he uses a wireless connection to fileshare?
Is Starbucks responsible? Are the parents responsible? Or is the man-child responsible?
How culpable are the parents, anyway? In a case of abuse or neglect, both parents are responsible, even if one parent doesn't live in the home. How does this work with your concept of parental responsibility? Is it 80% culpability for the in-home parent, and 20% for the absent parent? 50/50? Or 100% on the in-home parent?
What if other adults live in the home? Are they responsible, as well? What if the other adult is elderly or an 18-year-old sibling?
What if a friend brings a laptop or netbook or smartphone into the home and uses it to fileshare? Is the parent of the friend responsible or the parent who owns the home? Or is it the person who owns the Internet connection (which may very well be the child)?
Personally, I think that the child, in this case, should be held responsible for their own actions.
I don't think the post was about Larry Platt's character, or about the value of his composition. I think it was about his strange belief that he can and should somehow be able to retroactively monetize the song...
And, yes, he is a civil rights hero, but that doesn't mean we have to value his song, his message, or his legal threats.
There are people making money off of the General's message - ringtones, t-shirts, etc. - but all that money, or at least a bit of it, should go to the originator of the song.
And not the people who produced the ringtones, the t-shirts, and the etc? Does their labor and creativity count for nothing?
Most parents don't know that they need to watch for this, or what reasonable actions would be. With the current laws, both the parents and the children are likely breaking laws every single day, and don't know it.
The FCC doesn't have the resources to effectively administer it's current duties. Screw adding more duties.
Further, if the FCC cracked down on the broadband locational monopolies, you wouldn't need net neutrality laws. We would take care of errant service providers ourselves, by switching to a different provider.
You know, here's an idea. If NCAA wants to own every site with NCAA in it, why don't they just preemptively PURCHASE every name with NCAA in it? If they buy them all, no one else can have them and then nobody gets sued, or wastes money in court.
On the post: Did The Automobile Dehumanize Walking? No? Then Does Google Dehumanize Intelligence?
Re: Re: Re: Ten years ago Internet was much better
On the post: Did The Automobile Dehumanize Walking? No? Then Does Google Dehumanize Intelligence?
Re: Re: Re: Ten years ago Internet was much better
I believe that the Internet had a monopoly of giants that all of the others followed slavishly then, as well. (The name changes but the song's the same.) There are still innumerable chat providers, and you can hardly complain that having a few major players is a problem for everyone, when it's everyone's choice of whom to patronize.
People are still blogging today without exposing their information to Google, because Google offers just one of many blogging platforms. A Wordpress blog is just about the easiest thing in the world to throw up on your own piece of Internet, and it's cheaper than ever to have your own piece, meaning that many, many more people can take advantage of the Internet today.
In fact, that's where I think that you're mistaken. In the beginning, the Internet was full of a small portion of people, making it seem variable and fantastic. Now, everyone has the resources and know-how to use the Internet, and the resulting flood of sheep-like people is making the Internet look... Well. Sheep-like.
The Internet hasn't changed. The quality of Internet users has.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Automobile Dehumanize Walking? No? Then Does Google Dehumanize Intelligence?
Re: Ten years ago Internet was much better
Sure, blogs today look very similar, but I think it beats the weird, crazy sites that only someone new to HTML could love (or read) and the availability of the look-alike sites means that even people who can't code a website can still take part in the social exchange, the exchange of fun, and the exchange of knowledge.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re: Re:
I guess he wasn't prepared to comment.
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: Parents should be responsible
How do you expect parents to teach their children without letting them make mistakes? Or do you think that they're going to wholeheartedly listen to what their parents tell them?
How far does this go? Are parents responsible if the State issues a license to a 17 year old, who then gets into a crash? How about a 16 year old who gets his girl pregnant? Are the parents responsible for the new baby?
Do you think that parents should monitor their children 24/7, and never let them out of their sight, for fear that they might break a law?
What happens if the parent does monitor computer use at home, and the child shares files at school, at the library, on a borrowed computer, or in a computer cafe? Who's responsible then? What happens if the 16 year old purchases his own netbook and then drives his own car to Starbucks, where he uses a wireless connection to fileshare?
Is Starbucks responsible? Are the parents responsible? Or is the man-child responsible?
How culpable are the parents, anyway? In a case of abuse or neglect, both parents are responsible, even if one parent doesn't live in the home. How does this work with your concept of parental responsibility? Is it 80% culpability for the in-home parent, and 20% for the absent parent? 50/50? Or 100% on the in-home parent?
What if other adults live in the home? Are they responsible, as well? What if the other adult is elderly or an 18-year-old sibling?
What if a friend brings a laptop or netbook or smartphone into the home and uses it to fileshare? Is the parent of the friend responsible or the parent who owns the home? Or is it the person who owns the Internet connection (which may very well be the child)?
Personally, I think that the child, in this case, should be held responsible for their own actions.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re:
And, yes, he is a civil rights hero, but that doesn't mean we have to value his song, his message, or his legal threats.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re:
And not the people who produced the ringtones, the t-shirts, and the etc? Does their labor and creativity count for nothing?
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: American Parent Liability Child's Act
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re:
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Parental Responsibility
On the post: Will Lower Prices Help Sell More Albums?
Yes!!
It's also why I purchased almost the entire Beatles catalog for about $0.25 per song. (I got in on the Bluebeat thing before it was shut down.)
On the post: School Wants To Claim Copyright Over Any Lesson Plans Created By Teachers
On the post: France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets
He Who Must Not Be Named
Wow.
So if Hitler were alive and languishing in a prison somewhere, he could ask the Internet to 'forget' him?
Would that make him (and any other historical figure) They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?
Rofl.
On the post: Court Notices That The FCC Appears To Have No Legal Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality
Free Market?
Further, if the FCC cracked down on the broadband locational monopolies, you wouldn't need net neutrality laws. We would take care of errant service providers ourselves, by switching to a different provider.
Ah, the free market. I wish we had one.
On the post: NCAA Tries To Bully Fan Discussion Site Into Handing Over Its Domain Name
On the post: Psystar Wants To Make A Go Of Just Selling You The Tools To Install Mac OS On Your PC
Re: Re: The hardware.
On the post: Psystar Wants To Make A Go Of Just Selling You The Tools To Install Mac OS On Your PC
Re:
On the post: Creating Living Books: A Defense Against 'Piracy'?
Re: on fail
People are doing that right now, man.
Next >>