My first thought as well. I think it's laudable that people are working on the ability to locate and disarm relic mines. Unfortunately, that same technology could likely be used by those wanting access to areas defended by current minefields.
Of course, the solution could be as simple as spraying a field with a substance that is toxic to the bacteria in question. It wouldn't have any impact on manned fields, but would still allow the use in areas that have abandonned mines. Unfortunately, that strikes me as creating yet another problem in a hunk of land currently filled with burried explosives, but it might be the way of it.
Most people here seem to agree that China's policy of censorship is a bad thing.
Most people at Slashdot also seem to believe it's a good idea to allow the US government's FCC greater authority over network communications.
I'm not saying that the same sort of control is currently proposed. I'm just saying that it's funny to see Slashdotters who believe that the FCC will only use regulatory authority to prevent traffic shaping won't attempt to expand that authority or use it for purposes other than those desired. But yeh, the fact that China can just shut down a network because it's not conforming to government standards is bad.
Slashdot is generally not concerned with matters like government control of religious institutions or redress of grievences in foreign nations. Net censorship is much more in its domain, and that seems apropriate.
The Chinese people don't control the resources, production or monetary policy of China. The Party does, and its senior leadership heard things just fine.
So you propose the government have the ability to strip a news reporters of their ability to speak publicly on notewothy topics if they do not meet a standard of truth decided by the government. Further, you belive that any public personality that takes a position should be forced to associate with those in opposition to his position. Failure to conform to these standards would result in the public personality not being able to speak in public forums. Additionally, you propose that private media outlets should have their programming dictated according to standards set by the government. Is that a fair sumation of the actions you'd take to make sure we all had good facts?
My intention is to note that not all content is of the same quality and quality can be impacted by the environment of creation. However, we all know that opinions about what makes for quality content vary widely.
I appreciate that you'd admit your belief that people should be forced to associate together. We all should respect this sort of clarity, particularly when it concerns such a heinous idea advanced for our supposed good. I would like to know whom you belive should decide where we spend our days and the company we keep, or is it only your assersion that reporters should loose their right to associate freely?
It's beginning to seem that there's really no reason for this sort of control to be available without the consent of the owner of a TV. Legitimate use arguments, while interesting curiosities, miss the point. It doesn't surprise me that MPAA wants this sort of control. All sorts of businesses and orginizations want to force all manner of ideas onto others. Seems obvious to me that, regardless of what people may be using their TV's for, a content provider shouldn't be able to disable parts of a person's propery without their consent.
But they're already both in my living room, or would be if I subscribed to a cable service. I have the option of listening to both and making judgements already. I hope you're not suggesting that we should force the commentators to be on the same station, or that we should force people to watch all stations equally.
PPV style would be fine with me. If the hardware doesn't support it, I guess they don't get the content early. Nothing new, or wrong, about needing to upgrade hardware to access new content.
Sure to expand the meaning of heart pounding rythms in the near future.
Would these mods be against the rules of the PGA? Seniors Tour participants might find themselves accused of performance enhancing software for their pacemakers.
In all seriousness, it is an issue we can, hopefully, look forward to in the future (not the near future, but when I'm ancient). People will want to replace their arms and legs if injured. Other people will think it's unreasonable that they have the ability to hotwire their artificial limbs to have adrenal burst levels of strength at will. Law enforcement and the like will also have their say. All the while, people argue about having control over their bodies, even if they buy them from Pfizer.
I'm not recomending a particular model, I'm just tyint to discover the core issue. The idea that they can manipulat your hardware without your consent is offensive to me. The FCC giving someone else the ability to manipulate my property without my consent doesn't make it any better. I wouldn't have a problem with a EULA for a TV show, but awareness and consent are issues in that regard. It's they're stuff. If they want to make it too anoying to use it's their right. Not to mention, how exactly do I get a viewer to click "accept" on a typical TV.
While I don't have any problem with a provider contracting, even via EULA, for this ability. It seems very wrong that they could recieve the authrority to control my property without my consent. Am I correct that the only reason this is an issue is because the FCC is contemplating granting them special dispensation to alter my television without my aproval, and they would not be able to do so, legally, otherwise?
Plasmacutter, please come back. I really do want to know who you think should be deciding on the news people consume. If there's a better option than "let people decide themselves" I want to know what that is, and why it's a better option. I'm not trying to be flippant, because I think it's a very real and important difference of view and I would like to know the other side.
Certainly they should not be able to do this without permission (contract) with the customer. That much seems clear. I'm just not clear on why it's currently illegal for them to create such a contract.
Research has probably taken casualties from the 24/7 news cycle. To a certain extent, there's a problem of "FIRST!" posting, but the idea there is nothing new. Unfortunately, the problems of the pressure to be first are acerbated by the speed of delivery. Buyer be ware in the first few hours of a story.
Currently the universities provide four year degrees in journalism, but that doesn't seem to be filling the desired role. I'm not sure that a certification program would do any better. No matter what, I'd like to avoid putting people who have a significant responibility to report on X in the position of needing the aproval of X. There's just a moral hazard to that situation. I don't like the content produced by the major cables, or networks. So I just don't watch them. I get my news from a variety of sources, mostly online orginizations like Stratfor and Politico, that are focused on their area of expertise. I far prefer the idea of giving people more options and letting them vote with their eyeballs to any additional strictures on who can produce what information for the public.
Agian, I think "some people say things that are crap" is the price we pay for living in a society where we can say things even if others think they're crap. I'm much more bothered by someone who says we need to make sure only X kind of people are speaking and they're only saying things that are "judged accurate", than I am by a "news-comentator"'s ranting.
The abiltiy to command multiple units at once is huge. Instead of moving groups, you move tactical squads. Micro manage a battle while doing a sneak attack. The level of sophistication allows for tactics otherwise unavailable. Of course, there might be human players that are able to do this at a level near enough to the machine to negate the usefulness.
Hmm. So, I'll still be able to watch the broadcast, but I'll loose the ability to do processing through the analog port. I might wish to use that functionality for derivitive works, or to work with my old VCR. I agree, if I had any interst in doing such things, it would be unfortunate to loose that ablity. What are the legitimate uses of the analog port for those who use modern digital means of editing footage and recording for their own use?
Hmm. It seems the actual goal is to deliver rewards directly to the creators of the content, thus encouraging more content to be produced. The challenge is how to do that in the existing framework. I don't believe the traditional model is useful anymore.
Direct distribution models seem more productive, but marketting will always be an issue. No matter what you're producing you'll still need a share of awareness in order to steer people to your distribution portal. Of course, even if these could be resolved well, it doesn't do anything for those who simply don't wish to pay for content.
I'm not sure what the ideal profit model is to allow content creators to flourish in an age of digital media. Trust people to pay what it's worth seems like a naïve solution. This seems to be the largest practical issue.
Your solution seems to be that we should get our news from Comedy Central. I submit this is, well, silly. Allow me to offer a better solution.
There are several orginizations now that produce targeted timely coverage in specific areas. Politico is an example. While all these tend to have a point of view, they are generally patronized by those interested in the field. A person could build a list of these focused coverage sites for their own consumption, adding or removing sites as appropriate to their own metrics of value. A sort of "build your own news agregator" list of web links. Some content is available only to paid subscribers, such as most of Stratfor, but paying for news information isn't a particularly new or shocking idea, much less the idea that one has to pay to get teh best of a particular product. Personally I consider Stratfor worth the full price of admision.
Cable news coverage is at a level of depth much less than I want, regardless of network. I've chosen to develop a selection of "expert sites" for my personal consumption. This is how I do it. YMMV.
World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
Choose the world where X is greater.
For the pirated content consumer, the obvious ideal is a world where the number of pirates and producers are both maximized. For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized, and pirates exist only to make producers greatful for paying customers and provide incentive toward price moderation. Obviously, both these ideas are presented independent of any moral position or obligations.
Slashdot Mirror
My first thought as well. I think it's laudable that people are working on the ability to locate and disarm relic mines. Unfortunately, that same technology could likely be used by those wanting access to areas defended by current minefields.
Of course, the solution could be as simple as spraying a field with a substance that is toxic to the bacteria in question. It wouldn't have any impact on manned fields, but would still allow the use in areas that have abandonned mines. Unfortunately, that strikes me as creating yet another problem in a hunk of land currently filled with burried explosives, but it might be the way of it.
Are you saying that if we fail to elect Robot-Nixon we'll face nuclear armageddon at the hands of the vengeful decendants of our robotic slaves?
Most people here seem to agree that China's policy of censorship is a bad thing.
Most people at Slashdot also seem to believe it's a good idea to allow the US government's FCC greater authority over network communications.
I'm not saying that the same sort of control is currently proposed. I'm just saying that it's funny to see Slashdotters who believe that the FCC will only use regulatory authority to prevent traffic shaping won't attempt to expand that authority or use it for purposes other than those desired. But yeh, the fact that China can just shut down a network because it's not conforming to government standards is bad.
Slashdot is generally not concerned with matters like government control of religious institutions or redress of grievences in foreign nations. Net censorship is much more in its domain, and that seems apropriate.
The Chinese people don't control the resources, production or monetary policy of China. The Party does, and its senior leadership heard things just fine.
So you propose the government have the ability to strip a news reporters of their ability to speak publicly on notewothy topics if they do not meet a standard of truth decided by the government. Further, you belive that any public personality that takes a position should be forced to associate with those in opposition to his position. Failure to conform to these standards would result in the public personality not being able to speak in public forums. Additionally, you propose that private media outlets should have their programming dictated according to standards set by the government. Is that a fair sumation of the actions you'd take to make sure we all had good facts?
My intention is to note that not all content is of the same quality and quality can be impacted by the environment of creation. However, we all know that opinions about what makes for quality content vary widely.
I appreciate that you'd admit your belief that people should be forced to associate together. We all should respect this sort of clarity, particularly when it concerns such a heinous idea advanced for our supposed good. I would like to know whom you belive should decide where we spend our days and the company we keep, or is it only your assersion that reporters should loose their right to associate freely?
It's beginning to seem that there's really no reason for this sort of control to be available without the consent of the owner of a TV. Legitimate use arguments, while interesting curiosities, miss the point. It doesn't surprise me that MPAA wants this sort of control. All sorts of businesses and orginizations want to force all manner of ideas onto others. Seems obvious to me that, regardless of what people may be using their TV's for, a content provider shouldn't be able to disable parts of a person's propery without their consent.
But they're already both in my living room, or would be if I subscribed to a cable service. I have the option of listening to both and making judgements already. I hope you're not suggesting that we should force the commentators to be on the same station, or that we should force people to watch all stations equally.
PPV style would be fine with me. If the hardware doesn't support it, I guess they don't get the content early. Nothing new, or wrong, about needing to upgrade hardware to access new content.
Sure to expand the meaning of heart pounding rythms in the near future.
Would these mods be against the rules of the PGA? Seniors Tour participants might find themselves accused of performance enhancing software for their pacemakers.
In all seriousness, it is an issue we can, hopefully, look forward to in the future (not the near future, but when I'm ancient). People will want to replace their arms and legs if injured. Other people will think it's unreasonable that they have the ability to hotwire their artificial limbs to have adrenal burst levels of strength at will. Law enforcement and the like will also have their say. All the while, people argue about having control over their bodies, even if they buy them from Pfizer.
Think anyone will complain that they won't be able to have full access to the hardware they purchased?
Wow...spelling and gramar fail on my part there.
I'm not recomending a particular model, I'm just tyint to discover the core issue. The idea that they can manipulat your hardware without your consent is offensive to me. The FCC giving someone else the ability to manipulate my property without my consent doesn't make it any better.
I wouldn't have a problem with a EULA for a TV show, but awareness and consent are issues in that regard. It's they're stuff. If they want to make it too anoying to use it's their right. Not to mention, how exactly do I get a viewer to click "accept" on a typical TV.
While I don't have any problem with a provider contracting, even via EULA, for this ability. It seems very wrong that they could recieve the authrority to control my property without my consent. Am I correct that the only reason this is an issue is because the FCC is contemplating granting them special dispensation to alter my television without my aproval, and they would not be able to do so, legally, otherwise?
Plasmacutter, please come back. I really do want to know who you think should be deciding on the news people consume. If there's a better option than "let people decide themselves" I want to know what that is, and why it's a better option. I'm not trying to be flippant, because I think it's a very real and important difference of view and I would like to know the other side.
Certainly they should not be able to do this without permission (contract) with the customer. That much seems clear. I'm just not clear on why it's currently illegal for them to create such a contract.
Research has probably taken casualties from the 24/7 news cycle. To a certain extent, there's a problem of "FIRST!" posting, but the idea there is nothing new. Unfortunately, the problems of the pressure to be first are acerbated by the speed of delivery. Buyer be ware in the first few hours of a story.
Currently the universities provide four year degrees in journalism, but that doesn't seem to be filling the desired role. I'm not sure that a certification program would do any better. No matter what, I'd like to avoid putting people who have a significant responibility to report on X in the position of needing the aproval of X. There's just a moral hazard to that situation.
I don't like the content produced by the major cables, or networks. So I just don't watch them. I get my news from a variety of sources, mostly online orginizations like Stratfor and Politico, that are focused on their area of expertise. I far prefer the idea of giving people more options and letting them vote with their eyeballs to any additional strictures on who can produce what information for the public.
Agian, I think "some people say things that are crap" is the price we pay for living in a society where we can say things even if others think they're crap. I'm much more bothered by someone who says we need to make sure only X kind of people are speaking and they're only saying things that are "judged accurate", than I am by a "news-comentator"'s ranting.
The abiltiy to command multiple units at once is huge. Instead of moving groups, you move tactical squads. Micro manage a battle while doing a sneak attack. The level of sophistication allows for tactics otherwise unavailable.
Of course, there might be human players that are able to do this at a level near enough to the machine to negate the usefulness.
Hmm. So, I'll still be able to watch the broadcast, but I'll loose the ability to do processing through the analog port. I might wish to use that functionality for derivitive works, or to work with my old VCR. I agree, if I had any interst in doing such things, it would be unfortunate to loose that ablity.
What are the legitimate uses of the analog port for those who use modern digital means of editing footage and recording for their own use?
Hmm. It seems the actual goal is to deliver rewards directly to the creators of the content, thus encouraging more content to be produced. The challenge is how to do that in the existing framework. I don't believe the traditional model is useful anymore.
Direct distribution models seem more productive, but marketting will always be an issue. No matter what you're producing you'll still need a share of awareness in order to steer people to your distribution portal. Of course, even if these could be resolved well, it doesn't do anything for those who simply don't wish to pay for content.
I'm not sure what the ideal profit model is to allow content creators to flourish in an age of digital media. Trust people to pay what it's worth seems like a naïve solution. This seems to be the largest practical issue.
Who do you propose does this selection of news sources if not the individual consuming the news?
Your solution seems to be that we should get our news from Comedy Central. I submit this is, well, silly. Allow me to offer a better solution.
There are several orginizations now that produce targeted timely coverage in specific areas. Politico is an example. While all these tend to have a point of view, they are generally patronized by those interested in the field. A person could build a list of these focused coverage sites for their own consumption, adding or removing sites as appropriate to their own metrics of value. A sort of "build your own news agregator" list of web links. Some content is available only to paid subscribers, such as most of Stratfor, but paying for news information isn't a particularly new or shocking idea, much less the idea that one has to pay to get teh best of a particular product. Personally I consider Stratfor worth the full price of admision.
Cable news coverage is at a level of depth much less than I want, regardless of network. I've chosen to develop a selection of "expert sites" for my personal consumption. This is how I do it. YMMV.
Thought experiment:
World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
Choose the world where X is greater.
For the pirated content consumer, the obvious ideal is a world where the number of pirates and producers are both maximized. For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized, and pirates exist only to make producers greatful for paying customers and provide incentive toward price moderation. Obviously, both these ideas are presented independent of any moral position or obligations.