I've seen a lot of one sided debates on Slashdot (particularly Microsoft bashing), but I think this one wins hands down. I would dare say that 99% of the people posting haven't actually read the Patriot Act or even its main provisions. They are like sheep following a few ACLU freaks that have no common sense when it comes to balancing security needs against liberties.
Most of the provisions are just common sense loopholes in the old law that should be permanently plugged. For example, roaming wiretaps. So, I can get a warrant to wire-tap a particular phone, regardless of who is using it, but I can't get a warrant to on-the-fly wiretap any phone the suspect happens to pick up. How does that make any sense at all? The Patriot Act plugs this silly problem because technology allows an officer with a warrant to wiretap an individual to immediately tap any phone the suspect picks up within a matter a seconds.
And even then the Patriot Act limits this ability to terrorism investigations. Law enforcement has had this ability for years when dealing with organized crime, but it has been prohibited in other types of investigations. Only a moron would think this provision an assault on civil liberties.
Or how about the provision that allows spy agencies to share intelligence they have discovered with law enforcement agencies. This was a big problem leading up to 9/11, where intelligence agencies had information that would have gave the FBI a fighting chance at preventing the attacks, but by law weren't allowed to share the information. Yeah, I can see how letting the CIA tell the FBI about some terrorist that just entered the country might infringe on my civil liberties....NOT.
The list goes on but I think you get the point. There are certainly some provisions that are a little questionable, but on the whole the Patriot Act makes a lot of sense. I really fail to see how any of these provisions could be construed to reach the level of 'unreasonable searches and seizures". Just more ACLU propoganda run amuck.
If you want a two sided debate, how about somebody post a specific provision of the Patriot Act that they don't like and explain how it personally affects their personal liberties.
I call BS. No matter how well you make your machines, the hard drives of ANY manufacturer are going to fail every once in a while; it's inevitable. And they will fail months after they leave your factory. The sign a good company is one who can identify the problem and solve it quickly when it happens. It sounds like what you are really saying is that you have only provided service to one customer... I guess the rest must have gotten busy-signals, as 5000 machines will not work flawlessly for years NO MATTER WHAT.
My rule is that if a piece of code has #ifdef WIN32 or similar in it, then it is not portable code. I classify code with platform #ifdef's as non-portable code that has been implemented on select platforms. To ensure rules aren't broken, I don't allow code that is classified as 'portable' to even have visibility of header-files that are platform specific (like windows.h). Access to all platform dependencies is accomplished through either pure virtual base class interfaces or where the internal representation is hidden. For example:
class FileObjectInternalData; class FileObject {
public:// non-virtual interface functions for object go here
private:
class FileObjectInternalData *mData; }
The internal platform-specific data is hidden in a class that is simply pre-declared in the header, then actually defined in the.cpp file for each platform (like Win32FileObject.cpp). In this manner, the abstraction class header files do not need to include the platform-specific header files, thus preventing the rest of the application from even seeing the platform specific headers. In this manner, it becomes impossible to accidentally use non-portable platform functions or types. It also serves to completely isolate the code that must be changed for the system to work on the next platform.
Ultimatley, the goal is to implement as much as possible in the portable code. My rule is that if it can be implemented in a portable manner, I don't increase the size of the platform-specific interface abtractions. Things like big-endian and little-endian can be dealt with completely portably with functions like this:
Which serve to portabily write and read 32-bit values in a big/little endian neutral way. Thus not increasing the size of the platform-specific abstracted interface.
The true goal in creating portable code is NOT in making code that can run on a lot of different platforms, but rather in writing code that can easily be ported to another platform. There is a big difference between the two. The secret to the latter is to strictly isolate dependencies and to minimalize their size as much as possible.
With IPv6 unlikely to be widespread anytime soon, I think this has far more to do with IP space assignment than DNS assignement. The only DNS entries that countries don't have control of already are the.com,.net,.gov, and a few other key root entries. Let every country manage their own root names. The US can keep the root names it came up with.com for company,.net for network,.gov for government....all english based words for a reason.
However, IP range assignments are an entirely different matter. US companies that helped develop the internet have already been granted enormous chunks of IP space and they aren't likely to want to give that space back. If we ever run short on IPv4 addresses, that is when the controlling entity really starts to matter, and we are soon approaching that point.
Somebody down below made an analogy about a neighbor borrowing water from you, and that is exactly what is happening here. It's time for the other countries to pony-up and develop IPv6 on their end so this problem goes away.
ESRB is a voluntary system. You can release a game without putting a rating on it if you want. Of course, few retailers will put your product on their shelves, but that is completely at their discretion. They choose to do this because consumers demand that additional level of information regarding what they are purchasing. Heck, I am a professional game developer and I can't even tell you whether half the games on the shelf are appropriate for children without the aid of a rating system.
Big retailers like Walmart have their own criteria for what makes it on the shelf and what doesn't. Game developers specifically cater their content to get a desired rating. This is not censorship, simply a business decision on how to maximize profits from a product.
Rating systems that are not on-the-box are practically worthless too, as few people have time to research games before they buy them. I know I go to the store and simply look at the boxes on the shelf, decide what I think my kids might like and buy it. And it is absurd for every game to have a different rating system on the package. The retailers and game developers got together and agreed on a common system to use.
What you advocate would either be worthless or only serve to confuse the situation further. You're just bitter than retailers, publishers, and developers choose to make money rather than exercise their free speech rights.
The current system is voluntary. The only thing you are bitter about is that major retailers require that content placed on their shelf have a rating from some particular private rating system. In this case, the ESRB. The MPAA ratings are handled similarly. Content producers strive to keep their stuff below the dreaded AO and NC-17 ratings because they know retailers won't carry their stuff otherwise. The current rating systems represent the convention-wisdom of the public as a whole, that is why retailers require products be rated using these systems.
The only cause you have to complain is that content makers are censoring themselves so they can make more money. This isn't censorship, it's capitalism plain and simple.
Your point is irrelevant. Nobody is saying the grown man can't buy the M rated game. This isn't about censorship at all, since adults are free to buy whatever they want. As far as the rating system goes and determining what is a game and what is not, the retailers have done a pretty good job of that so far. Just try to publish a game without running it through the ratings board first...not a retailer in the country will put your game on their shelves.
Seems nobody is spelling out exactly what having control means. DNS name resolution is actually a very small part of the problem, even though these root servers seem to be getting all the press. The more contentious issue is really the assignment of IP addresses since they are in limited supply. If two machines on the net end up with the same IP address, how are the routers going to know where to route stuff to?
There are policies related to DNS names that are currently subject to US law. For example, all the cyber-squatting laws that prevent an individual from squatting on a name that is a trademark of a well known company. I know the slashdot crowd would get a chuckle out of this, but what happens if the UN decides that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly and points their DNS resolution to an alternate site as a means of punishment?
Now for the practical matters. Nobody is likely to switch over to a UN DNS system unless the countries involved mandate local ISP's use it by law (which seems fairly likely). In return, the US will likely pass a similar law. Same thing for IP routing. Any router in the US can be required to route using ICANN defined tables.
At that point, the UN is going to realize that in order to wrestle control of the internet from the US, they are going to have to 1) deal with the fact that any IP addresses they assign won't be accessible from inside the USA. There are very few foreign corporations with international asperations who are going to tolerate that. 2) deal with the fact that any IP address assigned to a US company will be inaccessible outside the USA. Same problem, other way...(only American tend not to care).
The biggest problem they have is that the vast majority of the infrastructure for the net routes through US soil.
It may come down to how committed the studios are to supporting a particular format. If Disney, Sony Pictures, and Twentieth Century Fox only release their movies in Blu-ray (and standard DVD of course), then HD-DVD is going to have a hard time. Sony Pictures is particularly interesting since they have a vested interest in which format wins.
Studios like Warner Brothers don't really have a vested interest. What do they care which format wins, they will probably produce movies in both formats if they have to. Microsoft is clearly only taking a position on HD-DVD to neutralize the PS3 advantage.
If the PS3 sells well, it's going to be really hard for the studios to ignore Bluray, since 90% of PS3 buyers are going to be average-joe's that aren't likely to go to the trouble of upgrading to either format if it didn't come for free with the PS3. Let's face it, for the first couple years, only super-geeks are going to buy HD-DVD players (yeah, the same crown that bought laser-disc players at one time...a small minority). But, Blu-Ray is going to be in millions of average-joe homes on top of geek-homes that will buy stand-alone players.
The resources on the planet are free. It's the effort to go an get them that we are paying for. We saw the same thing in the 19th centurty with the expansion into the west. It was a giant land grab. The land was free, all that was require is that you go to the effort to go and get it (you were required to actually make use of the land, establish a residence, etc).
Contrary to politically correct propoganda, I think the American expansion into the west worked out rather well over all. I don't see how expansion into space should be any different. If anything, it's less offensive, since there aren't even martians to worry about (like we did to the Indians).
Finally, there is an UNLIMITED supply of planets out there. If every person on the earth raped and pillaged a couple dozen of them, we would still have plenty left over. I say we start with the closest ones and work our way from there. Once mars is completed mined, we should move onto the next rock. Really, I couldn't care less if Mars fell into the Sun...it simply doesn't matter.
This entire story is basically flamebait for the Slashdot crowd. I've been programming since most of the slashdotters were in diapers I'm sure (over 25 years) so I would say I know a thing or two about computers. Contrary to the slashdot lead-in, not everybody who knows something about computers hates Microsoft.
Most of the rhetoric comes from people who simply don't understand the nature of the computer business and the market in general. Software, operating systems in particular, have a tendency to become monopolistic by nature.
For example, at one time WordStar was the only word-processor anybody used. They had 90%+ of the market. Then Wordperfect came along and they took 90% of the market. Then Microsoft Word came along and they took 90% of the market. The same is true for spreadsheats, starting with Visicalc, then Lotus, etc.
This doesn't occur because the companies in question are brutally unfair, but because it is the nature of the beast. It's much easier for people to use the software they used at their last job, or to interact with somebody who uses the same software.
Now, Microsoft doesn't make a perfect product by any means, but whether it is Word or Windows, they have been a remarkably good steward of the monopoly-mantle; managing to hold onto it for years. Just look at the way Wordperfect totally screwed up their monopoly. All I can say is thank God Microsoft didn't leave us in Windows95 hell forever like they could have.
Microsoft's agressiveness is the only thing that has kept the computer market from collapsing and having to go through another OS/2 debacle.
Someday, maybe Linux will reach the level where it can take on the mantle. When/If it happens, it will happen very quickly and Linux will enjoy the position Microsoft now holds.
Quite frankly, Linux has had it's chances in the past. If 1995 through 2000 didn't provide a hole you could drive a truck through, I don't know what would. But, the Linux community simply doesn't have the capabilities to compete. They let Microsoft get Windows 2000 out, which fixed the vast majority of problems with Windows. XP further solidified Windows as a very good operating system (far better than Linux for everyday use by end users).
You say nobody who knows anything about computers likes Microsoft, I say nobody who knows anything about computers could possibly not consider Windows XP and impressive piece of software (not perfect, but certainly impressive).
With Longhorn endlessly delayed, I see another small opportunity in the next couple years for Linux to make a stab at things, but at the rate Linux is developing, it will simply never make it in time.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft has managed to keep a step ahead of everybody else for a long time now.
Blu-ray is not inherently more expensive than HD-DVD. It is only more expensive because of the newer technology it uses (both on the manufacturing and player ends). It won't take long for 3rd party manufacturers to start producing dirt-cheap players of either format.
I expect Blu-ray players to be price-competitive with HD-DVD players, so I don't think price will be a huge factor in determining which format consumers want.
Ultimately, if the PS3 sells well (and it very likely will sell over 10 million units in the first 2 years), then it will be impossible for studios to ignore producing content in that format.
Blu-Ray supports multiple layers as well and already has a solid road-map in place to reach sizes up to 200gb. Compared to this, C3D looks kind of outdated.
It's not like Clinton appointed moderates, just look at how left-wing wacko Ginsberg is. Over the long-term, the Supreme Court should tend to follow the makeup of the elected officials at a slower pace. If Republicans stay in power for 20 years, then it's completely appropriate for the court to slant more conservative.
While the Democrat's may not like a more conservative court, they need to win at the ballot box to stop it, not use parliamentary tricks to try and stop it.
With O'Connor gone, Bush is going to get at least 2 appointments (Rehnquist will never last that long). If the Democrats try to filibuster reasonable nominees, they are going to lose the filibuster option. The Republicans are holding all the cards at this table. The best the Democrats can hope for is to make the Repulicans spend some political capital to get there.
I don't know how you can blame all these rulings on Bush, when he didn't appoint a single Supreme Court justice. Are you just stupid or something?
On you example #5 (eminent domain ruling), all the Democrat-appointed justices supported that ruling and all those against it were Republican-appointed justices. Are you just stupid or something?
heh, I'm not sure how you could call Ginsberg anything but liberal. She was the former head of the ACLU and believes the age of legal consent should be 12 years old. She is a left-wing nut job by any measure.
I don't define liberal quite the way you do. I define liberal as somebody who wants things changed; whereas conservatives are people who want things to remain as they are (or perhaps even go back to how they were in soem cases).
Personally, I think things are working pretty good as they are. Liberal tend to run around looking for things to change. For example, (local issue) the display of a cross on a war memorial that has been around for 75 years is suddenly infringing on somebodies rights since the land the memorial resides on happens to be owned by the city. If it hasn't caused any problem for 75 years, what's the big deal now? Is America really that bad of a place that we need to change this stuff?
Liberals and the ACLU tend to favor affirmative action, how is that consistent with the 14th amendment?
I have no idea what your views are on every issue, and I tend to be a quite libertarian as conservatives go myself.
The camels nose under the tent argument causes far more problems on both sides of the aisle than it's worth. For hell sakes, let the Boy Scouts hold a Jamoboree at the park one afternoon, even if you disagree with their organization. I suspect you would defend a gay-pride parade through the park, yet not defend the Boy Scouts right to use public facilities as well?
On the opposite side of the aisle, the NRA is just as paranoid about the 2nd amendment as the ACLU is about defending porn. Both of them need to chill out and let the majority pass reasonable laws (like this Utah law in question).
"Had states rights prevailed in this case, the law would have been confirmed. The reasoning used by the conservative judges to overturn it, was that it violated the Federal ban on marijuana. Technically, that's correct, but that is in itself a law that needs to be reviewed and repealed, as it is inherently unjust and violates states rights to legislate commerce by itself."
You need to recheck the case. The decision was 6-3 to overturn the California law in favor of the Federal law having authority. The 3 dissenting judges were Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (I believe). The conservative judges were not he ones in favor in overturning the California law, the liberal judges were.
Thus my point, that justices like Ginsberg who clearly favor legalizing marijuana ended up having to strike down California's medical marijuana law, lest they admit that it's a state-right issue and open the door for other states to do the opposite.
Yet the mantra we hear coming from the liberals is that the court conservatives tried to strike down the California law legalizing marijuana, when in fact just the opposite occurred.
While a conservative, I tend to be a bit more consistent in my views than many conservatives. I'm a big proponent of states rights. Let's take your medical-marijuana example, since there was recent news about that. I believe it was the conservative justices that supported the states rights in this case and the liberal justices that wanted the laws banned.
It must have been difficult for the liberal justices to swallow, since most of them are clearly in favor of allowing marijuana, but they knew that they could not allow the California law to stand without admitting also that states like Utah has the right to make a law the opposite way.
My problem with the ACLU as it relates to religion is they feel the need to codify the athiest religion view over any other. Isn't removing a reference to God (like from the money) akin to supporting the athiest view of God?
How about when they support a ban on the Boy Scouts using the local park for activities because they are disallow gay scout-leaders on religious grounds (as they did with Balboa park here in San Diego)?
I'll agree with you 100% that things such as prayers should not happen in schools, and schools should not be required to teach religious doctrine instead of evolution, but the ACLU is so extreme in their anti-religious stance that they are infringing upon religious freedoms IMO.
The constitution wasn't intent on banning religion, merely preventing congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise thereof. The liberals, headed by the ACLU have taken a far too liberal interpretation of this clause, compared to their undefendably narrow interpretation of 2nd and 10th amendements.
I agree with you; however, the law has nothing to do with imposing somebody elses views on your kids. You do not have to participate in the filtering system, it's completely optional.
While I do think it is each parents responsibility to decide what is and is not good for their kid, all I am asking for are some tools to make that job a little easier.
I mentioned it in another post, the V-Chip is a very similar system, and it works great in helping me keep TV crap away from my kids. I don't mind my kids watching HBO when they are showing Harry Potter or Shrek movies; I do mind them watching it when Real-Sex or Pornocopia are airing.
When my kids are having a sleep-over party, I let them stay up later and watch TV and play games until midnight or so. I can't be in the room non-stop (and they don't want me there non-stop), yet they like to be able to flip through the channels trying to find something to watch, just like anybody else. 99% of the time they end up on Nickelodean or Disney channel, but without the V-Chip, they would end up cycling through Taxicab Confessions in their search for a good program.
There was a LOT of stink about the V-Chip when the law first came out (in fact, I suspect the ACLU challenged that law as well), but now days even the broadcasters think it's a great idea, since it leaves them free to broadcast ever more risque material without advertisers panicking. Even porn-lovers have got to think it turned out well for the same reason (ie. more readily available porn).
As a small state, Utah has little hope of getting a better system (like content-marking) in place. But they do have jurisdictional ability to require ISP's to provide this tool to parents. Sure it's not 100% effective, but it's about all that can be done without a federal law.
The ACLU is just having their usual knee-jerk reaction to anything that might limit child access to porn. If the ACLU had their way, parents would not be allowed to censor what their children see, since children have rights too.
I don't see how this law is much different from the V-Chip they put in televisions (by law). Personally, I love the V-Chip. I can't monitor my kids 24/7 and anything that helps me do the very difficult job of raising my children is welcome.
We aren't talking about taking away anybodies rights here, merely giving parents more tools to give them a fighting chance at controlling the onslaught of inappropriate material. While I agree with many others that have posted that it won't be 100% effective, it probably will help somewhat. I can certainly think of more effective schemes.
The ACLU is very selective about which rights they choose to defend. I have yet to see the ACLU step up to the plate to protect our rights to own guns. I rarely see the ACLU defend the free exercise of religion (they are most often found on the opposite side of this one). How about the 10th amendment (yeah, part of teh Bill of Rights)?
The ACLU likes to pretend it's about defending the constitution, but really they have a agenda to have the constitution interpretted the way they want it interpretted, with little regard to rights.
You are paranoid. It's not like you can't be identified now. You have a driver's license now, with a number on it. Add the two digit state-code to the front of that number and you effective have a unique number for everybody with a drivers license already. The purpose of this bill is to simplify the system and create a minimum set of standards for being able to obtain a drivers license to help reduce fraudulent ID's. It has little to nothing to do with big-brother, as it has little to no effect on being able to uniquely identify somebody.
Really, you're just being silly. There is a reason every single Senator voted for it (and there are some real left-wing wacko senators too...that's saying something).
I don't know how run of the mill slashdotter opinions can be taken seriously on anything when they blow all their credibility with knee-jerk dumb reactions to very reasonable and mundane legislation.
The profit motive is what is ultimately driving these kinds of research in the first place. The solution is not less business, the solution is more of it.
This is either a slimy attempt to blackmail Apple into giving them a wad of cash to make the problem go away, rather than face a possible injunction that would seriously mess up their marketting plans.
Or, it's a PR stunt by TigerDirect. I would imagine TigerDirects' website has gotten more hits in the past few hours just from this slashdot story than they have all week.
Even if TigerDirect loses (and they will), they benefit greatly from all the press coverage. You know the old saying, no news is bad news.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a lot of one sided debates on Slashdot (particularly Microsoft bashing), but I think this one wins hands down. I would dare say that 99% of the people posting haven't actually read the Patriot Act or even its main provisions. They are like sheep following a few ACLU freaks that have no common sense when it comes to balancing security needs against liberties.
Most of the provisions are just common sense loopholes in the old law that should be permanently plugged. For example, roaming wiretaps. So, I can get a warrant to wire-tap a particular phone, regardless of who is using it, but I can't get a warrant to on-the-fly wiretap any phone the suspect happens to pick up. How does that make any sense at all? The Patriot Act plugs this silly problem because technology allows an officer with a warrant to wiretap an individual to immediately tap any phone the suspect picks up within a matter a seconds.
And even then the Patriot Act limits this ability to terrorism investigations. Law enforcement has had this ability for years when dealing with organized crime, but it has been prohibited in other types of investigations. Only a moron would think this provision an assault on civil liberties.
Or how about the provision that allows spy agencies to share intelligence they have discovered with law enforcement agencies. This was a big problem leading up to 9/11, where intelligence agencies had information that would have gave the FBI a fighting chance at preventing the attacks, but by law weren't allowed to share the information. Yeah, I can see how letting the CIA tell the FBI about some terrorist that just entered the country might infringe on my civil liberties....NOT.
The list goes on but I think you get the point. There are certainly some provisions that are a little questionable, but on the whole the Patriot Act makes a lot of sense. I really fail to see how any of these provisions could be construed to reach the level of 'unreasonable searches and seizures". Just more ACLU propoganda run amuck.
If you want a two sided debate, how about somebody post a specific provision of the Patriot Act that they don't like and explain how it personally affects their personal liberties.
I call BS. No matter how well you make your machines, the hard drives of ANY manufacturer are going to fail every once in a while; it's inevitable. And they will fail months after they leave your factory. The sign a good company is one who can identify the problem and solve it quickly when it happens. It sounds like what you are really saying is that you have only provided service to one customer... I guess the rest must have gotten busy-signals, as 5000 machines will not work flawlessly for years NO MATTER WHAT.
My rule is that if a piece of code has #ifdef WIN32 or similar in it, then it is not portable code. I classify code with platform #ifdef's as non-portable code that has been implemented on select platforms. To ensure rules aren't broken, I don't allow code that is classified as 'portable' to even have visibility of header-files that are platform specific (like windows.h). Access to all platform dependencies is accomplished through either pure virtual base class interfaces or where the internal representation is hidden. For example:
// non-virtual interface functions for object go here
.cpp file for each platform (like Win32FileObject.cpp). In this manner, the abstraction class header files do not need to include the platform-specific header files, thus preventing the rest of the application from even seeing the platform specific headers. In this manner, it becomes impossible to accidentally use non-portable platform functions or types. It also serves to completely isolate the code that must be changed for the system to work on the next platform.
class FileObjectInternalData;
class FileObject
{
public:
private:
class FileObjectInternalData *mData;
}
The internal platform-specific data is hidden in a class that is simply pre-declared in the header, then actually defined in the
Ultimatley, the goal is to implement as much as possible in the portable code. My rule is that if it can be implemented in a portable manner, I don't increase the size of the platform-specific interface abtractions. Things like big-endian and little-endian can be dealt with completely portably with functions like this:
inline unsigned PutValue32(void *buffer, unsigned value)
{
unsigned char *bufptr = (unsigned char *)buffer;
*bufptr++ = (unsigned char)(value >> 24);
*bufptr++ = (unsigned char)((value >> 16) & 0xff);
*bufptr++ = (unsigned char)((value >> 8) & 0xff);
*bufptr = (unsigned char)(value & 0xff);
return(value);
}
inline unsigned GetValue32(const void *buffer)
{
const unsigned char *bufptr = (const unsigned char *)buffer;
return((*bufptr 24) | (*(bufptr + 1) 16) | (*(bufptr + 2) 8) | *(bufptr + 3));
}
Which serve to portabily write and read 32-bit values in a big/little endian neutral way. Thus not increasing the size of the platform-specific abstracted interface.
The true goal in creating portable code is NOT in making code that can run on a lot of different platforms, but rather in writing code that can easily be ported to another platform. There is a big difference between the two. The secret to the latter is to strictly isolate dependencies and to minimalize their size as much as possible.
With IPv6 unlikely to be widespread anytime soon, I think this has far more to do with IP space assignment than DNS assignement. The only DNS entries that countries don't have control of already are the .com, .net, .gov, and a few other key root entries. Let every country manage their own root names. The US can keep the root names it came up with .com for company, .net for network, .gov for government....all english based words for a reason.
However, IP range assignments are an entirely different matter. US companies that helped develop the internet have already been granted enormous chunks of IP space and they aren't likely to want to give that space back. If we ever run short on IPv4 addresses, that is when the controlling entity really starts to matter, and we are soon approaching that point.
Somebody down below made an analogy about a neighbor borrowing water from you, and that is exactly what is happening here. It's time for the other countries to pony-up and develop IPv6 on their end so this problem goes away.
ESRB is a voluntary system. You can release a game without putting a rating on it if you want. Of course, few retailers will put your product on their shelves, but that is completely at their discretion. They choose to do this because consumers demand that additional level of information regarding what they are purchasing. Heck, I am a professional game developer and I can't even tell you whether half the games on the shelf are appropriate for children without the aid of a rating system.
Big retailers like Walmart have their own criteria for what makes it on the shelf and what doesn't. Game developers specifically cater their content to get a desired rating. This is not censorship, simply a business decision on how to maximize profits from a product.
Rating systems that are not on-the-box are practically worthless too, as few people have time to research games before they buy them. I know I go to the store and simply look at the boxes on the shelf, decide what I think my kids might like and buy it. And it is absurd for every game to have a different rating system on the package. The retailers and game developers got together and agreed on a common system to use.
What you advocate would either be worthless or only serve to confuse the situation further. You're just bitter than retailers, publishers, and developers choose to make money rather than exercise their free speech rights.
The current system is voluntary. The only thing you are bitter about is that major retailers require that content placed on their shelf have a rating from some particular private rating system. In this case, the ESRB. The MPAA ratings are handled similarly. Content producers strive to keep their stuff below the dreaded AO and NC-17 ratings because they know retailers won't carry their stuff otherwise. The current rating systems represent the convention-wisdom of the public as a whole, that is why retailers require products be rated using these systems.
The only cause you have to complain is that content makers are censoring themselves so they can make more money. This isn't censorship, it's capitalism plain and simple.
Your point is irrelevant. Nobody is saying the grown man can't buy the M rated game. This isn't about censorship at all, since adults are free to buy whatever they want. As far as the rating system goes and determining what is a game and what is not, the retailers have done a pretty good job of that so far. Just try to publish a game without running it through the ratings board first...not a retailer in the country will put your game on their shelves.
Seems nobody is spelling out exactly what having control means. DNS name resolution is actually a very small part of the problem, even though these root servers seem to be getting all the press. The more contentious issue is really the assignment of IP addresses since they are in limited supply. If two machines on the net end up with the same IP address, how are the routers going to know where to route stuff to?
There are policies related to DNS names that are currently subject to US law. For example, all the cyber-squatting laws that prevent an individual from squatting on a name that is a trademark of a well known company. I know the slashdot crowd would get a chuckle out of this, but what happens if the UN decides that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly and points their DNS resolution to an alternate site as a means of punishment?
Now for the practical matters. Nobody is likely to switch over to a UN DNS system unless the countries involved mandate local ISP's use it by law (which seems fairly likely). In return, the US will likely pass a similar law. Same thing for IP routing. Any router in the US can be required to route using ICANN defined tables.
At that point, the UN is going to realize that in order to wrestle control of the internet from the US, they are going to have to 1) deal with the fact that any IP addresses they assign won't be accessible from inside the USA. There are very few foreign corporations with international asperations who are going to tolerate that. 2) deal with the fact that any IP address assigned to a US company will be inaccessible outside the USA. Same problem, other way...(only American tend not to care).
The biggest problem they have is that the vast majority of the infrastructure for the net routes through US soil.
It may come down to how committed the studios are to supporting a particular format. If Disney, Sony Pictures, and Twentieth Century Fox only release their movies in Blu-ray (and standard DVD of course), then HD-DVD is going to have a hard time. Sony Pictures is particularly interesting since they have a vested interest in which format wins.
Studios like Warner Brothers don't really have a vested interest. What do they care which format wins, they will probably produce movies in both formats if they have to. Microsoft is clearly only taking a position on HD-DVD to neutralize the PS3 advantage.
If the PS3 sells well, it's going to be really hard for the studios to ignore Bluray, since 90% of PS3 buyers are going to be average-joe's that aren't likely to go to the trouble of upgrading to either format if it didn't come for free with the PS3. Let's face it, for the first couple years, only super-geeks are going to buy HD-DVD players (yeah, the same crown that bought laser-disc players at one time...a small minority). But, Blu-Ray is going to be in millions of average-joe homes on top of geek-homes that will buy stand-alone players.
The resources on the planet are free. It's the effort to go an get them that we are paying for. We saw the same thing in the 19th centurty with the expansion into the west. It was a giant land grab. The land was free, all that was require is that you go to the effort to go and get it (you were required to actually make use of the land, establish a residence, etc).
Contrary to politically correct propoganda, I think the American expansion into the west worked out rather well over all. I don't see how expansion into space should be any different. If anything, it's less offensive, since there aren't even martians to worry about (like we did to the Indians).
Finally, there is an UNLIMITED supply of planets out there. If every person on the earth raped and pillaged a couple dozen of them, we would still have plenty left over. I say we start with the closest ones and work our way from there. Once mars is completed mined, we should move onto the next rock. Really, I couldn't care less if Mars fell into the Sun...it simply doesn't matter.
This entire story is basically flamebait for the Slashdot crowd. I've been programming since most of the slashdotters were in diapers I'm sure (over 25 years) so I would say I know a thing or two about computers. Contrary to the slashdot lead-in, not everybody who knows something about computers hates Microsoft.
Most of the rhetoric comes from people who simply don't understand the nature of the computer business and the market in general. Software, operating systems in particular, have a tendency to become monopolistic by nature.
For example, at one time WordStar was the only word-processor anybody used. They had 90%+ of the market. Then Wordperfect came along and they took 90% of the market. Then Microsoft Word came along and they took 90% of the market. The same is true for spreadsheats, starting with Visicalc, then Lotus, etc.
This doesn't occur because the companies in question are brutally unfair, but because it is the nature of the beast. It's much easier for people to use the software they used at their last job, or to interact with somebody who uses the same software.
Now, Microsoft doesn't make a perfect product by any means, but whether it is Word or Windows, they have been a remarkably good steward of the monopoly-mantle; managing to hold onto it for years. Just look at the way Wordperfect totally screwed up their monopoly. All I can say is thank God Microsoft didn't leave us in Windows95 hell forever like they could have.
Microsoft's agressiveness is the only thing that has kept the computer market from collapsing and having to go through another OS/2 debacle.
Someday, maybe Linux will reach the level where it can take on the mantle. When/If it happens, it will happen very quickly and Linux will enjoy the position Microsoft now holds.
Quite frankly, Linux has had it's chances in the past. If 1995 through 2000 didn't provide a hole you could drive a truck through, I don't know what would. But, the Linux community simply doesn't have the capabilities to compete. They let Microsoft get Windows 2000 out, which fixed the vast majority of problems with Windows. XP further solidified Windows as a very good operating system (far better than Linux for everyday use by end users).
You say nobody who knows anything about computers likes Microsoft, I say nobody who knows anything about computers could possibly not consider Windows XP and impressive piece of software (not perfect, but certainly impressive).
With Longhorn endlessly delayed, I see another small opportunity in the next couple years for Linux to make a stab at things, but at the rate Linux is developing, it will simply never make it in time.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft has managed to keep a step ahead of everybody else for a long time now.
Blu-ray is not inherently more expensive than HD-DVD. It is only more expensive because of the newer technology it uses (both on the manufacturing and player ends). It won't take long for 3rd party manufacturers to start producing dirt-cheap players of either format.
I expect Blu-ray players to be price-competitive with HD-DVD players, so I don't think price will be a huge factor in determining which format consumers want.
Ultimately, if the PS3 sells well (and it very likely will sell over 10 million units in the first 2 years), then it will be impossible for studios to ignore producing content in that format.
Blu-Ray supports multiple layers as well and already has a solid road-map in place to reach sizes up to 200gb. Compared to this, C3D looks kind of outdated.
It's not like Clinton appointed moderates, just look at how left-wing wacko Ginsberg is. Over the long-term, the Supreme Court should tend to follow the makeup of the elected officials at a slower pace. If Republicans stay in power for 20 years, then it's completely appropriate for the court to slant more conservative.
While the Democrat's may not like a more conservative court, they need to win at the ballot box to stop it, not use parliamentary tricks to try and stop it.
With O'Connor gone, Bush is going to get at least 2 appointments (Rehnquist will never last that long). If the Democrats try to filibuster reasonable nominees, they are going to lose the filibuster option. The Republicans are holding all the cards at this table. The best the Democrats can hope for is to make the Repulicans spend some political capital to get there.
I don't know how you can blame all these rulings on Bush, when he didn't appoint a single Supreme Court justice. Are you just stupid or something?
On you example #5 (eminent domain ruling), all the Democrat-appointed justices supported that ruling and all those against it were Republican-appointed justices. Are you just stupid or something?
heh, I'm not sure how you could call Ginsberg anything but liberal. She was the former head of the ACLU and believes the age of legal consent should be 12 years old. She is a left-wing nut job by any measure.
I don't define liberal quite the way you do. I define liberal as somebody who wants things changed; whereas conservatives are people who want things to remain as they are (or perhaps even go back to how they were in soem cases).
Personally, I think things are working pretty good as they are. Liberal tend to run around looking for things to change. For example, (local issue) the display of a cross on a war memorial that has been around for 75 years is suddenly infringing on somebodies rights since the land the memorial resides on happens to be owned by the city. If it hasn't caused any problem for 75 years, what's the big deal now? Is America really that bad of a place that we need to change this stuff?
Liberals and the ACLU tend to favor affirmative action, how is that consistent with the 14th amendment?
I have no idea what your views are on every issue, and I tend to be a quite libertarian as conservatives go myself.
The camels nose under the tent argument causes far more problems on both sides of the aisle than it's worth. For hell sakes, let the Boy Scouts hold a Jamoboree at the park one afternoon, even if you disagree with their organization. I suspect you would defend a gay-pride parade through the park, yet not defend the Boy Scouts right to use public facilities as well?
On the opposite side of the aisle, the NRA is just as paranoid about the 2nd amendment as the ACLU is about defending porn. Both of them need to chill out and let the majority pass reasonable laws (like this Utah law in question).
"Had states rights prevailed in this case, the law would have been confirmed. The reasoning used by the conservative judges to overturn it, was that it violated the Federal ban on marijuana.
Technically, that's correct, but that is in itself a law that needs to be reviewed and repealed, as it is inherently unjust and violates states rights to legislate commerce by itself."
You need to recheck the case. The decision was 6-3 to overturn the California law in favor of the Federal law having authority. The 3 dissenting judges were Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (I believe). The conservative judges were not he ones in favor in overturning the California law, the liberal judges were.
Thus my point, that justices like Ginsberg who clearly favor legalizing marijuana ended up having to strike down California's medical marijuana law, lest they admit that it's a state-right issue and open the door for other states to do the opposite.
Yet the mantra we hear coming from the liberals is that the court conservatives tried to strike down the California law legalizing marijuana, when in fact just the opposite occurred.
While a conservative, I tend to be a bit more consistent in my views than many conservatives. I'm a big proponent of states rights. Let's take your medical-marijuana example, since there was recent news about that. I believe it was the conservative justices that supported the states rights in this case and the liberal justices that wanted the laws banned.
It must have been difficult for the liberal justices to swallow, since most of them are clearly in favor of allowing marijuana, but they knew that they could not allow the California law to stand without admitting also that states like Utah has the right to make a law the opposite way.
My problem with the ACLU as it relates to religion is they feel the need to codify the athiest religion view over any other. Isn't removing a reference to God (like from the money) akin to supporting the athiest view of God?
How about when they support a ban on the Boy Scouts using the local park for activities because they are disallow gay scout-leaders on religious grounds (as they did with Balboa park here in San Diego)?
I'll agree with you 100% that things such as prayers should not happen in schools, and schools should not be required to teach religious doctrine instead of evolution, but the ACLU is so extreme in their anti-religious stance that they are infringing upon religious freedoms IMO.
The constitution wasn't intent on banning religion, merely preventing congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise thereof. The liberals, headed by the ACLU have taken a far too liberal interpretation of this clause, compared to their undefendably narrow interpretation of 2nd and 10th amendements.
I agree with you; however, the law has nothing to do with imposing somebody elses views on your kids. You do not have to participate in the filtering system, it's completely optional.
While I do think it is each parents responsibility to decide what is and is not good for their kid, all I am asking for are some tools to make that job a little easier.
I mentioned it in another post, the V-Chip is a very similar system, and it works great in helping me keep TV crap away from my kids. I don't mind my kids watching HBO when they are showing Harry Potter or Shrek movies; I do mind them watching it when Real-Sex or Pornocopia are airing.
When my kids are having a sleep-over party, I let them stay up later and watch TV and play games until midnight or so. I can't be in the room non-stop (and they don't want me there non-stop), yet they like to be able to flip through the channels trying to find something to watch, just like anybody else. 99% of the time they end up on Nickelodean or Disney channel, but without the V-Chip, they would end up cycling through Taxicab Confessions in their search for a good program.
There was a LOT of stink about the V-Chip when the law first came out (in fact, I suspect the ACLU challenged that law as well), but now days even the broadcasters think it's a great idea, since it leaves them free to broadcast ever more risque material without advertisers panicking. Even porn-lovers have got to think it turned out well for the same reason (ie. more readily available porn).
As a small state, Utah has little hope of getting a better system (like content-marking) in place. But they do have jurisdictional ability to require ISP's to provide this tool to parents. Sure it's not 100% effective, but it's about all that can be done without a federal law.
The ACLU is just having their usual knee-jerk reaction to anything that might limit child access to porn. If the ACLU had their way, parents would not be allowed to censor what their children see, since children have rights too.
I don't see how this law is much different from the V-Chip they put in televisions (by law). Personally, I love the V-Chip. I can't monitor my kids 24/7 and anything that helps me do the very difficult job of raising my children is welcome.
We aren't talking about taking away anybodies rights here, merely giving parents more tools to give them a fighting chance at controlling the onslaught of inappropriate material. While I agree with many others that have posted that it won't be 100% effective, it probably will help somewhat. I can certainly think of more effective schemes.
I suspect the ACLU is going to lose this one.
The ACLU is very selective about which rights they choose to defend. I have yet to see the ACLU step up to the plate to protect our rights to own guns. I rarely see the ACLU defend the free exercise of religion (they are most often found on the opposite side of this one). How about the 10th amendment (yeah, part of teh Bill of Rights)?
The ACLU likes to pretend it's about defending the constitution, but really they have a agenda to have the constitution interpretted the way they want it interpretted, with little regard to rights.
You are paranoid. It's not like you can't be identified now. You have a driver's license now, with a number on it. Add the two digit state-code to the front of that number and you effective have a unique number for everybody with a drivers license already. The purpose of this bill is to simplify the system and create a minimum set of standards for being able to obtain a drivers license to help reduce fraudulent ID's. It has little to nothing to do with big-brother, as it has little to no effect on being able to uniquely identify somebody.
Really, you're just being silly. There is a reason every single Senator voted for it (and there are some real left-wing wacko senators too...that's saying something).
I don't know how run of the mill slashdotter opinions can be taken seriously on anything when they blow all their credibility with knee-jerk dumb reactions to very reasonable and mundane legislation.
The profit motive is what is ultimately driving these kinds of research in the first place. The solution is not less business, the solution is more of it.
This is either a slimy attempt to blackmail Apple into giving them a wad of cash to make the problem go away, rather than face a possible injunction that would seriously mess up their marketting plans.
Or, it's a PR stunt by TigerDirect. I would imagine TigerDirects' website has gotten more hits in the past few hours just from this slashdot story than they have all week.
Even if TigerDirect loses (and they will), they benefit greatly from all the press coverage. You know the old saying, no news is bad news.