No. (see my response to the post above) The airwaves are ours -- yours and mine, much in the same way that public land is ours. Imagine a private company setting up a fence around your local public park and then charging people to enter, without having ever bought the land. If you put something up on public property, expect to have it seen.
That's not what I was saying. Here it is in short:
1. The airwaves are (should be) free. That means (theoretically) anyone can fire signals through the air. However, since that would make things really messy really fast, there's a licensing scheme to make the airwaves useable. Basically, if someone puts out a signal on the public spectrum, I can watch it (but not resell it or violate any copyrights on the material that the broadcaster might have).
2. Because of (1), I can BUILD my own TV (or in your example, my own car for a highway) to view the signals whipping through the air. And I can view it however I like, any color scheme, any time of the day, etc.
3. Also, because the airwaves are public property, the networks can't just start encrypting those publicly owned airwaves. It's like a private company fencing off a public park and charging admission to get in.
4. Because TV is a linear stream and there was no way to circumvent that linearity, commercials made sense. Interpose ads in the stream.
5. Because of the advent of TiVo, &c., the broadcast stream becomes non-linear, rendering the commercial model obsolete.
The correct response to this is NOT to sue the manufacturers of TiVO, &c., it's to change the business model of television. This is expensive, so they decide to sue these replayer manufacturers instead -- a stopgap solution at best. Broadcasters chose to get into this business and to use the commercial model for generating revenue. That's their problem. The onus is on them to revise their business models, not to sue those who found a way to legally circumvent their revenue stream.
Wrong. We have every right to free television. The airwaves are public property. Networks license the use of those airwaves (for free, or next to nothing at most).
Try again. I believe that Gore was ahead nationally by ~500K votes. Not a statistical tie. It's the Electoral College thingy that got everyone in a tizzy.
I voted for Nader, but I will continue to whine about this election because it was a Very Bad Thing (tm) to happen to American democracy. It pointed out fundamental flaws in the system that have yet to be remedied. If you're not angry with the method of how the 2000 election was decided (not the actual outcome of who won), you're not paying attention.
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right. Journalists do deserve special rights, but with those rights come great responsibility -- they *shouldn't* print "John Doe robbed a bank when he was a teenager" in huge print above the fold without investigation.
That's not what happened here, but what DID happen is indicative of the system breaking down. Lots of newpapers are just printing press releases and stories without any research behind it.
However, journalists have a responsability to try to print the truth. There are many hucksters out there selling some form of snake oil. Check out James Randi and the work that he has done to counteract these flim-flam artists.
This might be a case of a non-harmful hoax. However, this is the same type of person who claims to have a cure for AIDS, or can talk to your dead relative for $900/hr. People get suckered in by this stuff, and Reuters has a DUTY to check out the story with some experts.
A single witness does not a credible or reportable new story make.
Listen, no doubt there is some tap water that's crappy. I used to live near Woburn, MA (A Civil Action). The study I was referring to was when they put tap water in cups labeled "bottled water" (like Dasani or something) and "tap water". Then the subjects were asked for a taste comparison between the two. Lo and behold, people thought the "bottled water" tasted better. It's a well-known psychological phenomenon.
More than likely these people are hypochondriacs. People will say they feel better in these 'wireless-free' areas for the same reason people prefer bottled water to tap water: 'placebo effect' or 'the power of suggestion'.
Personally, I think that this scheme should be extended to replace ALL automobiles (trade in your car, get an ULTra, and everyone must do it by a specified date). Have ones availible for public use, but people will feel most comfortable in something they own and maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
No. (see my response to the post above) The airwaves are ours -- yours and mine, much in the same way that public land is ours. Imagine a private company setting up a fence around your local public park and then charging people to enter, without having ever bought the land. If you put something up on public property, expect to have it seen.
That's not what I was saying. Here it is in short:
1. The airwaves are (should be) free. That means (theoretically) anyone can fire signals through the air. However, since that would make things really messy really fast, there's a licensing scheme to make the airwaves useable. Basically, if someone puts out a signal on the public spectrum, I can watch it (but not resell it or violate any copyrights on the material that the broadcaster might have).
2. Because of (1), I can BUILD my own TV (or in your example, my own car for a highway) to view the signals whipping through the air. And I can view it however I like, any color scheme, any time of the day, etc.
3. Also, because the airwaves are public property, the networks can't just start encrypting those publicly owned airwaves. It's like a private company fencing off a public park and charging admission to get in.
4. Because TV is a linear stream and there was no way to circumvent that linearity, commercials made sense. Interpose ads in the stream.
5. Because of the advent of TiVo, &c., the broadcast stream becomes non-linear, rendering the commercial model obsolete.
The correct response to this is NOT to sue the manufacturers of TiVO, &c., it's to change the business model of television. This is expensive, so they decide to sue these replayer manufacturers instead -- a stopgap solution at best. Broadcasters chose to get into this business and to use the commercial model for generating revenue. That's their problem. The onus is on them to revise their business models, not to sue those who found a way to legally circumvent their revenue stream.
Wrong. We have every right to free television. The airwaves are public property. Networks license the use of those airwaves (for free, or next to nothing at most).
You can get a domain-independant NL parser from www.sil.org, the PC PATR II parser. You may have to write a few grammar rules...
Try again. I believe that Gore was ahead nationally by ~500K votes. Not a statistical tie. It's the Electoral College thingy that got everyone in a tizzy.
I voted for Nader, but I will continue to whine about this election because it was a Very Bad Thing (tm) to happen to American democracy. It pointed out fundamental flaws in the system that have yet to be remedied. If you're not angry with the method of how the 2000 election was decided (not the actual outcome of who won), you're not paying attention.
Man, I thought zapping aliens was what we're doing in Guantanamo!
(I'm getting modded into the basement for that one)
AFAIK, the media consortium that conducted a recount of the ballots STATEWIDE in Florida reached 2 conclusions:
1. Had Gore's legal eagels gotten their way, GWB would have won.
2. Had the ENTIRE STATE been recounted, Gore would have won.
It was #1 that was touted in the mainstream media, above the fold. You had to read the entire article to realize that, in truth, Bush lost.
Moderators: I know this is OT...
Not to mention the ability to beat the crap out of cops. :-)
(I'm gonna get modded into the basement for this one)
So you know, the HRL webpage has been updated.
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right. Journalists do deserve special rights, but with those rights come great responsibility -- they *shouldn't* print "John Doe robbed a bank when he was a teenager" in huge print above the fold without investigation.
That's not what happened here, but what DID happen is indicative of the system breaking down. Lots of newpapers are just printing press releases and stories without any research behind it.
So, yeah, you're right and I was wrong!
AUGH! That's not what I meant to do!
However, journalists have a responsability to try to print the truth. There are many hucksters out there selling some form of snake oil. Check out James Randi and the work that he has done to counteract these flim-flam artists.
This might be a case of a non-harmful hoax. However, this is the same type of person who claims to have a cure for AIDS, or can talk to your dead relative for $900/hr. People get suckered in by this stuff, and Reuters has a DUTY to check out the story with some experts.
A single witness does not a credible or reportable new story make.
Listen, no doubt there is some tap water that's crappy. I used to live near Woburn, MA (A Civil Action). The study I was referring to was when they put tap water in cups labeled "bottled water" (like Dasani or something) and "tap water". Then the subjects were asked for a taste comparison between the two. Lo and behold, people thought the "bottled water" tasted better. It's a well-known psychological phenomenon.
I totally agree with you. I just couldn't find a way to fit in a good James Randi rant...
Actually, I'm pretty sure the place where the Salem Witch Trials occured is present-day Danvers, MA.
More than likely these people are hypochondriacs. People will say they feel better in these 'wireless-free' areas for the same reason people prefer bottled water to tap water: 'placebo effect' or 'the power of suggestion'.
And of course, as part of the group-think, 4 million people already responded with the same thing.
Sigh...
Oh, man, I thought they were talking about catching Counter-Strike cheaters...
No reason to knock yourself out reading the works of ancient philosophers (unless you're taking Ancient Philosophers 230 and have an exam this week).
"I can teach Japanese to a monkey in 46 hours. It's just a matter of being able to relate to the material. You like pro-wrestling, right?"
Something about many-eyed goats & whatnot?
Personally, I think that this scheme should be extended to replace ALL automobiles (trade in your car, get an ULTra, and everyone must do it by a specified date). Have ones availible for public use, but people will feel most comfortable in something they own and maintain.
This is like the Roman saying (from the Greek saying) "In medio res", which translates rougly to "All things in moderation".
The points you've listed are all the result of limited technology. Given time, each of these can be overcome.
There must be a broader argument against what face-recognition technology is trying to do -- keep the populace under surveillance.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
*coo-ahh* *coo-ahh*
The other league mentioned in the BBC article is The CyberAthlete League.
And this is not just gratiuitous karma-whoring...