>>>Some how our local cable companies are allowed to carry NH and Boston stations but the satellite companies are forbidden
Yeah I think the judge who made that decision should be tarred-and-feathered. There are many situations where the default market is not the "best fit" for a customer. The purchaser should be able to choose the default market plus any secondary market he wants, as if the case with cable.
>>>Burlington happens to have a large mountain (Mansfield) to its east of it which is convenient for antennas to reach its market, and the terrain allows some of Western NH to see that antenna >>>
QED you are assigned to the Burlington market. Signal propagation doesn't obey state boundaries. It's why New Jersey doesn't have any of it own television stations - the bottom half gets signals from Philadelphia, and the top half gets New York signals. The television markets are essentially divided into large metro areas, with state boundaries ignored.
>>>no updates to the markets are being made to accommodate the change in DTV signal propagation.
The FCC is operating under the idea that DTV has identical reach to the old analog TV, so no need to change anything. Of course in reality, DTV's reach is actually much shorter with larged unserved areas between the DMAs, but nobody seems willing to admit that.
>>>And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations.
Under a "true" free market, corporations wouldn't even exist because they are a creation of government, so if the government takes a handsoff approach to the economy, the Incorporation License would be a non-entity. Instead you'd have private citizens who are directly responsible for their business transactions. No corporations.
Anyway:
I'd like to know why this lady spent two nights in jail for a *civil* violation. If she did infringe upon copyright, the punishment should be doled-out by a civil court procedure, MPAA v. Citizen, not by the police.
>>>Corporations are not a creation of government, but a *recognized* by government
Incorrect. In order to move your company from being a directly-owned business to a corporation, and gain the benefits such as limited liability, you have to apply to the government for a licence to "incorporate".
If the government simply refused to hand-out any licenses, then the incorporated entities would cease to exist. Companies would be privately-held by a single citizen, who would be fully-and-completely liable for his company's actions.
Anonymous COWARD wrote: Oh, and try posting something original, instead of copy/pasting your posts and karma whoring
Go eat shit anonymous frakker. Those are MY words and I can copy/paste them as many times as I want... just like that Harry Potter author can keep earning millions off the same book reprinted again-and-again-and-again.
And you're wrong when you say the Founding Fathers didn't have whole industries around the production of media. They had: - writers - musicians - composers - reporters/editors - printers - inventors - artists - artisans - and so on
>>>She was not taping an idea, she was taping part of a performance
Same difference. Her 2-3 minutes captured on tape does not deprive the actors, writers, et cetera of their income either now or 30 years from now when it's released on Holographic crystal
>>>When the Father was 18, he had consensual sex with his future wife, who was 16. Her family found out and pressed statutory rape charges. As a result, he is on the sex offender list, which is especially ironic because the "punishment" now hurts the supposed victim, and her children. >>>
I hope the mother and father-in-law feel guilt for how they've ruined their own daughter's and granddaughter's lives. Not being able to find a home is the in-laws direct fault
What's next? We arrest people for looking at photos of marijuana fields? "By looking at the photos Joe Smith created demand, therefore he must spend 10 years in prison and be added to a marijuana offender list."
It makes no sense. It's just a photo. I didn't personally go out and plant an illegal plant, or victimize a child. I have committed no harm to anybody.
>>>By viewing the child porn you are creating a demand for it which someone will fill.
Not when you got it for free. No photographer is itnerested in making photos for people who are not paying. Your viewpoint is an epic fail, and also anti-liberty. What you're saying is akin to charging someone for looking at a photo of marijuan, and saying they colluded to grow the plant..... it makes no sense.
"a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17"
In other words a senior dating a sophomore. Who here hasn't dated/had sex with people within their own high school? Oh wait, I forgot. This is slashdot.
This is why I'm quitting engineering and going into government bureaucracy.
My short one-year stint at the FAA was eye-opening. You get all the same benefits (office, computer, air conditioning, high pay), but none of the drawbacks of being an engineer in a private company (double workload, unpaid overtime, or layoffs).
>>>I accidentally saw a few seconds of "Grannies Gone Wild"
Awww. Grannies are just hot women stuck inside aged bodies. Ask them for photos when they were 20. Just of the top of my head - Carrie Fisher looks horrible now, but back when she was a teenager in Star Wars she was fine.
Vice-versa remember: Today's "hotties" are tomorrow's grannies.
What if he really did target and download it intentionally, even just that once, out of curiosity? How would they prove such? Wouldn't the perfect excuse for all offenders become "it was an accident"?
IMHO it's better to let the guilty go then to imprison the innocent. Even if he did download the kiddy porn just out of curiosity, but then deleted it because he felt guilty, so what? Unless he's got directory-after-directory filled with kids, I consider his "crime" to be non-existent. He deleted the file. He undid his mistake.
And if the FBI used an "undelete" program but cannot prove he downloaded the image on purpose (intent to commit the crime), then too bad for them. They don't win the case. Even our own Presidents have tried things (Clinton and Bush with marijuana) that technically, should land them in jail. But for what purpose does that serve?
Yet another DVR with some lewd programming arrived at a kid infested house. When the customer called to complain, Comcast didn't care.
"
"They didn't care at all," Allman said. "All they said was that they didn't have the time to check all of the boxes and told me to just erase it." "It's hard to tell what is objectionable anymore. I bet there are some people who would have been glad to find it. But I am not one of them," she said.
Typical behavior for a monopoly.
They know you have no other choices but Comcast, so they don't give a fuck that the DVR had porn on it. Or that they said it was "new" and turned-out to be used.
>>>"hand yourself in to the nearest authorities if this happens to you, you guilty citizen".
That advice also violates the Supreme Law which these agents have pledged to uphold - "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." But you know, the government officials don't give a damn about their Oath to uphold that law.
It's also been known that honest citizens reported stuff to the police, like finding marijuana inside a just-purchased car, and the police arrested the honest citizen. "They admitted their guilt." ----- You. Cannot. Trust. Police. Or any government official really.
Agreed. Nobody should receive a lifelong punishment for such a trivial crime. Once they've served their 5 or 10 years, then that's it. No more punishment.
>>>There are two cases the law needs to change to consider: >>>- Something truly accidental, like this case. Or some malware infection that tracks it in. Intent has to figure into the equation somewhere. >>>- Sexting where teens are sending photos of themselves.
Agree 100%.
It shouldn't even be a crime to take a photo of your OWN body. And as for "accidental" even if you download the correct file of Girls Gone Wild, that series contains "child" pornography. Some of the girls were later revealed to be 17 at the time of the video, so me and other people who got GGW are now guilty of underage possession
>>>I smell an excuse. "oh it wasn't me, it was scary computers that did it"...... Smell the bullshit.
I smell someone who doesn't understand computers, and naively believes that when he deletes files, they are gone. I hope someday YOU get caught when the FBI digs-up 2 or 3 year old files from your HDD. Maybe I'll call them now and give thema tip that SmallFurryCreature downloaded some illegal stuff. Are you SURE you're computer is clean, and you haven't broken any laws? I bet you have. We all have.
>>>He claims it was done by accident, that the files magically got buried deep within the system. Yeah, because that stuff happens. Not.
Actually it does. I suspect the FBI used an "undelete" program to scour the whole drive, and piece together various sectors to form an illegal image. As the FBI admitted, the user would have not been able to do that under normal circumstances. ----- Who kows what crap is on my or Your hard drive, just waiting to be uncovered. Just because you "delete" something doesn't mean it can't be recovered later on
Possession of photos or videos (like Brooke Shields' Pretty Baby) shouldn't even be considered a crime. Whoever CREATED the image should go to jail, because he/she directly injured a minor, but not the possessor who did not harm anyone.
"The War on Images" is as insane as the War on Drugs..... except even dumber. It's reached the point where you can even draw *cartoons* of children having sex or masturbating (think Japanese hentai/anime). Where's the victim in that case? No where.
I was mainly correcting your claim that DVDs are only 1 Mbit/s ("Most DVD rips are 700ish MB making a 90minute movie 1MBit/s"). My DVD player shows the bitrate as it plays a disc, and most DVDs average 5 Mbit/s just as I originally said.
Slashdot Mirror
Awwww. I feel sorry for Yahoo.
I hate corporations. I hate them with every fiber of my being.
Although I still like them better than government
>>>Some how our local cable companies are allowed to carry NH and Boston stations but the satellite companies are forbidden
Yeah I think the judge who made that decision should be tarred-and-feathered. There are many situations where the default market is not the "best fit" for a customer. The purchaser should be able to choose the default market plus any secondary market he wants, as if the case with cable.
>>>Burlington happens to have a large mountain (Mansfield) to its east of it which is convenient for antennas to reach its market, and the terrain allows some of Western NH to see that antenna
>>>
QED you are assigned to the Burlington market. Signal propagation doesn't obey state boundaries. It's why New Jersey doesn't have any of it own television stations - the bottom half gets signals from Philadelphia, and the top half gets New York signals. The television markets are essentially divided into large metro areas, with state boundaries ignored.
>>>no updates to the markets are being made to accommodate the change in DTV signal propagation.
The FCC is operating under the idea that DTV has identical reach to the old analog TV, so no need to change anything. Of course in reality, DTV's reach is actually much shorter with larged unserved areas between the DMAs, but nobody seems willing to admit that.
>>>And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations.
Under a "true" free market, corporations wouldn't even exist because they are a creation of government, so if the government takes a handsoff approach to the economy, the Incorporation License would be a non-entity. Instead you'd have private citizens who are directly responsible for their business transactions. No corporations.
Anyway:
I'd like to know why this lady spent two nights in jail for a *civil* violation. If she did infringe upon copyright, the punishment should be doled-out by a civil court procedure, MPAA v. Citizen, not by the police.
>>>Corporations are not a creation of government, but a *recognized* by government
Incorrect. In order to move your company from being a directly-owned business to a corporation, and gain the benefits such as limited liability, you have to apply to the government for a licence to "incorporate".
If the government simply refused to hand-out any licenses, then the incorporated entities would cease to exist. Companies would be privately-held by a single citizen, who would be fully-and-completely liable for his company's actions.
Anonymous COWARD wrote:
Oh, and try posting something original, instead of copy/pasting your posts and karma whoring
Go eat shit anonymous frakker. Those are MY words and I can copy/paste them as many times as I want... just like that Harry Potter author can keep earning millions off the same book reprinted again-and-again-and-again.
And you're wrong when you say the Founding Fathers didn't have whole industries around the production of media. They had:
- writers
- musicians
- composers
- reporters/editors
- printers
- inventors
- artists
- artisans
- and so on
>>>She was not taping an idea, she was taping part of a performance
Same difference. Her 2-3 minutes captured on tape does not deprive the actors, writers, et cetera of their income either now or 30 years from now when it's released on Holographic crystal
>>>When the Father was 18, he had consensual sex with his future wife, who was 16. Her family found out and pressed statutory rape charges. As a result, he is on the sex offender list, which is especially ironic because the "punishment" now hurts the supposed victim, and her children.
>>>
I hope the mother and father-in-law feel guilt for how they've ruined their own daughter's and granddaughter's lives. Not being able to find a home is the in-laws direct fault
A gun allows the wife to kill the husband before he kills her with his fists. A gun is the equalizer that makes a woman as strong as a man
What's next? We arrest people for looking at photos of marijuana fields? "By looking at the photos Joe Smith created demand, therefore he must spend 10 years in prison and be added to a marijuana offender list."
It makes no sense. It's just a photo. I didn't personally go out and plant an illegal plant, or victimize a child. I have committed no harm to anybody.
>>>By viewing the child porn you are creating a demand for it which someone will fill.
Not when you got it for free. No photographer is itnerested in making photos for people who are not paying. Your viewpoint is an epic fail, and also anti-liberty. What you're saying is akin to charging someone for looking at a photo of marijuan, and saying they colluded to grow the plant..... it makes no sense.
>>>A 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself
The funny thing about this is - - - the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that nudity is not pornography. The human body is natural, not explicit
"a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17"
In other words a senior dating a sophomore. Who here hasn't dated/had sex with people within their own high school? Oh wait, I forgot. This is slashdot.
This is why I'm quitting engineering and going into government bureaucracy.
My short one-year stint at the FAA was eye-opening. You get all the same benefits (office, computer, air conditioning, high pay), but none of the drawbacks of being an engineer in a private company (double workload, unpaid overtime, or layoffs).
>>>I accidentally saw a few seconds of "Grannies Gone Wild"
Awww. Grannies are just hot women stuck inside aged bodies. Ask them for photos when they were 20. Just of the top of my head - Carrie Fisher looks horrible now, but back when she was a teenager in Star Wars she was fine.
Vice-versa remember: Today's "hotties" are tomorrow's grannies.
What if he really did target and download it intentionally, even just that once, out of curiosity? How would they prove such? Wouldn't the perfect excuse for all offenders become "it was an accident"?
IMHO it's better to let the guilty go then to imprison the innocent. Even if he did download the kiddy porn just out of curiosity, but then deleted it because he felt guilty, so what? Unless he's got directory-after-directory filled with kids, I consider his "crime" to be non-existent. He deleted the file. He undid his mistake.
And if the FBI used an "undelete" program but cannot prove he downloaded the image on purpose (intent to commit the crime), then too bad for them. They don't win the case. Even our own Presidents have tried things (Clinton and Bush with marijuana) that technically, should land them in jail. But for what purpose does that serve?
Yet another DVR with some lewd programming arrived at a kid infested house. When the customer called to complain, Comcast didn't care.
"
"They didn't care at all," Allman said. "All they said was that they didn't have the time to check all of the boxes and told me to just erase it." "It's hard to tell what is objectionable anymore. I bet there are some people who would have been glad to find it. But I am not one of them," she said.
Typical behavior for a monopoly.
They know you have no other choices but Comcast, so they don't give a fuck that the DVR had porn on it. Or that they said it was "new" and turned-out to be used.
>>>"hand yourself in to the nearest authorities if this happens to you, you guilty citizen".
That advice also violates the Supreme Law which these agents have pledged to uphold - "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." But you know, the government officials don't give a damn about their Oath to uphold that law.
It's also been known that honest citizens reported stuff to the police, like finding marijuana inside a just-purchased car, and the police arrested the honest citizen. "They admitted their guilt." ----- You. Cannot. Trust. Police. Or any government official really.
Agreed. Nobody should receive a lifelong punishment for such a trivial crime. Once they've served their 5 or 10 years, then that's it. No more punishment.
>>>There are two cases the law needs to change to consider:
>>>- Something truly accidental, like this case. Or some malware infection that tracks it in. Intent has to figure into the equation somewhere.
>>>- Sexting where teens are sending photos of themselves.
Agree 100%.
It shouldn't even be a crime to take a photo of your OWN body. And as for "accidental" even if you download the correct file of Girls Gone Wild, that series contains "child" pornography. Some of the girls were later revealed to be 17 at the time of the video, so me and other people who got GGW are now guilty of underage possession
That's just messed up.
>>>I smell an excuse. "oh it wasn't me, it was scary computers that did it"...... Smell the bullshit.
I smell someone who doesn't understand computers, and naively believes that when he deletes files, they are gone. I hope someday YOU get caught when the FBI digs-up 2 or 3 year old files from your HDD. Maybe I'll call them now and give thema tip that SmallFurryCreature downloaded some illegal stuff. Are you SURE you're computer is clean, and you haven't broken any laws? I bet you have. We all have.
>>>He claims it was done by accident, that the files magically got buried deep within the system. Yeah, because that stuff happens. Not.
Actually it does. I suspect the FBI used an "undelete" program to scour the whole drive, and piece together various sectors to form an illegal image. As the FBI admitted, the user would have not been able to do that under normal circumstances. ----- Who kows what crap is on my or Your hard drive, just waiting to be uncovered. Just because you "delete" something doesn't mean it can't be recovered later on
Possession of photos or videos (like Brooke Shields' Pretty Baby) shouldn't even be considered a crime. Whoever CREATED the image should go to jail, because he/she directly injured a minor, but not the possessor who did not harm anyone.
"The War on Images" is as insane as the War on Drugs..... except even dumber. It's reached the point where you can even draw *cartoons* of children having sex or masturbating (think Japanese hentai/anime). Where's the victim in that case? No where.
Ooops.
I was mainly correcting your claim that DVDs are only 1 Mbit/s ("Most DVD rips are 700ish MB making a 90minute movie 1MBit/s"). My DVD player shows the bitrate as it plays a disc, and most DVDs average 5 Mbit/s just as I originally said.
Yes corporations act all "corporationy" AND they benefit from socialism (government handouts and pro-corporate regulations)