This week Senator Conroy proposed that australian ISP's would be allowed to intercept their customers downloads to ensure proper use. He said this in responce to the piracy suit against iiNet.
WTF!?! I don't want my internet downloads intercepted, it will slow down my internet, it goes completely against any notion of privacy and it will just mean more work for the ISPs to actually monitor what EVERYONE on their network is doing. Moreover, they would have to disclose what their customers are downloading, meaning the government to charge thousands of people with criminal offences and get more money. really it is just a scheme for revenue raising, WHICH MAKES IT WORSE!!!! I don't want my internet filtered and I certainly don't want my download record perused by the government, it just goes against the basics of privacy.
This is just one of many stupid ideas that Senator Conroy has had recently. A month ago he said that he was considering a 3-strikes policy towards piracy...somilar to what was REJECTED in France. It is almost like he is ignoring the rest of the world and coming up wit hbold and stupid ideas to screw over Australian Internet users and ISPs.
If, for 1 month, senator Conroy would keep is big mouth shut and listen to what Australians think of his ideas and look at the rest of the world to see what works he might see that all he has to do is implement the NBN eventually and NOTHNG ELSE!
No filter, No download intercepting and No 3-strikes policy!!
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
3D Everywhere!
3D is taking over the world!!!!
Everywhere I look there is a new article on CNet or Techcrunch detailing the latest 3D innovation. 3D cameras, 3D monitors, 3D Youtube, new 3D movie glasses, the list will eventually go on and on and on until our lives are full of unecessary 3D products that add nothing to our lives.
We already see in 3D and we are perfectly happy with our current videos and monitors and cameras, so why do we need to have 3D versions of these products. All that unecessary tech for something teh average consumer wouldn't use.
Why would you want to see yours or anyone else's holiday photos in 3D! It adds nothing to the atmosphere of teh image, adds nothing to the way you will percieve the image as an image and will just end up being down right annoying!
Admittedly the technology involved is pretty cool but it is just a waste of money and time which could be spent creating 15-30 megapixel cameras or monitors that can handle higher resolutions.
I am also afraid that the next 3D device we see is a 3D touchscreen or a 3D mobile phone, now that would be even stupider.
Everywhere I look there is a new article on CNet or Techcrunch detailing the latest 3D innovation. 3D cameras, 3D monitors, 3D Youtube, new 3D movie glasses, the list will eventually go on and on and on until our lives are full of unecessary 3D products that add nothing to our lives.
We already see in 3D and we are perfectly happy with our current videos and monitors and cameras, so why do we need to have 3D versions of these products. All that unecessary tech for something teh average consumer wouldn't use.
Why would you want to see yours or anyone else's holiday photos in 3D! It adds nothing to the atmosphere of teh image, adds nothing to the way you will percieve the image as an image and will just end up being down right annoying!
Admittedly the technology involved is pretty cool but it is just a waste of money and time which could be spent creating 15-30 megapixel cameras or monitors that can handle higher resolutions.
I am also afraid that the next 3D device we see is a 3D touchscreen or a 3D mobile phone, now that would be even stupider.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Everyone's Monopilising!
Microsoft...Accused of Monopolizing in the EU
Google...Being investigated for monopolizing
Intel...Charged with Monopolizing in the EU
What are the similarities (apart from the monopoly bit)...THEY ALL HAVE COMPETITORS!!!!
So many big tech businesses are being accused of holding a monopoly and for killing competition. This isn't new but do they really have such a monopoly?
Let's start with Microsoft...
Microsoft hold the biggest Operating System install base. However Apple comes in second and their install base is climbing. If Microsoft did hold a 'monopoly' then you would see hardly anyone using competitors products and the competitors would never be talked about.
Windows is designed for business and productivity...Macs are designed for creativity...Linux is designed for both while still having major customization options. Microsoft isn't stopping other companies from making other operating systems designed for the same use but they already have a basis and reliance because people have grown used to their products. If I were a billionaire and even a millionaire I would attempt to create an operating system and I would market it to the same people as Microsoft. Why isn't anyone doing this? Because they know that business has already established Microsoft as the most productive solution. There is no rule or law against using a competitor but if it is the most productive solution then they use it.
Next...Google...
Google is the biggest search engine and the most widely used. They were also the first search engine so they have an established user base. Of course they will have a monopoly of sorts because people have come to rely on their services. They also have competition and their competition is doing quite well considering this reliance. Their competition also consists of large tech companies like Microsoft and Yahoo. Advertising revenue is a key part of the law suit but Yahoo and Microsoft get revenue in other ways while Google has to rely on advertising to get money. This works as just about everyone uses Google and teh ads will be seen all over the globe.
Finally...Intel...
Intel makes processors...processors are hard to make..lot's of money is needed to make processors. Intel has been used for over 15 years for processors in Computers...Apple started using them 5 years ago...they have come to be relied on in a similar way to Google. Intel also has competition and people use and like AMD and some prefer it to Intel. AMD has made progress that Intel is yet to make. Intel isn't falling behind but they hardly have a monopoly if anything is almost looks like AMD is slowly catching up to Intel huge lead in the number of computers using their processors and AMD certainly have leapfrogged Intel in new developments (like a DirectX 11 Processor).
Overall none of these companies really have a monopoly and the lawsuits should be dropped. However these companies could allow their competition to exist and not to wipe them out completely.
Google...Being investigated for monopolizing
Intel...Charged with Monopolizing in the EU
What are the similarities (apart from the monopoly bit)...THEY ALL HAVE COMPETITORS!!!!
So many big tech businesses are being accused of holding a monopoly and for killing competition. This isn't new but do they really have such a monopoly?
Let's start with Microsoft...
Microsoft hold the biggest Operating System install base. However Apple comes in second and their install base is climbing. If Microsoft did hold a 'monopoly' then you would see hardly anyone using competitors products and the competitors would never be talked about.
Windows is designed for business and productivity...Macs are designed for creativity...Linux is designed for both while still having major customization options. Microsoft isn't stopping other companies from making other operating systems designed for the same use but they already have a basis and reliance because people have grown used to their products. If I were a billionaire and even a millionaire I would attempt to create an operating system and I would market it to the same people as Microsoft. Why isn't anyone doing this? Because they know that business has already established Microsoft as the most productive solution. There is no rule or law against using a competitor but if it is the most productive solution then they use it.
Next...Google...
Google is the biggest search engine and the most widely used. They were also the first search engine so they have an established user base. Of course they will have a monopoly of sorts because people have come to rely on their services. They also have competition and their competition is doing quite well considering this reliance. Their competition also consists of large tech companies like Microsoft and Yahoo. Advertising revenue is a key part of the law suit but Yahoo and Microsoft get revenue in other ways while Google has to rely on advertising to get money. This works as just about everyone uses Google and teh ads will be seen all over the globe.
Finally...Intel...
Intel makes processors...processors are hard to make..lot's of money is needed to make processors. Intel has been used for over 15 years for processors in Computers...Apple started using them 5 years ago...they have come to be relied on in a similar way to Google. Intel also has competition and people use and like AMD and some prefer it to Intel. AMD has made progress that Intel is yet to make. Intel isn't falling behind but they hardly have a monopoly if anything is almost looks like AMD is slowly catching up to Intel huge lead in the number of computers using their processors and AMD certainly have leapfrogged Intel in new developments (like a DirectX 11 Processor).
Overall none of these companies really have a monopoly and the lawsuits should be dropped. However these companies could allow their competition to exist and not to wipe them out completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
