Bah, it's better to post a rebuttal to something you disagree with than it is to mod somebody down anyway. Modding down is a more pussified version of posting anonymously amyway:-p
Perhaps in the case of schools, they should be permitted to filter access to the internet only durring class hours so that students can have unfiltered access to the internet both before and after classes
When is the last time you've been in a public school? I used to work in the office of a public middle school, and I'll tell you...you can tell geeky hormonal 8th grade Boy NOT to surf pornographic websites on the unfiltered library Internet access 24 times a day, but he'll still keep going to bondage.net (yep, he was a kinky little bastard).
I think exposing children to sex is pretty much a universally accepted "bad thing" in nearly every Western society. I'm honestly stunned that you would even question it (and I'm far from prude). Have you not seen the negative effects of pornography on society in general, let alone exposing children to it? Grown men lose their freakin' minds in the presence of porn. How is a child expected to handle it if grown-ups can't? In otherwords, not are there probably tons of studies proving that exposing children to pornography can be bad, there are plenty of studies showing that exposing ADULTS to porn can be bad.
The REAL problem though, is who gets to decide what "inappropriate content" means? And where is the line drawn? It starts with porn and then what... Contraception? Abortion advice? Maybe websites for young men and women trying to find a way to deal with their homosexuality? Dissent? Atheism? Islam, Hinduism, or any other faith not practised by the majority? Flying Spaghetti Monster? At what point does content become considered violent?
In the case of public schools, this falls under the authority of the school curriculum. It is the duty of the school, in conjunction with the community, to develop a curriculum that includes the values and sytems in place of the community the school serves. In otherwords, citizens need to get involved to determine what values they want their schools to be involved in (if even at all).
While I don't condone the intentions of the Australian government, I'm sick of the overused "censorship" tag on slashdot. The term "optional" and phrase "for those who request it" mean people have a choice. True censorship leaves no choice.
I don't really understand your comment though. Isn't picture quality the most important feature of a TV/video player? I mean, don't people buy TVs and video players to SEE content?
I suppose audio quality is way overblown for stereo systems and lens quality is way overblown for phothographic equipment?
A major advantage of HD TV and HD broadcasts is that the channels are broadcast in the correct ratio, so there is no stretched or boxed image. I suppose had they made HD broadcasts in the more square ratio, and HD TVs weren't wide-screen, I'd accept your premise that quality now is good enough. The problem is standard def tv on HD TVs looks horrible, because the HD TV can exploit the relative poor quality of the signal. I read here on slashdot that the #1 return reason for HD TVs was that standard def TV looks better on non-HD TVs.
I assure you, only a small group of slashdot users think like this. Name ONE non-techie family member or friend of yours that has ever ripped a DVD to a computer for the "experience of legitimate users".
if most consumers can't even tell the difference, why should they pay more?
I don't know what the marketing term is, but there are plenty of people who buy more expensive stuff based on perceived abilities/values/specs, but they wouldn't be able to tell the difference had Consumer Reports/PCMag/Car-and-Driver/HomeTheaterMag/ProPhotographyMag etc. not told them so. I'm guilty of it myself from time-to-time, as well as most of you are, I'm sure. Many consumers aren't comfortable just buying something that is "good enough for me", because they hate the idea that there might be something better out there for the same price. Consumerism is a bitch.
So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?
Although I don't really support your flippant attitude about just buying (and rebuying) whatever format comes out on top (not everyone can afford two $400 players), I think you are on to something here. While I don't fully understand the specifics of all the formats and definitions, I do know that my HD Movie Rentals from my cable company look great and store nicely on my HD DVR box. Hell, even Lord of the Rings broadcast in high def on TBS the other weekend looks great when played back on my DVR (much better than my DVDs). If these movie studios don't pull their heads out soon, these disc-based systems will never take off and we'll all be pulling our content from our cable providers on demand instead (not that that will stick it to the man at all).
Here's a novel idea (FTA): "Warner Brothers releases movies for both systems."
I guess Warner Bros. actually gets it and is reaching out to the biggest market possible, whereas the rest are picking sides and supporting their pet formats.
I remember for the longest time certain studios refused to release their movies to DVD because they were trying to push their own, stupid, proprietary systems. They eventualy caved (and I finally got Braveheart on DVD!). I see the same thing happening here.
For the record, from this casual observer's view, Blu-Ray is doing a much better job in brand recognition. Perhaps it is the catchy name, since HD-DVD sounds more like a spec than it does a product?
Reminds of the bit in magic roundabout when dougal is force fed sugar cubes...
Well, that's lost on about 99.99% of the American slashdotters. (This firmly puts me in the.01% of Americans who have the slightest clue what you are talking about, heh).
"This material was made available by a machine with that IP address..."
This is what they did in the case against that woman who actually went all the way to court without settling. This totally pisses me off, since they can't prove that I'm the one who did the download. Who's to say my machine wasn't totally pwned by some remote hacker? Perhaps a thief snuck in while I was at work, or a drunk friend at a party used my computer (or a sober friend for that matter).
This is the same thing that pisses me off about speed cameras in Europe. I drove a friend's car in Germany and got her a ticket. They say the car is the owner's responsibility, yet I was the offender. Punish ME, not the owner of the car. This goes so far against my sense of justice (as an American), and the RIAA tactics do so as well.
I'm normally not a paranoid cynic, but I'm actually quite bothered that the RIAA can try to dictate how I organize the files on my personal computer. What I suspect they are doing, by wording it they way they did, is to create as much of an accusatory tone as they can without having to actually prove any illegal activity. It would be one thing to say, "User X seeded Song B to a bittorrent client", but then they'd actually have to prove that, or face libel/slander charges.
So... please reply IF you can honestly say that all of your rips and reencodings are of purchased media and are only used for your own viewing (yes, that means NOT shared among your family... that is, no multiple copies of rips on multiple devices for different people).
As I understand, the iTunes songs I have purchased are authorized to be played on up to FIVE computers (and no technical limit on the number of iPods). I don't think that it matters if one computer belongs to my son, another to my wife, and yet another to my dog. Most of my wife's songs are in my iTunes playlist, as are mine on hers. To further muddy the issue, all our computers on the network (five) share their iTunes libraries.
Then again, you are asking about rips from CD, so I'm a little less confident in stating my family sharing actions are legal, but frankly, I don't care, because the gestapo isn't kicking doors in (yet).
Fair use is often cited as a reason why people can supposedly do whatever they want with purchased media.
While I'm not a lawyer, I am in the field of Education, and Fair Use is indeed real, and enjoys legal protection. This doesn't mean we can do whatever we want with purchased media, but it does mean we have the ability to reuse media for education purposes, within the guidelines of Fair Use policy. To say it isn't real is quite silly, given there are specific details for how many copies you can distribute, what kind of media can be reproduced, etc. etc.
Even so, other cell phones' UI suck so badly they don't dare show how badly they actually operate. Bring in Beyoncé, blast some Top-10 song, and obfuscate the details of your phone as much as possible, since it can't hold a candle to the iPhone's UI.
No argument from me about EDGE sucking, but it is still better than NO Internet access.
Maybe it don't come out right, but your post is exactly what I mean. It IS a shame, because people will think the Mac isn't any good, based on their experiences with Apple apps on PC.
You are no troll because you don't deliberately start your post with an unsubstantiated insult used clearly to aggitate others. If he wanted me to stick around long enough for the rest of his criticism, he shouldn't have started his post as a troll. And I wasn't pointing out a spelling mistake, as I'm sure he advertently, yet unsuccessfully, is spelling dumm on purpose to make some point?
I've often wondered why a very good development team at Apple couldn't make good software for the PC. I tried Safari on my work PC and it was awful. iTunes is evil bad on a PC. Quicktime equally bad. Your outsourcing claim makes perfect sense (if it is true).
BUT...since I'm primarily a Mac user at home, these issues are moot, because they all work excellently on a Mac.
It does not at all inspire me to even consider buying a MAC[sic]"
That's a shame, because you'd note that they work very well in the Mac environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, it's better to post a rebuttal to something you disagree with than it is to mod somebody down anyway. Modding down is a more pussified version of posting anonymously amyway :-p
I think exposing children to sex is pretty much a universally accepted "bad thing" in nearly every Western society. I'm honestly stunned that you would even question it (and I'm far from prude). Have you not seen the negative effects of pornography on society in general, let alone exposing children to it? Grown men lose their freakin' minds in the presence of porn. How is a child expected to handle it if grown-ups can't? In otherwords, not are there probably tons of studies proving that exposing children to pornography can be bad, there are plenty of studies showing that exposing ADULTS to porn can be bad.
While I don't condone the intentions of the Australian government, I'm sick of the overused "censorship" tag on slashdot. The term "optional" and phrase "for those who request it" mean people have a choice. True censorship leaves no choice.
I don't really understand your comment though. Isn't picture quality the most important feature of a TV/video player? I mean, don't people buy TVs and video players to SEE content?
I suppose audio quality is way overblown for stereo systems and lens quality is way overblown for phothographic equipment?
A major advantage of HD TV and HD broadcasts is that the channels are broadcast in the correct ratio, so there is no stretched or boxed image. I suppose had they made HD broadcasts in the more square ratio, and HD TVs weren't wide-screen, I'd accept your premise that quality now is good enough. The problem is standard def tv on HD TVs looks horrible, because the HD TV can exploit the relative poor quality of the signal. I read here on slashdot that the #1 return reason for HD TVs was that standard def TV looks better on non-HD TVs.
I assure you, only a small group of slashdot users think like this. Name ONE non-techie family member or friend of yours that has ever ripped a DVD to a computer for the "experience of legitimate users".
Doesn't the average consumer still cling to VHS tapes as being "good enough"?
I guess Warner Bros. actually gets it and is reaching out to the biggest market possible, whereas the rest are picking sides and supporting their pet formats.
I remember for the longest time certain studios refused to release their movies to DVD because they were trying to push their own, stupid, proprietary systems. They eventualy caved (and I finally got Braveheart on DVD!). I see the same thing happening here.
For the record, from this casual observer's view, Blu-Ray is doing a much better job in brand recognition. Perhaps it is the catchy name, since HD-DVD sounds more like a spec than it does a product?
This is the same thing that pisses me off about speed cameras in Europe. I drove a friend's car in Germany and got her a ticket. They say the car is the owner's responsibility, yet I was the offender. Punish ME, not the owner of the car. This goes so far against my sense of justice (as an American), and the RIAA tactics do so as well.
Be thankful. Now you have a reference to cite.
Wouldn't the number of people using Macs be lower than average, since they were measuring visitors to a PC-centric website?
I'm normally not a paranoid cynic, but I'm actually quite bothered that the RIAA can try to dictate how I organize the files on my personal computer. What I suspect they are doing, by wording it they way they did, is to create as much of an accusatory tone as they can without having to actually prove any illegal activity. It would be one thing to say, "User X seeded Song B to a bittorrent client", but then they'd actually have to prove that, or face libel/slander charges.
Then again, you are asking about rips from CD, so I'm a little less confident in stating my family sharing actions are legal, but frankly, I don't care, because the gestapo isn't kicking doors in (yet).
While I'm not a lawyer, I am in the field of Education, and Fair Use is indeed real, and enjoys legal protection. This doesn't mean we can do whatever we want with purchased media, but it does mean we have the ability to reuse media for education purposes, within the guidelines of Fair Use policy. To say it isn't real is quite silly, given there are specific details for how many copies you can distribute, what kind of media can be reproduced, etc. etc.No argument from me about EDGE sucking, but it is still better than NO Internet access.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I worship Apple. If you'd care to clarify your otherwise unclear analogy, I'm all ears.
Maybe it don't come out right, but your post is exactly what I mean. It IS a shame, because people will think the Mac isn't any good, based on their experiences with Apple apps on PC.
You are no troll because you don't deliberately start your post with an unsubstantiated insult used clearly to aggitate others. If he wanted me to stick around long enough for the rest of his criticism, he shouldn't have started his post as a troll. And I wasn't pointing out a spelling mistake, as I'm sure he advertently, yet unsuccessfully, is spelling dumm on purpose to make some point?
But the dreck is what sells. Otherwise, I agree with your contention.
BUT...since I'm primarily a Mac user at home, these issues are moot, because they all work excellently on a Mac.
That's a shame, because you'd note that they work very well in the Mac environment.I'm still waiting for Hoover to allow third party vacuum apps, those bastards!