This seems like another non-issue. I'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this. Is there something to this issue that I'm missing? Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms, thus eliminating the use of the analog port?
Since FOX has more viewers than all other cable news outlets combined, I'm pretty sure they don't need any validation. Of course, the prevailing view is that FOX just attracts jingoistic idiots and that their ratings have nothing to do with the quality of their product being any good. There may be some issues of professionalism and qulity of product with other outlets. Then again I could have missed Shepard Smith calling the President's supporters "balls to face".
Pretty much like the Firehose? I'd agree with that. Just fine to access the Firehose, be aware that no one's filtered the feed and there's still dross. Also, be aware, no one's filtered the feed for you.
Most major news outlets do a poor job of differentiating their news, analysis, and opinion products. Since we know that the news is colored by the opinions of those delivering it, it may not be so bad if we're skeptical of all the things people are offering to be put in our heads.
Yet another article about how someone doesn't like what another person is saying and thinks it should be limited. It may be that we don't like the fact that the same channel shows news, analysis, and commentary, or that the lines of those are blurring. If you think it's a phenomenon of modern life, I direct you to the campaign that put Thomas Jefferson in office. The bottom line is that people will say all sorts of things. With the guaranteed First Amendment freedom to be one of those people, we all have the responsibility to be prudent in our consumption of information.
The fact is that Beck is just a loon. Anyone who's read his book would know he's just a freak who disguises fear mongering as supposed "enlightenment". Stirs up the fears of backward rednecks just to make a profit from them and now he's mad because someone pokes fun at him? Sounds like justice to me.
Of course, it'll all just be a conspiracy by evil commies to bring him down and only you can save him for $14.95.
I'd hate to see anyone loose their job or an opportunity due to a false accusation. I'm just observing that a talk show host could be falsely accused of, say...racism, and loose opportunities for financial success. My argument isn't that he was harmed. My argument isn't that we should shut down websites that are satirical. My argument is that a public personality has a valid concern that satire and malicious content could be taken as factual by a public that does not give due diligence to its consumption of information and that could do harm to them. I'd argue that it does do harm to us all.
I agree, and say as much. It is the price we all pay for our First Amendment that some people will say things we don't like. It is also our responsibility to exercise some responsibility regarding our information consumption, otherwise we allow our carelessness to make us tools of harm.
Is your argument that "Glen Beck did a bad thing so it is now okay for someone else to do the same bad thing?" I'm not really arguing that his content is good or bad. I am arguing that public figures of all stripes face serious harm from rumor and falsehood, and their only defense is public responsibility for its own information consumption.
Just one look around this topic tells you that John Q's diligence regarding his information consumption is a bigger problem than anything anyone else, Beck or the website guy, is saying.
"Means of Production" refers to industrial capacity, productive infrastructure and natural resources. I do actually know what I'm talking about. I just don't think it's unreasonable to describe many government programs as having control over industrial capacity or natural resources.
Of course, we could go off topic and discuss the differences between Socialism, Communism and the degrees of state control, or we could stay on topic and discuss the problems related to blanket insults used as attempts to silence opponents. I, and so many Americans, might be too ignorant to discuss that sort of thing though.
No. For my entire life I've never heard much of anyone refer to contemporary conservatives as serious or intellectual. I frequently hear past conservative pundits refered to this way. It seems they become more acceptable after they die.
No matter what you may think of Glen Beck, baseless rumor created by misleading posts on the web could have serious consequences for any public figure. Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure. I'm not sure how a public figure can defend themselves against this sort of thing, regardless of the source and target. The price of the First Amendment may be that we also have the responsibility to take care with the sources of our information and not give credence to rumor and slander. Unfortunately, that sort of responsibility seems not to be in vogue, and places the only defense of 's reputation in the hands of John Q. Public.
Slashdotters believe the LHC and dowsing rods have nothing in common because one is a billion dollar pile of cutting edge experimental physics technology and the other is a stick. We tend to fail to identify that both were built by people. We also forget that the results of each will be interpreted by people.
Humorous Observable: At this point, dowsing rods have helped find more bombs than the LHC has found Higgs bosons.
Actually, there's a better reply which is more true to the heart of the matter. "So?" Just because you want a certain kind of service doesn't mean someone else must provide it to you.
A guy walks into a restraunt and orders some tamales. They give him something that isn't tamales and he gets mad. He demands tamales and they say they won't make any for him. He then walks off and asks his congressman to write a law requiring Olive Garden to make him tamales.
Where I live I have the choice of no fewer than 4 different options for service faster than 1 meg all at comparable prices. Where is it that a person lives that they have access to Comcast cable services but no VSAT providers?
Option 1
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.
I don't like those conditions.
Therefore the government forces Comcast to do things I do like.
Alternatively.
Option 2
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.
I don't like those conditions.
Therefore people laugh at me for buying thins I don't like.
I'm afraid I can't endorse your position that we shold construct management systems in our society to protect us from people in certain genetic groups. I'm unable to formulate a further critique without violating Godwin's Law.
Alternatively, our society is threatened by the notion that human beings are capable of free will and not just a product of their physical environment. It really kinda depends on your perspective. After all, if you think you can engineer a better person through giving them the right stuff, you don't need free will. You just need enough control to make sure you can place people in the physical environments you desire.
Is the argument here that homosexual genes exist and are passed on to their decendents?
Or is the argument that a genetic marker exists that promotes homosexuality and that has managed to be passed on to the decendents of homosexuals?
If either of these are true, we'll probably have to start artifically breeding gay people or start forcing them to have hetero relationships. Otherwise allowing them to not have hetero relationships and just letting them do the gay thing will result in their extinction in fairly short order what with them not passing on the homosexual genes.
Odds are that the portions of the treaty that are considered sensative to national security deal with economic strategy or distribution of sensative products that are provided to the governments. ie: We'll sell you these chips that you use to monitor North Korea, but you're only able to use them for that purpose...no giving the chips to your manufacturers that compete directly with our own. These sections of the treaty are likely seperate or extensions of those that apply to normal commerce.M It probably comes down to: We agree to respect IP laws but allow for the free use of purchased products (execept we don't want you using our classified tech that we're nice enough to give you to put our last chip makers out of business).
However, not seeing the original document, I couldn't tell you what it covers. It might be super horrible.
I for one am eager to invite the government to judge and enforce net neutrality and look forward to the legislature giving bureaucrats the control needed to do so.
While useful, isn't this just a larger drone with it's parts connected by signals rather than wires? Sure, it's got ablative resilience (one of three drones can go boom and you still have the rest of the formation), and more payload (more drones to cary stuff), but there doesn't seem to be any capacity for communication beyond holding formation and relaying orders from the human controller.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like another non-issue. I'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this. Is there something to this issue that I'm missing?
Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms, thus eliminating the use of the analog port?
Since FOX has more viewers than all other cable news outlets combined, I'm pretty sure they don't need any validation. Of course, the prevailing view is that FOX just attracts jingoistic idiots and that their ratings have nothing to do with the quality of their product being any good. There may be some issues of professionalism and qulity of product with other outlets. Then again I could have missed Shepard Smith calling the President's supporters "balls to face".
Pretty much like the Firehose? I'd agree with that. Just fine to access the Firehose, be aware that no one's filtered the feed and there's still dross. Also, be aware, no one's filtered the feed for you.
Most major news outlets do a poor job of differentiating their news, analysis, and opinion products. Since we know that the news is colored by the opinions of those delivering it, it may not be so bad if we're skeptical of all the things people are offering to be put in our heads.
Yet another article about how someone doesn't like what another person is saying and thinks it should be limited. It may be that we don't like the fact that the same channel shows news, analysis, and commentary, or that the lines of those are blurring. If you think it's a phenomenon of modern life, I direct you to the campaign that put Thomas Jefferson in office. The bottom line is that people will say all sorts of things. With the guaranteed First Amendment freedom to be one of those people, we all have the responsibility to be prudent in our consumption of information.
I'd be cautious about creating a mechanism that defines and limits "legitimate reporters", as that's a pretty good way of limitting "legitmate news".
The fact is that Beck is just a loon. Anyone who's read his book would know he's just a freak who disguises fear mongering as supposed "enlightenment". Stirs up the fears of backward rednecks just to make a profit from them and now he's mad because someone pokes fun at him? Sounds like justice to me.
Of course, it'll all just be a conspiracy by evil commies to bring him down and only you can save him for $14.95.
I'd hate to see anyone loose their job or an opportunity due to a false accusation. I'm just observing that a talk show host could be falsely accused of, say...racism, and loose opportunities for financial success. My argument isn't that he was harmed. My argument isn't that we should shut down websites that are satirical. My argument is that a public personality has a valid concern that satire and malicious content could be taken as factual by a public that does not give due diligence to its consumption of information and that could do harm to them. I'd argue that it does do harm to us all.
I agree, and say as much. It is the price we all pay for our First Amendment that some people will say things we don't like. It is also our responsibility to exercise some responsibility regarding our information consumption, otherwise we allow our carelessness to make us tools of harm.
Is your argument that "Glen Beck did a bad thing so it is now okay for someone else to do the same bad thing?" I'm not really arguing that his content is good or bad. I am arguing that public figures of all stripes face serious harm from rumor and falsehood, and their only defense is public responsibility for its own information consumption.
Just one look around this topic tells you that John Q's diligence regarding his information consumption is a bigger problem than anything anyone else, Beck or the website guy, is saying.
"Means of Production" refers to industrial capacity, productive infrastructure and natural resources. I do actually know what I'm talking about. I just don't think it's unreasonable to describe many government programs as having control over industrial capacity or natural resources.
Of course, we could go off topic and discuss the differences between Socialism, Communism and the degrees of state control, or we could stay on topic and discuss the problems related to blanket insults used as attempts to silence opponents. I, and so many Americans, might be too ignorant to discuss that sort of thing though.
Which particular persons?
No. For my entire life I've never heard much of anyone refer to contemporary conservatives as serious or intellectual. I frequently hear past conservative pundits refered to this way. It seems they become more acceptable after they die.
It's not exactly unreasonable to call a program for the government to have the means to produce a thing (good or service) a socialist program.
No matter what you may think of Glen Beck, baseless rumor created by misleading posts on the web could have serious consequences for any public figure. Beck has good reason to believe that his financial success could be directly impacted by heinous and untrue implied accusations, as does any other public figure. I'm not sure how a public figure can defend themselves against this sort of thing, regardless of the source and target. The price of the First Amendment may be that we also have the responsibility to take care with the sources of our information and not give credence to rumor and slander. Unfortunately, that sort of responsibility seems not to be in vogue, and places the only defense of 's reputation in the hands of John Q. Public.
Slashdotters believe the LHC and dowsing rods have nothing in common because one is a billion dollar pile of cutting edge experimental physics technology and the other is a stick.
We tend to fail to identify that both were built by people. We also forget that the results of each will be interpreted by people.
Humorous Observable: At this point, dowsing rods have helped find more bombs than the LHC has found Higgs bosons.
Actually, there's a better reply which is more true to the heart of the matter.
"So?"
Just because you want a certain kind of service doesn't mean someone else must provide it to you.
A guy walks into a restraunt and orders some tamales. They give him something that isn't tamales and he gets mad. He demands tamales and they say they won't make any for him. He then walks off and asks his congressman to write a law requiring Olive Garden to make him tamales.
Where I live I have the choice of no fewer than 4 different options for service faster than 1 meg all at comparable prices. Where is it that a person lives that they have access to Comcast cable services but no VSAT providers?
If I understand correctly:
Option 1
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.
I don't like those conditions.
Therefore the government forces Comcast to do things I do like.
Alternatively.
Option 2
I buy service under certain conditions from Comcast.
I don't like those conditions.
Therefore people laugh at me for buying thins I don't like.
I'm afraid I can't endorse your position that we shold construct management systems in our society to protect us from people in certain genetic groups. I'm unable to formulate a further critique without violating Godwin's Law.
Alternatively, our society is threatened by the notion that human beings are capable of free will and not just a product of their physical environment. It really kinda depends on your perspective. After all, if you think you can engineer a better person through giving them the right stuff, you don't need free will. You just need enough control to make sure you can place people in the physical environments you desire.
Is the argument here that homosexual genes exist and are passed on to their decendents? Or is the argument that a genetic marker exists that promotes homosexuality and that has managed to be passed on to the decendents of homosexuals? If either of these are true, we'll probably have to start artifically breeding gay people or start forcing them to have hetero relationships. Otherwise allowing them to not have hetero relationships and just letting them do the gay thing will result in their extinction in fairly short order what with them not passing on the homosexual genes.
Odds are that the portions of the treaty that are considered sensative to national security deal with economic strategy or distribution of sensative products that are provided to the governments. ie: We'll sell you these chips that you use to monitor North Korea, but you're only able to use them for that purpose...no giving the chips to your manufacturers that compete directly with our own. These sections of the treaty are likely seperate or extensions of those that apply to normal commerce.M
It probably comes down to: We agree to respect IP laws but allow for the free use of purchased products (execept we don't want you using our classified tech that we're nice enough to give you to put our last chip makers out of business).
However, not seeing the original document, I couldn't tell you what it covers. It might be super horrible.
I for one am eager to invite the government to judge and enforce net neutrality and look forward to the legislature giving bureaucrats the control needed to do so.
While useful, isn't this just a larger drone with it's parts connected by signals rather than wires? Sure, it's got ablative resilience (one of three drones can go boom and you still have the rest of the formation), and more payload (more drones to cary stuff), but there doesn't seem to be any capacity for communication beyond holding formation and relaying orders from the human controller.