So are you suggesting that it was the child's parents that led to her death? Were they the ones that pulled the trigger?
I'm sorry but I just can't buy the argument so common in our society today that all adolescents are somehow a danger to themselves because of their age, and therefore always need to be monitored. Sure there are a few nutjobs. There are also a few nutjobs who are adults. Does that mean that we should monitor all adults too? Once again, the media blows things out of proportion in order to get their damn ratings and to stir up controversy.
More importantly (albeit offtopic), why is it that even a marginal difference in age can still plunge someone into the category of "minor," and therefore "victim"? Why is it that if a 17.980769231-year-old does something, the world wants to blame everybody else, but if that person waited a week later when he or she turned 18, the world will say "that's terrible" and just move on like nothing happened?
Agreed. Slashdot should have a big warning on the top of the screen that reads: "WARNING: this site is highly addictive and will cost you hours of lost productivity." I know it has for me.
Except that the file will be significantly bigger. Considering that most people I know seem to have made it a mission in life to max out their gigabytes of space with as much audio as they can, I don't think that most people would take kindly to such a larger file unless the quality had suddenly increased by two orders of magnitude.
Any idiot can plug the line-out and line-in jacks together to record the audio, but video is a bit more complicated. While it would be trivial to disable hardware acceleration and use screen capture software in some cases, the only thing a non-technical user would think of doing is mounting a camera in front of the monitor (which of course won't work because the camera would easily expose the refresh rate).
It's also significant in that it can work against any and all DRM'd media, including those that haven't been cracked yet.
Me: Bill Gates is a convicted monopolist who practices unethical business behavior. Some person: OMG NOES HE ISNT HE STRTD A FUNDATON TO HLP TEH P00R!!!11!
I've been trying to figure out how to respond to the whole "If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument, but I'm not a good debater. Any thoughts anyone? This might help. It's the "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" essay talked about last July.
Reminds me of when the kids in the VB6 class in high school (it was the only programming class they offered) found out how to flip the Windows desktop upside-down and did it to almost every computer in the lab.
The last I heard it was only for EMI tracks. The other labels may have signed on to iTunes Plus, but the videos and movies most certainly continue to be embedded with DRM. Given that the often-denied movie rentals have now surfaced, I doubt that video from the iTunes Store will ever be DRM-free.
If parents want to install monitoring software on their PCs, that's their business. Where I draw the line is your assertion that Google should be taking responsibility for all children who use their service instead of the parents of said children. Your argument sounded to me like the arguments used by the Parents Television Council and other groups to censor all of the media because some of it is not deemed to be suitable to minors, all the while secretly wanting the media to preoccupy their children so that they don't have to.
Now, if all you are arguing for is for Google to implement SafeSearch for their Web searches in the same way that they do for their image searches, then I don't have a problem with that so long as it can be disabled.
The only thing that bugs me about this development is that it's a Sony product and I don't like supporting Sony's attempts to lock their users into their products. Then don't buy. No one is making you buy Blu-Ray discs.
If you had the same movie, one on a DVD with a decent up converter, and the other on blu-ray shown on the same TV with the same settings side by side, I guarantee most people would pick the blu-ray one as looking better. Sure, if it's the same TV set. But play a DVD on an SDTV and a BD on an HDTV, and unless you were standing right in front of the set most people probably wouldn't care about the difference.
It's also a matter of how big your entertainment budget is. I would conjecture that most people don't have the time and money to invest in an HDTV+BD setup when they could just as easily use an SDTV+DVD setup for much less.
Well good luck with that. It doesn't seem like the majority of the Web is willing to be rated by any voluntary ratings service.
I remember enabling the "Content Advisor" feature in IE back when it first came out and 90% of the time it would throw a dialog box in my face saying "This page has no rating."
Slashdot Mirror
So are you suggesting that it was the child's parents that led to her death? Were they the ones that pulled the trigger?
I'm sorry but I just can't buy the argument so common in our society today that all adolescents are somehow a danger to themselves because of their age, and therefore always need to be monitored. Sure there are a few nutjobs. There are also a few nutjobs who are adults. Does that mean that we should monitor all adults too? Once again, the media blows things out of proportion in order to get their damn ratings and to stir up controversy.
More importantly (albeit offtopic), why is it that even a marginal difference in age can still plunge someone into the category of "minor," and therefore "victim"? Why is it that if a 17.980769231-year-old does something, the world wants to blame everybody else, but if that person waited a week later when he or she turned 18, the world will say "that's terrible" and just move on like nothing happened?
Nice bash, but I'm sure that the MS execs are pretty happy with the success of their software.
Seconded, and also only allow whitelisted cookies.
Then the solution is clear: make life miserable for everyone, all the time.
Agreed. Slashdot should have a big warning on the top of the screen that reads: "WARNING: this site is highly addictive and will cost you hours of lost productivity." I know it has for me.
Considering that MP3 and all of the listed picture formats have no place to contain DRM, I'd say those are the output formats.
Except that the file will be significantly bigger. Considering that most people I know seem to have made it a mission in life to max out their gigabytes of space with as much audio as they can, I don't think that most people would take kindly to such a larger file unless the quality had suddenly increased by two orders of magnitude.
If you have found this magical "perfect" encoder, please share it with the world.
Any idiot can plug the line-out and line-in jacks together to record the audio, but video is a bit more complicated. While it would be trivial to disable hardware acceleration and use screen capture software in some cases, the only thing a non-technical user would think of doing is mounting a camera in front of the monitor (which of course won't work because the camera would easily expose the refresh rate).
It's also significant in that it can work against any and all DRM'd media, including those that haven't been cracked yet.
That's my post. Sorry about the AC. The verification failed and Slashdot apparently logged me out.
True, but try telling that to Joe Average.
Me: Bill Gates is a convicted monopolist who practices unethical business behavior.
Some person: OMG NOES HE ISNT HE STRTD A FUNDATON TO HLP TEH P00R!!!11!
Who's going to film this and post it?
We all have something to hide. It's called privacy
If we have municipal data pipes, then it will be the government who is monitoring us instead of the ISPs.
Not that they don't already, but it would be much easier for them to monitor this way.
On the other hand, considering the UK's abysmal privacy record, this isn't surprising in the least.
Not good enough. Google records the IP address that you use with the search terms.
Reminds me of when the kids in the VB6 class in high school (it was the only programming class they offered) found out how to flip the Windows desktop upside-down and did it to almost every computer in the lab.
The last I heard it was only for EMI tracks. The other labels may have signed on to iTunes Plus, but the videos and movies most certainly continue to be embedded with DRM. Given that the often-denied movie rentals have now surfaced, I doubt that video from the iTunes Store will ever be DRM-free.
If parents want to install monitoring software on their PCs, that's their business. Where I draw the line is your assertion that Google should be taking responsibility for all children who use their service instead of the parents of said children. Your argument sounded to me like the arguments used by the Parents Television Council and other groups to censor all of the media because some of it is not deemed to be suitable to minors, all the while secretly wanting the media to preoccupy their children so that they don't have to.
Now, if all you are arguing for is for Google to implement SafeSearch for their Web searches in the same way that they do for their image searches, then I don't have a problem with that so long as it can be disabled.
Really? Every inkjet printer (mostly HPs and Lexmarks) I've ever used will print just fine if the color cartridge is empty or even nonexistent.
It's also a matter of how big your entertainment budget is. I would conjecture that most people don't have the time and money to invest in an HDTV+BD setup when they could just as easily use an SDTV+DVD setup for much less.
So then what stops them from just going to a friend's house?
Well good luck with that. It doesn't seem like the majority of the Web is willing to be rated by any voluntary ratings service.
I remember enabling the "Content Advisor" feature in IE back when it first came out and 90% of the time it would throw a dialog box in my face saying "This page has no rating."