What's worse... What if you're blind? I think there's some work going on in text-to-Braille interfaces, but that would come under "printing out" because you could put a piece of carbon paper and a sheet of normal paper over the device and obtain a printout (although it would be encoded in Braille...). This means basically that if you're blind, you're not legally allowed to read the book. Period.
Hrm... I dunno. I got some paperwork in the mail a few days ago that informed me that I'm a member of a class-action lawsuit against my credit card company for some sort of billing irregularities at one of their facilities. The proposed settlement is somewhere in the hundreds of millions, with the class representative (the guy who brought the suit in the first place) getting a couple of those. My take after the settlement? $0.38 credited to my account.
Not that I'm concerned about the money... But the situation seems kinda lopsided to me. I'd think that the class representative, being simply a convenient single person to represent the "everyman" of the class, should not be entitled to more than every other member of the class gets (legal fees aside). But to get back to my original point, I don't think the individual awards in the Microsoft settlement will come down to points like fairness or factual correctness. This is, after all, the legal system we're talking about here.
Interesting thought... Since everyone goes on about how the Internet is a global phenomenon, can we use that logic and kick them off the Earth? Just Launch them into the sun or something... *grin*
I believe there is something seriously flawed about a system of law and order that assumes everyone is a criminal. The default assumption of law enforcement should be that everyone is a law-abiding citizen, and they should have to show evidence to the contrary before they can invade an individual's right to privacy.
I think the major problem is that Law-Enforcement personnel have seen so many cases of people who are demonstrably guilty that after a while it just becomes easier for them to assume that everyone is guilty and that they just don't have enough proof to take it to court yet. My worry is that use of encryption in and of itself can become (in their minds) an indicator of criminal behavior, even if it is only your shopping list. That's why universal use of encryption would be a good thing, because those of us who like our privacy would no longer be singled out for being a little more privacy-concious than the rest of the sheeple.
Actually, just to correct your sequencing a bit... The TV show came first. The rest of the marketing didn't happen until the TV show came to the US and all the pread boys went apeshit over it. There was an urban legend going around in late 1997-early 1998 to the effect that it was giving Japanese kids seizures because the PokeCreature's eyes would flash stroboscopically as they hurled themselves at their foes. I'm still not sure if that one's been verified or not though.
You want to talk about Pokemon being dangerous? This'd be a good thing to go off on... *grin*
Well, the IRS did attempt to tax the guy who caught Mark McGwuire's record-breaking home run when he gave the ball back to McGwuire instead of auctioning it off for the couple of million that the bean counters figured it was worth. Luckily for him, a clueful IRS agent made an exception.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Whoah, whoah, whoah... Hold the phone... I haven't been watching TV in over a year. You mean to tell me that the Blue Man Group sold out to Intel? Oh dear...
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
There is a difference, though. When people complain that a technology can be used to track them, it's with the proviso that it's without their knowledge or permission. That is, rightly, seen as a violation of a person's right to privacy.
On the other hand, this article is asking, "well, what if I want to be able to voluntarily confirm my location for the purpose of authenticating my identity? What technology would I need?" These are very different problems, and it's not an inconsistency to complain about both at the same time.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Well, if some backwards bible-thumper brings a suit against prOn providers and can show that the providers knew that the person that they were providing it to was in an area where such content would be considered obscene, then their case is proven and the provider is liable.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Doesn't sound that bad to me... But then again, even though I'm left-handed, I'm a right-handed mouse-jockey. I use scissors right-handed as well. I guess I'm really partially-ambidextrous... *shrug*
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Thanks for bringing this up... I was thinking I was going to have to post myself to ask the question.:)
I guess I'll have to look into getting myself one for Christmas or something. My small mind can't contain the number of times I've wanted more precise directional control in Counter-Strike...
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Because Buchanan should not have been able to legitimately claim to be the reform party candidate after highjacking the primary?
Face it, he and his followers are nutjobs, and they only got the reform party nomination because they were fanatical enough to flood the primary. I don't think his nomination was representative of Reform party feelings at large.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Well, it's definitely a powerful argument against the "winner takes all" aspect of choosing electors. We wouldn't have this problem if the Florida electors (or those in the other states for that matter) were chosen by the percentage that the candidates recieved. If there's one thing that really consolidates the grip of the two-party mentality, it's the winner taking all of the electors in the state no matter how close the vote count is.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
I agree wholeheartedly that racism/bigotry is wrong, and that sensitivity to others' conditions is a good thing. I feel that those people that egregiously put others down based on conditions beyond their control need correction. But I feel that anything beyond that accentuates people's status as "victims" and encourages those people to use that as a weapon instead of working to improve themselves and their lives.
The problem in Farenheit 451 was not that everyone was taught that they should be sensitive to the needs and circumstances of others. It was that nobody was to ever be more intelligent or more successful than anyone else, regardless of what talents they may have had that others may have lacked. So books were banned, because they promoted learning and individuality. And as I see it, the PC movement is in the business of propagating a sort of groupthink which says that I shoultn't work to better myself because others may be humiliated. It claims to celebrate the diversity of our society, but in the end its goal is to stamp out the recognition that we all have differences and are going to have to live with it.
I'll help the disadvantaged as much as I can, but some of it they simply have to do on their own, and decreasing my opportunities for self-improvement isn't going to help them one bit. And I don't want to have to fear that one day I might have to go to court because I described someone as "black" instead of "African-American" because PC has been taken to ridiculous extremes. It's just that push to take it farther than it needed to go that has caused the backlash you've described.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
What really tickles me is that the foundation of Bradbury's seminal dystopia, Farenheit 451, was rampant political correctness. Decades before we even had a name for it, no less! Dontcha love it when visionaries get it right?
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
e) Bush's Texan tendencies to avoid big words and the air of intellectuality
This is a very good point... I think many people who didn't live through the sixties would be terribly shocked if they got a chance to see LBJ debate Gore. This was a guy who talked about keeping congresscritter's "peckers" in his desk drawer, for crying out loud.
'Course, now that I think about it, I remember that LBG was a Democrat... Ah well. LBJ vs. Shrub would be just as interesting.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Slashdot Mirror
Equal protection and Disabled Rights, anyone?
--Fesh
Not that I'm concerned about the money... But the situation seems kinda lopsided to me. I'd think that the class representative, being simply a convenient single person to represent the "everyman" of the class, should not be entitled to more than every other member of the class gets (legal fees aside). But to get back to my original point, I don't think the individual awards in the Microsoft settlement will come down to points like fairness or factual correctness. This is, after all, the legal system we're talking about here.
--Fesh
--Fesh
--Fesh
I think the major problem is that Law-Enforcement personnel have seen so many cases of people who are demonstrably guilty that after a while it just becomes easier for them to assume that everyone is guilty and that they just don't have enough proof to take it to court yet. My worry is that use of encryption in and of itself can become (in their minds) an indicator of criminal behavior, even if it is only your shopping list. That's why universal use of encryption would be a good thing, because those of us who like our privacy would no longer be singled out for being a little more privacy-concious than the rest of the sheeple.
--Fesh
You want to talk about Pokemon being dangerous? This'd be a good thing to go off on... *grin*
--Fesh
Is that a way of indirectly yelling "First post!"? *grin*
--Fesh
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
On the other hand, this article is asking, "well, what if I want to be able to voluntarily confirm my location for the purpose of authenticating my identity? What technology would I need?" These are very different problems, and it's not an inconsistency to complain about both at the same time.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
I guess I'll have to look into getting myself one for Christmas or something. My small mind can't contain the number of times I've wanted more precise directional control in Counter-Strike...
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Face it, he and his followers are nutjobs, and they only got the reform party nomination because they were fanatical enough to flood the primary. I don't think his nomination was representative of Reform party feelings at large.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
The problem in Farenheit 451 was not that everyone was taught that they should be sensitive to the needs and circumstances of others. It was that nobody was to ever be more intelligent or more successful than anyone else, regardless of what talents they may have had that others may have lacked. So books were banned, because they promoted learning and individuality. And as I see it, the PC movement is in the business of propagating a sort of groupthink which says that I shoultn't work to better myself because others may be humiliated. It claims to celebrate the diversity of our society, but in the end its goal is to stamp out the recognition that we all have differences and are going to have to live with it.
I'll help the disadvantaged as much as I can, but some of it they simply have to do on their own, and decreasing my opportunities for self-improvement isn't going to help them one bit. And I don't want to have to fear that one day I might have to go to court because I described someone as "black" instead of "African-American" because PC has been taken to ridiculous extremes. It's just that push to take it farther than it needed to go that has caused the backlash you've described.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
This is a very good point... I think many people who didn't live through the sixties would be terribly shocked if they got a chance to see LBJ debate Gore. This was a guy who talked about keeping congresscritter's "peckers" in his desk drawer, for crying out loud.
'Course, now that I think about it, I remember that LBG was a Democrat... Ah well. LBJ vs. Shrub would be just as interesting.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy