I have contemplated this issue for many an hour...mainly because i am a die hard xbox360 fan, and anyone who keeps up with the console and its accessories knows that the company (microsoft) has just announced the release of an external usb HD-DVD player that will connect to your entertainment system. I have considered all of the pros and cons i could think of concerning whether or not to buy this accessory. While doing some research on the hardware, i got to thinking more about the benefits of Blu-ray over HD-DVDs and vise versa. My opinion, based off of personal research, is that neither one will "win" over the other, i think that the only way there will be success with next generation DVDs will be if the companies can combine the features from both of their products. Even though the playstation3 will come with an integrated Blu-ray player, it doesn't necessarily mean that the particular format will prevail over the other. We must take into consideration that still only a small percentage of buyers have entertainment systems that can display the HD video, and even a smaller percentage can display true HD video (1080progressive scan) resolution, which is the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's most prevalent feature.
My opinion is mainly based off of a similar situation, if anyone knows about the competition between VHS and Betamax. It shows that continuous competition between two different formats isn't possible and can't result in a benefit for either company.
The biggest problem will probably come from consumer confusion by having two different formats and two different players. Most consumers will not take the time to do research and find the benefits from either one.
one website with some relevant material on Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD is here: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1982533,00.asp
I think that if a parody is made and consumers can't tell the difference between the original and the parody then its not really a parody. Similarly the creators of the parody should be penalized because consumers are unable to differentiate between the two versions of a song. Weird Al's new song "White and Nerdy" is a good example of an actual parody, I have yet to come across someone that cannot decifer between that and it's original.
The article doesn't mention much about what Barney has done to "harass" this guy, I'd like to know more about that. Threatening legal action is not harassment, especially if the company that owns Barney is losing money from the parody.
parody n. the humorous use of an existing song, play, speaker or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning. Parodies have been challenged as copyright infringements on the original works, particularly since some have reaped terrific profits. Recent decisions favor the parodies and say they have an originality of their own and, thus, are not infringements. There is a free speech issue involved in these decisions since parodies traditionally have social and political significance.
The problem I see is that someone comes up with something new, in this case Barney (however freakishly annoying he is), and the creators copywrite it to protect their creation and the money they will make off of it. If a parody is not different enough so consumers know that the parody is not the actual product the company with the copywright gets screwed.
I think that Blue Ray will definately be the one that wins this battle. As most people probably know Blu Ray players are already being produced and many consumers already have them in the form of the Playstation 3 (PS3) gaming console. I actually had not heard of HD-DVD before reading this and I think that many other people are probably oblivious to this too. I think that the fact that the PS3 uses Blu Ray will be the deciding factor in which technology will succeed. I have read several things on the internet that state many people are actually planning on buying PS3's not for playing games on them, but because they are able to play Blu Ray movies and are a lot cheaper than other Blu Ray players. The PS3 costs around $500 for the cheaper version and $600 for the other and the cheapest Blu Ray player I could find was $750. Because so many people are going to have PS3's thath ave the ability to play Blu Ray discs I'm sure that movie companies will create Blu Ray versions of their movies because they know there are so many people out there that have Blu Ray players.
I found a great article that explains all the disadvantages and advantages of each format.
If "minors dont have any idea of responsibility" how will they ever learn? MySpace has an agreement you have to make when signing up for an account saying that you are the person you claim to be.
Why does it matter that you can't play for money if you are just brushing up for a later live game? I guess I don't know a whole lot about the issue since I don't play poker except on rare occaision, so I don't know how much you could potentially gain from an online site. This seems like a matter that should be dealt with in the States instead of Federally, but I imagine the reason the bill was passed had something to do with interstate commerce. Also, on a side note, I would appreciate it if you didn't call me stupid for being a republican as I would not call you names for being a democrat.
From http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question535.htm
What counts in the BCS ratings?
Here is a closer look at how the math that produces the BCS rating works. There are four components that contribute to a team's rank.
The Four Variables Explained
The Associated Press (AP) and USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll Ratings
Two subjective polls, The Associated Press ranking and USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll make up the first variable. Both of these polls have been around for many years and have an established track record. Both of these are personal choice polls. They are called this because members of both groups cast their votes based on what they think about a team's performance. Both groups also know a whole lot about football. A national board of sports writers and broadcasters participate in the AP poll, and a select group of football coaches determines the USA Today ratings. The BCS incorporates their input by averaging team rankings from these polls. For example, a team ranked No. 3 in one poll and No. 5 in the other would get four points in this category.
Computer ranking
There are eight computer-generated rankings that make up this variable. The rankings are actually the output of computer programs that crunch weekly game statistics. Most of these programs were designed by people with backgrounds in math or statistics. Their formulas factor in an eclectic mix of variables, from who won to where a game was played.
To get a team's point total, the lowest ranking is dropped, and the remaining seven are averaged to produce the team's score. This prevents any one computer's results from ruining a team's chances at No. 1 or 2. For example, if a team is ranked 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, the fourth place finish will be dropped. A team's final computer ranking would then be
( 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 ) / 7 = 9 / 7 = 1.29rather than what they would have scored with all eight included
( 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 4) / 8= 13 / 8 = 1.63
Some of the teams at the top of the BCS ranking can be separated by tenths of points, so a difference of 0.34 points is no small matter!
Computer Ranking | Run by | Important variable |
Billingsley Report | Richard Billingsley, businessman | Strength of opponent, final score, won-lost records of teams (before and after the game) |
Dunkel Index | John Duck, statistician | Strength of schedule, won-lost record, the upset factor |
Massey Ratings | Kenneth Massey, mathematics graduate student | Overall team rating, offense and defense specific ratings, strength of schedule, home-field advantage |
New York Times (NYT) | Marjorie Connelly, editor of NYT surveying department | Margin of victory, strength of schedule, recent performance |
Rothman | David Rothman, retired mathematician | Number of wins, margin of victory, quality of opponent |
Sagarin's USA Today | Jeff Sagarin, mathematician and MBA | Margin of victory, strength of schedule, location of game |
Scripps-Howard | Herman Matthews, mathematics and computer science professor | Game score, penalty for running up score, strength of schedule |
Seattle Times | Jeff Anderson, political science graduate student and Chris Hester, sportswriter and broadcaster |
Quality of opponent, strength of schedule |
Strength of a Team's Schedule
Another computer program helps to determine the third variable -- how a team's strength of schedule compares to other teams nationally. The cumulative win/loss record of not only the team's opponents, but their opponents' opponents are included in this calculation. This makes teams think twice about lining up a bunch of teams they know that they can crush on the field. It also makes coaches and athletic directors once again jump into the world of statistics. They have to plan their schedule in advance, meaning that they have to predict how well their opposition will do in the future as well as who they are likely to play.
The computer program produces a numerical value representing the strength of the opponents schedule (So) and one for the opponents' opponents (Soo). A team's overall strength of schedule (St) is then calculated using these numbers. The opponent's scheduled strength is worth twice as much as their opponents' schedule. Let's put it in the form of an equation:
2 * So + Soo= St
The resulting number, St, is used in ranking a team's schedule relative to all other 115 Division I schools. Once they have been placed in order, this list is then subdivided into quartiles (1-25, 25-50, 50-75, and so on). Their rank is then converted back to a point total by multiplying it by 0.04. This allows teams to be rated based on their placement within a given quartile.
Here's an example: A team's schedule strength is ranked No. 30 in the nation. Multiplying 30 by 0.04 gives you their point total for this category, 1.2. The 1 tells you that they placed in the second quartile, and the 2 tells you approximately where they placed within that group.
Number of Losses
The final category, number of losses, can really sound the death knell for a team. Each loss equals one point, and is added directly to a team's total score. Remember, a lower point total means a higher ranking. One loss often means the difference between playing in the national championship game and hoping to be chosen for one of the other BCS bowls. If you think about it, that's fair. This is the one place where what happens on the field matters far more than mathematical models.
As we learned in class IPv4 is starting to become exhausted of available IP addresses because the population is increasing, there are more people using the internet, and more devices are being networked. I've read several articles that predict the year that IPv4 will be completely exhausted; some say around 2025, and others 2011 or anywhere inbetween.
I found a good article about IPv4 and IPv6 that explains about both of them.
http://www.trap17.com/index.php/ipv4-vs-ipv6_t24034.html
IPv4 is capable of addressing 4,294,967,296 different computers with a 32 bit address, while IPv6 is capable of addressing 340-undecillion (34, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) with a 128 bit address. An interesting thing mentioned in this article is that in the future most, if not all, vehicles will be using Onstar or other navigational devices and these need to be networked with an IP also adding even more demand for the implentation of IPv6.
IPv6 also has many other positive things over IPv4 such as:
-IPv6 provide a security layer that places "options" in separate extension headers while IPv4 does not. The extension headers can be of arbitrary length and has no limit to the amount of options that can be carried.
-IPv6 has an anycast address that allows nodes to control the path which their traffic flows, IPv4 does not.
-IPv6 can handle different speed of networks, from Extra Low Frequency networks to very high speed of 500Gbits/s.
-IPv6 connects to global internet using a combination of it's global prefixes, while IPv4 manually renumbers to connect to the internet. IPv6 renumbers automatically.
Another article I came across was this: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0605/062905tdpm2.htm
Which states that the government is sapposed to be integrated with the new IPv6 tehcnology by June 2008.
This whole subject reminds me of a few years ago when everyone here in the United States started calling french fries "Freedom Fries" because the French didn't want to support our position on Iraq.
As said in this article posted above http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59674,00.html, I think that e-mail is already deeply embedded in their everyday language that it is going to be hard for them to make the switch, but since it's a law people that work for the government will be forced to use the new word "courriel" instead of e-mail.
well there's not plenty of IP Addresses. That is why we are switching over to IPv6. In IPv4 there isnt enough IP Addresses for the amount of people in the world. In IPv6 there will be enough for several billion IP Addresses per person. I think that will suit us for a while.
but he is correct. mail.browse.com is a sub-domain of browse.com and it couldnt be sold to any other company or person that wants it.
Today we talked in class about why most websites dont require www. when going to their site. I would like to add to what was said in class.
It was mentioned that most browsers are smart enough to just know. That is half way true. When you register for a domain name at some name server company, you have many different options when setting it up. Let's say I own the domain Browse.com. When I go to set it up I have to manually enter an IP Address for the domain to go to. Now if I want to create a subdivision like cse.brose.com i would have to enter in a different IP address for that to be forwarded to. So when companies go to setup their domain name they have an option for an *. The * allows any kind of prefix to beforwarded to the IP Address.
Lets say that www.browse.com is pointed to 129.68.15.158. I would want anyone who puts anything in place of the www. to go to my main website at 129.68.15.158. so if people leave it blank it will go to 129.68.15.158 or if they put in mail.browse.com they are forwarded to 129.68.15.158. That is the beauty of the *. No matter what people put in place for the www. in a URL, companies can set it to automatically be forwarded to the default IP Address of choice.
About the Internet browsers themself being intelligent, that is true to some degree. If you type in google in mozilla, it will take you to http://www.google.com. if you type in google in Internet Explorer it does a search for google using your default search engine. Somethings are browser specific.
I'm not sure how the entire business process side of ICANN works but this is what I know about it.
ICANN was developed after InterNIC in 1998. Why? I dont know... ICANN is the controller of the database that holds domain names and IP Addresses. They maintain what is out there. Below ICANN are profitable organizations that sell domain names and IP Addresses. Network Solutions is a Domain Name reseller. They are simply the lookup to the database that holds all domain names. Cox Communications or Windstream or Alltel are companies that sell you IP Addresses. When you get high speed internet at home they are selling you service to the Inetnet and an IP Address. These two different types of companies branch off from ICANN's services.
Why don't ICANN just provide these services? I think it is because there can only be one true database that holds ALL domain names and IP Address assignments. If ICANN were able to make money off that and be the only company out there for this service, we would have a monopoly and who knows where the price range would go.
As for it to stay in the United States I am indifferent about. Most of the board members are from the United States and there are only a few people from other countries. I think the United States does a better job than other countries would do. But should it be controlled by one country only? Well, the inventor of the Internet was from the United States and many networks were first established for US Governments.
Well as discussed in class there are several key components to a network topology. We have discussed hubs, repeaters, switches, bridges and routers very vaguely for each. But what are they and what do they do and how are they characterized? I think the best ways to separate these are by the OSI Model.
For more information on the OSI Model, hit wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osi_model. Basically the model is categorized into 7 different layers. The two that relate to us right now for this discussion are layers 1, 2, and 3. Layer 1 is called Physical Layer, Layer 2 is called Data Link Layer, and Layer 3 is the Network Layer. The layer 2 deals with switching and the layer 3 deals with routing. Layer 1 is the most basic because it is only a connection and there is no logic to its network transportation.
Having said all that, this is how our network devices fall apart. Layer 1 is categorized of Network Cards, Hubs, and Repeaters. Layer 2 is categorized of Bridges and Switches. Layer 3 is categorized of Routers and Switches.
· Layer 1 (Hubs and Repeaters)
o I know it was mentioned in class what device was most related to another device. Hubs and repeaters are basically the same thing. The only difference is that hubs are a multi-port repeater. In fact, many times a hub is called a multiport repeater. Layer 1 has no method for forwarding data, it just does it. If something hits one port on a hub, it is automatically forwarded out every other port even if the destination of the data is not on that port. A hub creates one entire Collision Domain where all data bounces around each other on the hub and is not separated.
· Layer 2 (Switches and Bridges)
o Switches and Bridges are the most similar to each other. The difference once again is the fact that a Switch is a multiport bridge. Layer 2 has a method of forwarding that uses MAC Addresses. Each switch has a MAC Address Table which lists every MAC address that has passed through the switch and the port associated where it came from. If someone sends data from port 1 on the switch to a registered MAC Address elsewhere on the switch it will send it directly to the port associated with the MAC. This is called Switching. This is different from Layer 1 because it creates multiple Collision Domains (CD). Each port itself is its own CD. This reduces the amount of traffic passed over the entire switch.
· Layer 3 (Routers and Switches)
o Layer 3 encompasses the technology of Routing. Routing is similar to Switching only it uses IP Address instead of MAC Addresses. Also, the Layer 3 devices separate Broadcast Domains. This is separates the different networks on each side of the Layer 3 device from broadcast storms. I mentioned that Switches are a part of Layer 3 and 2. Layer 3 Switches are relatively new in the fact that they now support routing. The other difference between Layer 2 Switches and Layer 3 Switches are cost, Layer 3 being the more expensive.
So I have just outlined the different Network Devices. This is a little bit controversial to what was said in class but Wikipedia and general network standards back me up. Also after writing all of this, I don't think this was much of a discussion' So let's make it one.
It seems that Layer 2 devices serve the same purpose as Layer 1 and more. So why is it that you can still purchase Hubs and Repeaters to use for networks? What are the advantages of Layer 1 and Layer 2?
I think that the arrest is justified because he was knowingly running a site that was used in distributing pirated software, games, and media. I think that the only way the government can begin to stop all the illegal filesharing through torrents is by going after the owner's of websites used to track these torrents. Once the websites to track torrents are down people will have no where to get them from. Like mentioned in a previous post another huge problem for the U.S. is that a lot of the torrent sites are not run off of servers in the United States so there is no way for them shut them down. I think the only way the U.S. government will ever be able to stop all the illegal filesharing is if they can get other countries to enact the same laws and penalties as in the United States, so that the majority of torrent sites will be shut down, but then there will still be p2p programs such as limewire, and bearshare.
There a couple issues coming up here. 1.) should gambling be legal, online or at a casino. 2.) How much regulation does the government have over the internet.
1.) I would vote for casino gambling in Nebraska, I did when it came up last time. But it is still illegal in the state of nebraska whether it is at the $5 home game I play in every thursday night, the back room of a store, or at a computer in your home. People go to the boats in council bluffs because its legal there, others do it at home because its easy and the odds of getting caught are less than getting a royal flush. The government making it harder to do something illegal isnt a bad thing. The way they did it is shady to say the least, including it on what I believe as a port security funds bill (something bush would never veto) is cowardly but thats the congress we have.
2.) The internet is pretty much impossible to regulate as a whole. It should be up to the individual user to what they see and can do. The government should protect people from crimes such as fraud and child porn but involving themselves in social issues is a "where does it stop" battle worse than the war on drugs.
One thing that does bug me is what about someone at home in Nevada. They can gamble legally in there state but now cannot online? if the federal government dislike gambling so much why not just ban all forms? Oh wait, it's called states rights. They left it up to each state and now they want to take back control because they dont like the way its being used. Big Brother at its finest.
In case you havent seen it in the news lately, congress passed a bill that made it illegal for banks to transfer funds to sites that run internet gambling operations. Not only is this a huge hit to the players, it is forcing some of the largest gaming companies to pull out of the U.S. market. Party Gaming (largest internet poker room on the net) was the first to pull out of the U.S. and it is expected that the other large players might follow. What really makes me mad about this bill is the sneaky way congress passed it. They simply added a clause onto the end of a port security bill because they have been having problems passing a straight-up internet gambling bill. I believe we should all have the right to at least vote on something like this instead of having the stupid republicans tell us what we can and cant do and what is good for our cause. I also believe that poker (texas hold'em) is a game of skill not not luck which makes it more of a "sport".
Id like to hear what other people have to say on this subject. Do you think the way congress passed this bill was fair? What will become of internet poker?
My opinion is very similar to the previous ones. I grew up using Windows more than Macs. I am actually an IT Analyst at the company I work at and we are a 100% Windows based deployment of computers. Windows is much better for the network management standpoint than Macs. (I doubt you would ever have to deal with any major network management for your personal computer.) Yes Macs are better on the creative side. I would say that Windows is very close. The Adobe Photoshop program is the exact same thing on both platforms. For the most part the only difference between Mac and Windows is the cost. Mac gives you a bunch of free photo/video editing with the OS. With Windows, you get paint and Movie Maker. But for a cost you can get something just as good as the Mac's stuff.
Someone mentioned earlier that the Macs freeze for no reason occasionally. I am sure that is true especially on our campus. I am not sure how many of our current Macs we own are the new style of Macs. Within the last year Mac computers are now available on the Intel Processors. This makes this much faster and stable for Macs.
Right now I only own Windows machines personally. I am excited for Vista to be available... Q1 of 2007. But I could see myself buying a Mac for some of the creative features now that it is on Intel... when I do have more money...
I think as a college student, Windows will be adequate for you.
An article of this can be found here
That's right, there's a new kind of Trojan developed everyday, but there are not many that rival the complexity of this one. This one seems to even rival most commercial software, utilizing P2P networking the 'SpamThru' Trojan downloads and installs a back-door anti virus scanner to scan for eliminate all other malware except for itself.
"Any other malware found on the system is then set up to be deleted by Windows at the next reboot"
Something like this makes me wonder how far others and corporations are willing to go to make a dollar and gain a new customer. I know competition can be fierce in the industry, but this kind of takes it to a whole new level...
So I suppose my question to you is...
How do you feel about modern online advertising and the methods used to gain new customers or just their information? (ie. pop-ups, banners, malware, spyware, etc.)
How do you think these methods will effect the future of the internet and how its used?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5344884.stm
Maybe it had came to a point in human evolution that we have a 'wealth' gene we don't know about yet. It seem to me that lately there had been alot suing relating to the topic of computing technology. This one is not really significant, just a regular use of the email, but it does interest me to wonder why didn't somebody at Starbuck able to realizes that an email can travel very fast and very wide. It also suggests that the use of computing technogoly had permeated into our culture so vastly that it made most people inconceivably relaxed to use their gray matter. Is there anything that can not be sued? Computing might be moving too far ahead that societies are playing the catch-up game, human following the technology. The increase in convenience and simplicity of computing technology, in this case (and most other), led to the failure of realizing consequences for one and exploitative behaviors for other. Should we define how and when our feelings regarding the use of computing be relevant to make a civil rights' claim? How do we apply moral and ethical standards to computing technology without abusing civil liberties? I find it hard not to think about the notion of deus ex machina. And it seemed too likely that human, or at least human in societies that are capable of techonological advances, are playing the catch-up game with our inventions. Evolution[1].jpg ( i hope i didn't violate any infringement with that picture?! Ok, i found it on Yahoo, and a little cut and paste of my own, there you go...)
I have also grown up with more of a Windows background. The set up makes sense to me for the most part. I don't know a lot of technical jargon in terms of processor speed and how to compare each program's whatever, but practically, Windows just makes more sense to me.
Since arriving to UNL, I have been exposed more to the world of Mac. There are a few things that I have found I like better about Mac's. First, is that they are ideal for working with Adope Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. For creative explorations, Macs are the way to go. The second thing I love about Macs is that I am able to drag a file over a folder in order to load it into that folder. There's no intricate process of searching, copying, and saving--just drag. In ways like this, Mac is more "user friendly." Echoing the previous posting, Mac is said to be superior in safety and protection against viruses and hackers, which is nice, too.
The worst thing I have discovered so far about a Mac, besides expense, is that it freezes ALL THE TIME for NO reason at all. Wow--I rarely get so pissed off at a machine.
These are but practical observations from a non technical gal. Take what you will. I'm sticking with my Windows PC.
I personally have never owned a mac computer and am very partial to the windows operating system because I have grown up using it and am very familiar with it.
Some pros about Mac's are that they are very reliable, and less susceptible to viruses and other attacks because the majority of viruses were designed with Windows in mind. Mac's also have a smaller learning curve than Window's and are a lot easier to maintain. The newer Mac's evel allow you to have the Mac OS and Windows on the same machine so you can switch back and forth. The main con that I see towards Mac's is the price, especially for the notebooks. Another main con for me would be that I would have to learn the operating system.
The teacher should not sue the kids because they probably made the site up for fun and just for them and their friends to see and no one else. However, even though the teacher did find out about the website made about her, if you know who the students are and all you should kindly asked them to take it down and if they don't then the teacher should consult with the parents and let them know what their child has been doing online. Having to sue over such a little problem is not worth it because in the end you would probably only get the amount back that you had to pay for an atternory and then what it cost for the court as well meaning you gain nothing from this and teaching a kid a lesson doesn't work when you sue, cause kids at that age are like "ooohhh money got to spend all of it." So basically you don't teach them a lesson by suing yet the teacher can make them do community service or have it put on their record but shouldn't sue cause it wouldn't change anything. Plus the emotional breakdowns probably happened because she said she was going to sue then the news casts got into making up these ridiculous stories and taking one side or the other and not really saying the whole truth. So suing the kids was a mistake on herself and she caused herself to have the breakdowns instead of trying to fix it with the parents and keeping it in private.
What a coincidence, CSE is not so bad after all?! Well, in my opinion (based on the news article), these kinds of teenage delinquencies suggest at least a social issue at work. Furthermore, it is these kind of delinquent activities that could support more go-happy-politicians to render on more "Freedom" Acts. I think social issues must be delt with socially and not judicially (politically); though judicial (political) process could be of an advantagous aid... Because I think it is plenty clear that political social reforms do not solve the major problems, it just makes it tolerable and permissive (i.e. poverty, racial issues, affirmitive actions).
No matter we're on which side of the story, those who access the internet must be educated of the ethical issues and responsibilities. Activities on the internet are more likely than not, now a day, have significant social consequences. It had a social life of its own, just like how people would behave in a public setting like a coffee shop. For, it may be true that all the internet were is just a bunch of 'zeros' and 'one' traveling back and forth, the perception of those '0s' and '1s' do have an impact on people imaginations and behaviors; hence social issues. While everyone can blame the family and parents for the underage childs' action, the social contexts that affected those teenagers is being ignored altogether. We are cultured in a way to think that underage childrens' responsiblity belongs exclusively to the roof that housed them, this perception is invalid and ignorant. In this instance, the principle should use her experience as education for her school and think of a better way to solve the problem than sueing. She should invest in educating her students how to handle problems before it got out of hand, (i.e. teach her students how to approach her with issues rather than take her out on 'MySpace').
I guess face book seems to be a very cool way to express urself on the net. you are allowed to put on loads of vital and personal information on the net but facebook is however an open service so a lot of people have access to a particular account in a facebook .Unwanted individuals like teachers parents security personnels can have access to ur facebook account and get hold of private and in some cases embarrasing information which can put you on the wrong foot. the internet can help you be in touch with the world and your friends but i dnt think its necessary to really post your personal information on the net because by doing so you are making yourself more vulnurable by using facebook you are allowing yourself to be screned by people you dny know and in some cases people you dnt want to get your information. i am quite aware of the side effects which tag along the various convinences and enjoyment offered by facebook so I dnt have an account on facebook I dnt think one needs to post personal information on the net to make friends who are virtual. you need to meet someone in person and converse face to face in order to know more about that individual . It is opinion that you should onlu indulge in internet communication once you are completely sure that you are safe and your personal information will not be misused in doing so.
After reading most of the responses to the issue of dissemination of data over the internet, I have come to my own view now on what I believe. First of all, anything that should cost money and you get it when it doesn't is either "The Price is Right" or stealing, there is no other explaination, no ifs, ands, or buts. I don't understand why people think since the artisit of the songs are already rich, so they don't need the money. Why would you say that??? Think about this,you are a business owner and you sell lollipops to people that is the only thing you sell, how would you feel if some came without your knowing about and stole your only profit. Personally I would be pissed. Another thing, guess what when artists make money, they pay taxes, right. It is simple the more money you make the more taxes you pay, the more taxes you pay goes to the goverment and in a big long huge cycle it comes back to you, to spend again. They call and I know this is goig to come as a surprise to people but a CAPITALIST economy. If you don't like it, then move.
That is why I feel that Itunes and any other online store that is out there is doing the correct thing by charging for the songs. If you don't like the cheap .99 cents a song than go buy the album at the store and rip it on your computer for your I Pod or MP3 player. Makes sense to me and you are not stealing. I think also with movies and pictures it is the same way. Unless it is public domain than you shouldn't be taking it without permission.
In the case of The Star Wars Kid, I feel that he was wrong and that he had every right in to sue the people who set him up for depression and put his face on the internet without his permission. You know this case reminds me of that one video production crew hmmm... let me think, oh yes I remember Girls Gone Wild. They were just recently in sued because they used a womans image without her permission. Imagine being posted world wide on the internet and in movies for the rest of your life. Again I would be pissed. For the whole story go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434324/posts. It is the same thing as the Ghyslain Raza's (Star Wars Kid) story. He didn't give consent so it shouldn't be on the internet. The solution is simple and clear, without the person's permission it should not be allowed to share videos across the web.
Now Facebook claims, on the site, that they don't in fact sell the information users put on the website. They also want to reassure users that only their friends and people in their network can see their profile. While at the same time they are attempting to expand Facebook so that virtually anyone can use it. Are they simply giving us false reassurance here or disguising the real issues at hand. I'm glad that people have begun to raise doubts towards Facebook and question their motives. Without opposition from their users, Facebook could really get out of hand.
I knew about the Facebook related arrests that have occurred, but I have remained oblivious to the potential consequences that the site could have for me. After Monday's class, I began to think more about this issue. I have gotten in trouble with Facebook before. After two worthless music education classes with the same incompetent professor, I felt the urge to tell the whole world about my frustrations. I made an "anti-stupid MUED class" group. The professor was on Facebook - the professor is my academic advisor. Oops. I know that I have definitely wrecked my image with this professor and am regretful. I will be looking for a job next year and the thought of a future employer looking at my account is frightening! I'm torn because I enjoy the site for keeping in touch with old friends and sharing news with them, but I value my privacy and don't want Facebook to be a mark against me on a job application.
A question I'd like to pose is: could even being involved with Facebook make an employer pass you up? Even if you have nothing incriminating on your page, does it still look immature and unprofessional?
I have never attempted a Facebook account. I did fill out info for a MySpace account awhile ago, however, which lasted maybe a week. My concerns circled around the privacy and personal issues that surfaced. The obsessiveness of such sites deters me big time. The "my space is better than yours" mentality. More friends, more comments, more skin showing...whatever. To advertise myself in hopes that people will find my site, my life, be it truth or lies, appealing. And the number of comments and friends proves myself legit. Initially, it's an honest motive to connect with old friends who have moved away or to share pics online, but soon the book, the space, is opened 10 times a day, habitually scrolling through the same photos and sites to compare "treasure." I dropped the account as I began to feel the pull of this insanity.
The other angle was that of security. Especially as an athlete in the media, people can become a bit obsessive, especially in Nebraska *wink*. So to have even limited info allowed an easy window for unwanted intrusion or attachment. Certain teammates have dealt with such problems head on, even having to involve the cops at one point. Information, no matter how "controlled," can get stretched by strange hands. I am not paranoid, though I do worry about my teammates and friends sometimes who continue to load their facebooks with all the goods. I'll tease myself sometimes about reestablishing my myspace account, but as talk of the dangers of such sites thickens with threats to future employment, NCAA suspensions, etc., I decide the drop was worthwhile and necessary.
The new feeds section, kind of makes everything you do is public to anyone who has a friend of you, they will see something like you join a new group or what ever. However, with this say you create a group of something ridiculous but didn't want people to know your part of. With the new feeds it tells whether you or not you enter or leave a group, or when you leave a comment. It annoceses it to everyon instead of you and your friend and it shows what you write as well. So say you make a joke about someone and its an inside joke, and the person the joke is about is friends with who your friend will be able to see it and then get mad at the other person cause he won't know whats its about. It pretty tells everyone your every move on facebook. So what you do on the internet is no longer privacy on facebook!
Facebook is not the only website that offers up your information to third parties, many websites do. In fact that is how many sites make money.
Once you put something on Facebook it is there for anyone to see. If you don't want your information given to third parties than you should not post it in the first place.
Has anyone seen the new group on Facebook regarding Brody Ruckus. He has turned into an internet legend in a matter of a week. In a couple of years how much do you think ole Brody is going to be regretting his decision to create this group?
I think T-mobile kind of got this idea from vonage. I'm not sure if it works the same way, but it would be great depending on it's affordability.
For example, my friend uses Verizon Wireless and he frequently has poor quality conversations and many dropped calls because he lives in his basement. With wi-fi, he would be able to have a strong signal regardless of where he was in his house.
"T-Mobile USA, the fourth-largest mobile phone company in the United States, is preparing to launch a service this month that will allow people talking on their cell phones to seamlessly switch between T-mobile's cellular network and their home Wi-Fi networks."
http://news.com.com/Switching+from+cell+to+Wi-Fi%2C+seamlessly/2100-1039_3-6113223.html?tag=nefd.lede
I think that everyone can justifyable say that they know they are stealing music when they are not paying for it. At early ages in childhood it is instilled within an individual that taking something without permission and without paying for it is wrong. Regardless of where you are getting the product from, and the fact that a person may never see anyone that will be affected by the loss in financial gain, might make it easier to download music but it still isn't right. It's actually kind of sad that people will actually argue the fact that downloading music without paying for it is right.
I agree with John Irons on everything except for his statement on itunes. Yes, it may be better than trying to stop the pirating of music but like Cory said, itunes can be expensive. I know if I had the choice in getting music free or buying it, I'm going to choose getting it free. I don't see any way around this issue for music companies. I know an excuse a lot of people use is the music companie/artists are already rich so who cares and you know what......I agree.
The most important thing John put in his post was "computer people, they always find a work-around given enough time". This is so true and I think always will be true. This pretty much shuts the door on stopping the downloading of illegal music.
In the strictest sense, piracy of anything is ethically wrong. The problem with internet piracy is that its easy, its anonymous, and there are few, if any, repurcussions. However, I think that the entertainment companies are on the wrong track in trying to completely eliminate all piracy. You can't stop mischievious computer people, they always find a work-around given enough time. What the companies should be doing is providing legal alternatives that give us the same benefits as pirated material.
iTunes is a great example. They've given people the ability to get any song from an enormous library, and the ability to put that song on a portable medium for their listening pleasure. Apple has proven itself to be a forward-thinking company which realizes that internet file-sharing is not going away, and is trying to promote it legally rather than stomp it out. I feel that the same idea should be applied to the other mediums mentioned, such as movies, games, and books, (Valve has done an excellent job in the games category).
As for personal home videos, of course they should be allowed online. The problem is making sure that the creator and those featured have given their permission for that to happen. You can't make everyone follow that rule, in the same way that you can't keep everyone from illegally sharing music they didn't create. But in a case like the Star Wars Kid, he was entirely within his rights to sue those involved.
I can't see any benefits that will arise in putting any boundaries on the content of digital data. The only thing that will be protected from this control is privacy. In theory, it would protect privacy of personal footage such as the Star Wars Kid or any other family videos that aren't wanted on the Internet. The reason I said, 'In theory,' is because there would have to be another level of monitoring which would have to be maintained. There is no direct way of processing the footage before it is placed on the net. It doesn't read file type, it is only by content, and I am pretty sure there is no content filter that can read if this is personal or not. The only way this could be regulated is by enforcing an agreement contract that people have to read before posting the footage that clearly states what is allowed on the Internet. I'd like to see that happen and work.
I think it is right for companies to copyright software, video games, and music. Since there is no direct way to establish a control over sharing of these files illegally, all they can do is what they currently do. They should keep the disclaimer that says it is illegal to do whatever and then enforce the rule when it is broken. I don't think there is any other way around it without completely locking up the Internet from anything.