Why on Earth would the electronic manufacturers be against it? They get to force everyone to buy new TVs and they can claim it's not their fault. Win win for them.
That's right friend, it's the citizens of the USA that are trying to ram this down the world's throat. I took a break from my job as a programmer today to meet with the mechanic down the road, the coffee shop clerk, and the local firemen to discuss our further plans to control and censor digital signals around the world. Hell, all us Americans have a hand in this. I'm suprised nobody caught on to this earlier.
I believe you are making the mistake of generalizing that all Americans are behind anything an American (or for that matter Global, and last time I checked Sony was from Japan) company does. This is not an American problem, it's a corporate and government problem, so before you assume that the universally hated USA is behind this, check with the corporations in your back yard. Are they opposing this or right behind it?
Need I remind you of RIP? Do you think it's just our Government and Corporations that are tring to to censor and control things? Please, we have one of the less strict Governments when it comes to censoring the net.
And promptly be sued, or most likely prosecuted by the US government. I don't see DeCSS succeding in making region codes usless. No set top DVD player has DeCSS code in it, what happens when no TV can view an non approved digital signal?
DIVX failed because it was a small pissant company behind it with no government support. This has the blessing of the FCC, the backing of all the major broadcastors, and all the major electronics producers. Once analog signals are turned off and replaced completly with digital (I predict 5-10 years) you will not have a choice but to upgrade your TV, throw out your usless VCR, replace all your tapes with DVDs and welcome to a pay per view world. Think the public won't stand for this? Neither do I but it COULD work under certain circumstances.
1) They do it slowly...which they have been doing. Nobody is upset (well except for some geeks) over DVD region coding and CSS because it's minor and really doesn't affect them....yet
2) They promise it is for out benefit...They don't have to tell us about all the copy prevention and content control, all Joe Q Public needs to hear is that it's better. Better picture, better sound, even cheaper media (I predict that DVD's will be soon cheaper than VHS, since they are cheaper to produce and they want everyone on a controlable medium.
3) There is no clear "bad guy"...when the customers bitch about the expense of a pay per view world, the FCC will blame the broadcastors for demanding this protection, the broadcastors blame the equipment manufacturers for designing the system they have to use, and the equipment makers blame the FCC for forcing them to use the standard. Even if one of these groups gets hit hard by the public to change back to the old analog system, all three would have to agree.
4) The law...No matter how much you bitch, it's illegal to broadcast non-encrypted and controlled media, it's illegal to make encryption circumvention TVs (oops, already covered under the DMCA), and fair use, while still legal, is impossible.
The only people who see this coming and get mad about it are us. Everyone else sees the possibility of digital quality TV and will be blindsided with the pay per view part after it's too late.
Currently they don't, but who knows what these guys have up their sleeves for the future. I can envision them taking the DIVX model and applying it your TV. Ahhhhh, now that you have to pay for every program you watch, bootlegging episodes of will and grace or the superbowl becomes a serious issue.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is an integral step in converting everything to pay per view, it's just the security phase of that plan.
your views were not revelant, I could have agreed with you completly and still took umbrage at your assumption that rational thought and 'thinking for yourself' can be assigned to specific views on a resonably contested issue. Personally I prefer to learn all views and after doing so usually learn that both sides are "rational" and have good points. To only assume that pro self-defense or anti self-defense viewpoints as they relate to guns are rational and the other side is irrational is the major fault I find with most debates on the topic.
Actually, I wouldn't mine if it's sold. I certainly wouldn't like it, in fact I'd be outraged by it. However, I'm sure someone out there would not like something I have to say, should we all have the right to silence any view contrary to our own? What views would remain?
I'll decide for myself what thoughts and ideas I wish to be exposed to, rather than have someone else tell me what I can and cannot be exposed to.
So now I'm curious. Rational thought is now defined as anyone who shares the same belief as you? Thinking requires that they think like you and share your opinions? My aren't we self confident.
the argument that guns are to protect you from other citizens is mistaken. The police and FBI do that.
In the words of Palpatine: "I'm afraid is is you who are mistaken, about a great many things"
(I was just looking for an excuse to quote Return of the Jedi):)
The police are unfortunatly NOT there to protect you. Their role is to clean up after crimes have been commited and hopefuly bring the criminal to justice. However, they have no obligation to protect people, and there are several high court cases that re-affirm that. Ask a law professor about that one someday.
Let's pretend for a second that the job of the police was to protect you from criminals, they appearently are not going to do a very good job since the average response time for an officer to a crime in progress 911 call is 45 minutes, and there have been several cases where they didn't show up at all.
Not to mention that during the LA riots the police were streched to thin that many shop keepers and citizens were left to fend for themselves. The store owners who owned guns and defended their stores and people who defended their homes and families fared much better than those who only relied on the police to protect them. (not to mention that the police were somewhat responsible for the riots in the first place).
I agree with you about the intended meaning of the second amendment, but protection from criminals is a perfectly valid reason to posses a firearm as well.
Nope. In most European countries both are crimes. The US is different, you appreciate freedom more than security (ie. freedom to own hand guns vs. violent crimes OR freedom to shout "kill the foreigners" vs. not tolerating the nazis.)
That's interesting, I hadn't thought about that way. However, the burden still lies on the country with the laws to enforce them. Ban importing of whatever material you find offensive. If you don't like the way American businesses do their business, ban them from doing business with your country. This whole global thing is still new and the bugs need to be worked out, but in the mean time each country should enforce laws in their own boundries and not try to change the way foreign companies work.
Would you like it if foreign businesses sold "KILL THE GODDAMN NIGGERS!" - T-shirts to Americans via internet? Well, maybe you would...
You know, you had some good points, but your whole arguement is overshadowed by this immature, insulting suggestion that I must be racist since I don't agree with you. I'm sorry you lack the mental capacity and maturity to express your ideas without resorting to this kind of garbage.
Censorship is bad, don't take me wrong, but free speech is not exactly the most important basic human right out there. It needs to be balanced with others, like for instance the right to life, dammit, and that right isn't furthered by the idiots who stand at the next street corner and shout "kill the f*cking foreigners".
It's also not taken away. Bear in mind that there is a difference between saying "kill the ------ foreigners" and killing foreigners. Only one actually takes away the right to life, and THAT is the crime. Now I know there is a grey area and conspiricy to commit murder is illegal, but we are talking about historical items here, I hardly think owning a Nazi helmet qualifies as conspiracy to do anything. I think it important to not ban history or try to pretend this stuff doesn't exist and never happened, but to remember it and never forget the lessons we learned from that time period.
That said, both Yahoo and Ebay can ban whatever they want, agree with it or not (actually in both cases I'm kind of indifferent) it's their decision.
Actually, however barbaric it may be, only in Maryland does you life have to be in danger in order to fire on someone in your own home. Now of course, this person must be an intruder, but the point is you don't have wait until an intruder attacks you or retreat from danger in your own home in 49 of the United States.
Too paranoid. I've had my place broken into before. Regardless of what they were doing in my apartment, they broke into it. They would certainly have a gun pulled on them until I make sure they aren't robbing the place and a potential threat to my life.
I reserve the right to defend my home by any legal means I see fit from unwanted intruders. This includes but is not limited to firing upon Sprint employees who feel they can somehow design and enforce a TOS that gives them free reign over my property if they appear on said property without my permission.
Have fun, Sprint. You would be wise to enforce that insane part of your TOS in an area where citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves though (NY, DC, etc)
How on Earth is Time Warner supposed to get into your house if you aren't there? If I enter my home and find it broken into and a Time Warner exec standing in my living room, he will find a gaping hole in his chest:)
Seriously, apartment contracts are different since they are the technical owners of the apartment, but a computer service has no claim to your premises. Although if they want to enter and you refuse, they could cut your service.
While we're at it, we should require certain types of laws, ie ones that stomp on our constitution, to garner a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate instead of just a majority.
That implies that they should have the right to attempt to pass laws that stop on the constitution. I say that is treason punishable by death (or at least a good noogie)
Clinton wouldn't have made it through his first term. I refer you to his numerous executive orders (the very concept is unconstitutional, for that matter)
But I certainly agree with the idea, but it would never happen. No lawmaker would make as law that could negativly effect themselves.
for christs sake, GWB got elected with about 20% of the eligible voters voting for him? does that sound like the MAJORITY of people want this guy to lead... its a minority... a very small minority is running this country, and selling the people out for the dollar...
I agree with most of what you said, but I'd like to point out that that Clinton recieved much less than this in his first run.
Slashdot Mirror
Why on Earth would the electronic manufacturers be against it? They get to force everyone to buy new TVs and they can claim it's not their fault. Win win for them.
Finkployd
That's right friend, it's the citizens of the USA that are trying to ram this down the world's throat. I took a break from my job as a programmer today to meet with the mechanic down the road, the coffee shop clerk, and the local firemen to discuss our further plans to control and censor digital signals around the world. Hell, all us Americans have a hand in this. I'm suprised nobody caught on to this earlier.
I believe you are making the mistake of generalizing that all Americans are behind anything an American (or for that matter Global, and last time I checked Sony was from Japan) company does. This is not an American problem, it's a corporate and government problem, so before you assume that the universally hated USA is behind this, check with the corporations in your back yard. Are they opposing this or right behind it?
Need I remind you of RIP? Do you think it's just our Government and Corporations that are tring to to censor and control things? Please, we have one of the less strict Governments when it comes to censoring the net.
Finkployd
And promptly be sued, or most likely prosecuted by the US government. I don't see DeCSS succeding in making region codes usless. No set top DVD player has DeCSS code in it, what happens when no TV can view an non approved digital signal?
Finkployd
DIVX failed because it was a small pissant company behind it with no government support. This has the blessing of the FCC, the backing of all the major broadcastors, and all the major electronics producers. Once analog signals are turned off and replaced completly with digital (I predict 5-10 years) you will not have a choice but to upgrade your TV, throw out your usless VCR, replace all your tapes with DVDs and welcome to a pay per view world. Think the public won't stand for this? Neither do I but it COULD work under certain circumstances.
1) They do it slowly...which they have been doing. Nobody is upset (well except for some geeks) over DVD region coding and CSS because it's minor and really doesn't affect them....yet
2) They promise it is for out benefit...They don't have to tell us about all the copy prevention and content control, all Joe Q Public needs to hear is that it's better. Better picture, better sound, even cheaper media (I predict that DVD's will be soon cheaper than VHS, since they are cheaper to produce and they want everyone on a controlable medium.
3) There is no clear "bad guy"...when the customers bitch about the expense of a pay per view world, the FCC will blame the broadcastors for demanding this protection, the broadcastors blame the equipment manufacturers for designing the system they have to use, and the equipment makers blame the FCC for forcing them to use the standard. Even if one of these groups gets hit hard by the public to change back to the old analog system, all three would have to agree.
4) The law...No matter how much you bitch, it's illegal to broadcast non-encrypted and controlled media, it's illegal to make encryption circumvention TVs (oops, already covered under the DMCA), and fair use, while still legal, is impossible.
The only people who see this coming and get mad about it are us. Everyone else sees the possibility of digital quality TV and will be blindsided with the pay per view part after it's too late.
Finkployd
Currently they don't, but who knows what these guys have up their sleeves for the future. I can envision them taking the DIVX model and applying it your TV. Ahhhhh, now that you have to pay for every program you watch, bootlegging episodes of will and grace or the superbowl becomes a serious issue.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is an integral step in converting everything to pay per view, it's just the security phase of that plan.
Finkployd
your views were not revelant, I could have agreed with you completly and still took umbrage at your assumption that rational thought and 'thinking for yourself' can be assigned to specific views on a resonably contested issue. Personally I prefer to learn all views and after doing so usually learn that both sides are "rational" and have good points. To only assume that pro self-defense or anti self-defense viewpoints as they relate to guns are rational and the other side is irrational is the major fault I find with most debates on the topic.
Finkployd
Actually, I wouldn't mine if it's sold. I certainly wouldn't like it, in fact I'd be outraged by it. However, I'm sure someone out there would not like something I have to say, should we all have the right to silence any view contrary to our own? What views would remain?
I'll decide for myself what thoughts and ideas I wish to be exposed to, rather than have someone else tell me what I can and cannot be exposed to.
Finkployd
it's (approximately) 22% to $42,500 US and 40% above that. Not exactly massive.
That's pretty damn massive to me.
Finkployd
Which partisan court would you have prefered usurp the election? The florida one or the federal one?
Finkployd
So now I'm curious. Rational thought is now defined as anyone who shares the same belief as you? Thinking requires that they think like you and share your opinions? My aren't we self confident.
Finkployd
the argument that guns are to protect you from other citizens is mistaken. The police and FBI do that.
:)
In the words of Palpatine: "I'm afraid is is you who are mistaken, about a great many things"
(I was just looking for an excuse to quote Return of the Jedi)
The police are unfortunatly NOT there to protect you. Their role is to clean up after crimes have been commited and hopefuly bring the criminal to justice. However, they have no obligation to protect people, and there are several high court cases that re-affirm that. Ask a law professor about that one someday.
Let's pretend for a second that the job of the police was to protect you from criminals, they appearently are not going to do a very good job since the average response time for an officer to a crime in progress 911 call is 45 minutes, and there have been several cases where they didn't show up at all.
Not to mention that during the LA riots the police were streched to thin that many shop keepers and citizens were left to fend for themselves. The store owners who owned guns and defended their stores and people who defended their homes and families fared much better than those who only relied on the police to protect them. (not to mention that the police were somewhat responsible for the riots in the first place).
I agree with you about the intended meaning of the second amendment, but protection from criminals is a perfectly valid reason to posses a firearm as well.
Finkployd
Nope. In most European countries both are crimes. The US is different, you appreciate freedom more than security (ie. freedom to own hand guns vs. violent crimes OR freedom to shout "kill the foreigners" vs. not tolerating the nazis.)
That's interesting, I hadn't thought about that way. However, the burden still lies on the country with the laws to enforce them. Ban importing of whatever material you find offensive. If you don't like the way American businesses do their business, ban them from doing business with your country. This whole global thing is still new and the bugs need to be worked out, but in the mean time each country should enforce laws in their own boundries and not try to change the way foreign companies work.
Would you like it if foreign businesses sold "KILL THE GODDAMN NIGGERS!" - T-shirts to Americans via internet? Well, maybe you would...
You know, you had some good points, but your whole arguement is overshadowed by this immature, insulting suggestion that I must be racist since I don't agree with you. I'm sorry you lack the mental capacity and maturity to express your ideas without resorting to this kind of garbage.
Finkployd
Censorship is bad, don't take me wrong, but free speech is not exactly the most important basic human right out there. It needs to be balanced with others, like for instance the right to life, dammit, and that right isn't furthered by the idiots who stand at the next street corner and shout "kill the f*cking foreigners".
It's also not taken away. Bear in mind that there is a difference between saying "kill the ------ foreigners" and killing foreigners. Only one actually takes away the right to life, and THAT is the crime. Now I know there is a grey area and conspiricy to commit murder is illegal, but we are talking about historical items here, I hardly think owning a Nazi helmet qualifies as conspiracy to do anything. I think it important to not ban history or try to pretend this stuff doesn't exist and never happened, but to remember it and never forget the lessons we learned from that time period.
That said, both Yahoo and Ebay can ban whatever they want, agree with it or not (actually in both cases I'm kind of indifferent) it's their decision.
Finkployd
Actually, however barbaric it may be, only in Maryland does you life have to be in danger in order to fire on someone in your own home. Now of course, this person must be an intruder, but the point is you don't have wait until an intruder attacks you or retreat from danger in your own home in 49 of the United States.
Finkployd
I was being silly, I know they aren't going to enter your home without permission. But why would they have it in their TOS? It just looks stupid.
Finkployd
Too paranoid. I've had my place broken into before. Regardless of what they were doing in my apartment, they broke into it. They would certainly have a gun pulled on them until I make sure they aren't robbing the place and a potential threat to my life.
Finkployd
No it can't.
Finkployd
Guns for dummies must be your favourite book.
That's the best you can do? Sad really.
Finkployd
I reserve the right to defend my home by any legal means I see fit from unwanted intruders. This includes but is not limited to firing upon Sprint employees who feel they can somehow design and enforce a TOS that gives them free reign over my property if they appear on said property without my permission.
Have fun, Sprint. You would be wise to enforce that insane part of your TOS in an area where citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves though (NY, DC, etc)
:)
Finkployd
How on Earth is Time Warner supposed to get into your house if you aren't there? If I enter my home and find it broken into and a Time Warner exec standing in my living room, he will find a gaping hole in his chest :)
Seriously, apartment contracts are different since they are the technical owners of the apartment, but a computer service has no claim to your premises. Although if they want to enter and you refuse, they could cut your service.
Finkployd
While we're at it, we should require certain types of laws, ie ones that stomp on our constitution, to garner a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate instead of just a majority.
That implies that they should have the right to attempt to pass laws that stop on the constitution. I say that is treason punishable by death (or at least a good noogie)
Finkployd
Don't fool yourself, NONE of the candidates understand encryption. Nader perhaps came close, though.
Finkployd
Clinton wouldn't have made it through his first term. I refer you to his numerous executive orders (the very concept is unconstitutional, for that matter)
But I certainly agree with the idea, but it would never happen. No lawmaker would make as law that could negativly effect themselves.
Finkployd
for christs sake, GWB got elected with about 20% of the eligible voters voting for him? does that sound like the MAJORITY of people want this guy to lead... its a minority... a very small minority is running this country, and selling the people out for the dollar...
I agree with most of what you said, but I'd like to point out that that Clinton recieved much less than this in his first run.
The problem is voter turnout.
Finkployd
Did anyone else expect Gullum to claim "Eh, that rabbit is not dead" or perhaps "Aragorn, you are the king eh? I don't remember voting for you"
I mean seriously, Frodo and Samwise should have just brought him a shrubbery.
Finkployd