I just thought of something else. There's many people that need acute motor rehabilitation in their hands that aren't stroke victims: people that have been in car accidents, have had major surgury, people who are just getting older. The list goes on. Stroke victims are the most obvious candidates since they require a LOT of rehabilitation and there's many of them, but there's plenty of other people that could use this as well. In those instances, seizures wouldn't be an issue at all.
People who have had a stroke have a greater tendancy to have a seizure. It's something like 5% within the first 24 hours (they wouldn't be getting therapy at this point anyway) and 2-3% within the first year. There are plenty of medications that prevent seizures, though, and many stroke patients take a form of these. You also have doctor supervision (remotely in some instances).
Additionally, the patient wouldn't be looking at their screen for long periods of time. Therapy sessions are generally limited to short periods of time... there's no use in long periods of therapy. My wife, who is an occupational therapist, suggested that someone with many hours a day of possible rehab time might only spend an hour or two doing actual rehab, and that time should be broken up into 15-20 minute segments.
Finally, there is something special about this. An Xbox is much more standardized than most computers. The interface for the hardware will be exactly the same on every Xbox, making it easy for therapists and patients to use. Plus it doesn't have to be updated with security patches, virus scanners, etc, so it's more stable than a common desktop computer. It's also cheaper than most computers, coming in around $100-$125 these days.
Some of the equipment my wife uses costs tens of thousands of dollars and wouldn't be as effective as this. I showed her this article and she's excited enough to show all of her therapist friends at the hospital.
The Times may not be located in Britain, but I'm sure they have readership there. If they have the technical capability to follow the laws of a certain region, then they should. If this were real censorship, they'd be hiding the article from everyone.
As much as I dislike the Times, I think this is a non-issue. If people are upset about the Times doing this, they should contact their politicians in Britain to change the law that the Times was following. If you're not from the UK, then it doesn't affect you anyway, so what are you complaining about?
Many passengers are growing tired of the invasive security screenings Asking people to remove their shoes and preventing them from bringing liquids on board is that invasive? There are the rare extreme cases of people being unfairly searched, but that's a handful of people out of hundreds of thousands that fly each day.
the increasing prices This made me laugh. All of the major carriers just significantly lowered their prices in response to United Airlines doing so.
lost and stolen luggage Put an address tag on it and a solid lock. I know many people who travel and a few have had issues with their luggage, but if they had proper identifying info on it, they got it... just a few days late.
and the decreasing quality of service with commercial flights in the United States Some of the carriers are actually improving their quality of service. Look at Midwest Express as an example... extra wide seats on every flight and you get 1 or 2 hot cookies. Used to be that you only got the cookie on flights out of Milwaukee, but now you get them on inbound flights too. I've flown other carriers and I've never had a problem getting a drink, pillow, snack, etc. What exactly are you referring to?
As for your main question, if you're complaining about costs for a commercial flight, you're out of your mind if you think you can afford even sharing the cost of a chartered plane. Remember that many of the major air carriers get government assistance because they can't turn a profit even with their "high prices". If you remove that subsidy, you'll be paying a lot more even if you can find enough people to fill a 747.
Yeah, I was more referring to the small towns surrounding smaller cities. Even though the prices have gone up in recent years, you can still get a decent house for a lot less than houses near NY, Seattle, San Fran, etc. My wife and I bought our house last year for around $150K, and it's in a great neighborhood and location with many parks and things to do nearby. On a decent amount of land, too. I'm sure you could get the same thing in a rural town for a lot less, but we do have the benefit of being able to work/play in Milwaukee if we want.
The comment about tech jobs in Milwaukee is accurate, but there's still plenty of jobs to go around. I know of 6 companies (just through friends) trying to hire on various tech staff right now.
Many small towns are pretty close to medium sized cities as well, so the comments about not being able to spend your money after your rent is kind of silly. I live just outside Milwaukee, WI (grew up in Waukesha, which was recently ranked the 36th small city in the US). Besides the fact that Wisconsin is one of the best states in the country for outdoor activities (hiking, boating, fishing, camping, biking, etc), close to Milwaukee you also have professional sports teams, theater, festivals, malls, and a lot more. We also have Chicago relatively close in case we need even more to do. The only major negative is the winter weather.
I'm sure many other cities like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland, Pittsburg, etc are similar in that they have small communities around them that give you all the benefits of inexpensive living combined with the benefits of city life within 30 minutes.
Those types of small towns are the ones to focus on if you're looking to relocate. How many people really relocate JUST to relocate anyway? Don't you normally move to a specific job or family?
I worked at a nonprofit (job training for adults and teens) for a couple of years. We got our funding from the federal and state governments, which meant that not only did we face the red tape that government agencies face, we couldn't always do the things in the best interest of our organization or target population. Everything in a nonprofit is about getting as much money as possible in the next government grant or donation, which meant that we would burn through extra cash purchasing stuff we didn't need, just like government agencies do. After all, if you don't use it, you obviously don't need it and won't get it the next time around.
People that think that nonprofits avoid the issues that corporations face need to look at OIC in Milwaukee. Lots of corruption and wasted money for something that was a good idea gone wrong.
I'd much rather see open competition between private corporations for city-wide wireless access. Due to competition, it's far more likely to be high quality and low cost for end users.
I understand the reason this is in the censorship section is related to videos showing abusive behavior by US troops, but the Pentagon has far better reasons for clamping down on these videos. Just as they censored the embedded news reports during the initial push into Iraq, they should censor some of these videos because they can reveal operational protocol and troop movements, which would make it even easier to inflict damage on our troops.
Despite what a lot of people want you to believe, most of our troops are good people trying to help establish infrastructure and order in Iraq. It's a small handful of people that are giving the US military a bad image, and those individuals should be exposed and punished for their behavior.
Everything isn't always black and white... this is definitely one instance where there's a lot of gray area.
Your comment is way off. All of the database varieties I've worked with have differences in their SQL syntax. I actually have an O'Reilly book that details commands for Oracle, MS SQL, and mySql. Pretty much every command has differences depending on which database version you're using. It's kind of like CSS... in a perfect world every browser would follow the standard exactly, but not a single one actually does in real life.
The thing is, if someone learns one variety of SQL, they're going to be able to pick up on another pretty quickly since they are basically the same thing. I had never used MS SQL, but I was able to work with it after working with mySql for a long time without reading any sort of manual or book.
Quit Microsoft hating and realize that it's not a MS issue... it's industry wide, and it's really not a bad thing. ODBC, ADO.Net, Perl's DBI, etc all make it easy to work with a certain version of database server without having to worry about the flavor of SQL.
Project Orion has been used in a lot of sci-fi stories. The basic premise is that nuclear warheads are dropped below the ship, where the detonate and the blast lifts the ship. Relatively cheap way to lift immense masses.
It'd be the easiest way to establish a permanent moon base or make a trip to Mars, but of course people don't like the idea of thousands of nuclear warheads going off in their backyard.:)
Obviously only the name is the same with this latest version.
I know what you're saying and thought about that while making my post. The problem comes in when I'm trying to do other memory intensive tasks in the background while trying to browse the web. If Firefox continues on this same path, it won't be long before it's using 100mb to look at the same site. People like to get on Microsoft's case about each OS release using more and more system resources, but Firefox is doing the same thing.
I just think it's silly that Firefox will take 44mb of ram when I have a Win98 computer (soon to be linux once I decide on a distro) with 32mb of TOTAL ram that I can use for browsing.
Oh, and I have used all the memory tweaks that people have recommended, which is probably why I'm not using even more memory.
Pure symantics. Even though I'm a developer, I refer to release candidates and point releases as releases, even if they're not "full releases". I think it's quite obvious that when people talk about previous releases being less bloated and faster, they're referring to 0.X betas. Even if we go with the strict definition of releases, 1.0 was faster and less bloated than 1.5, which is faster and less bloated than 2.0.
If you want to dig into this further, take a look at the Firebird roadmap (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/firebird -roadmap.html), on which the first 4 betas mention speed increases, size improvements, and "lots of destruction". It's obvious that Firefox has gotten larger over time, and it will only continue until the developers realize that people would rather have a fast browser that can use extentions than a slow browser with everything in it by default.
I understand that, but my main point is that Firefox used to take as little ram as IE. IE may take less for specific reasons, but Firefox shouldn't use that as an excuse, they should use it as a challenge.
I don't use/need mouse gestures, spell checking, etc. Other people don't need the color eyedropper extension that I use. Those things should be in extensions only.
Whoever marked this as a troll is a tool. It's pretty funny, but also kind of true in the eyes of a lot of people. The reason I switched to Firefox wasn't because of the neat features, it was because it used less memory and was significantly faster than IE. With every release Firefox has gotten more and more bloated, to the point that it is taking 42mb of RAM to display only this thread on Slashdot. IE is taking 22mb to do the exact same thing. That's just rediculous.
I really wish Firefox would go back to the lightweight browser it once was. The power was the ability to have extensions to do anything you wanted, but it was my choice which ones I wanted using my system resources.
I'm making the decision to let someone else do it for me, though. It's similar to letting someone else hold the remote control for the Tivo... I trust that they're only skipping the content I don't want to see.
If this were about censorship, as many people are saying it is, then I wouldn't have the decision one way or another. Based on your comment, I would have to watch a movie off DVD before I watch the broadcast TV version, just to know what I'm missing. Some people choose that they don't want to see certain things, which this ruling and your comments are taking away their ability to do.
This instance is closer to a fair use issue than a copyright issue, though. If I were to edit my copy of a movie to remove a few curses, should I be able to do that? If I don't have the technical ability, should I be able to hire someone else to do it? I understand what you're saying, and I do agree that control over derivative works is required in some instances, but this isn't one of them.
As for your test, I disagree completely. Who gets to decide if it's promoting or destroying creativity? If my form of art is taking existing artwork I find offensive, like sculptures with the naughty bits showing, and changing them to be a "clean" version of that artwork by adding flowers over those areas, who's to tell me that isn't art? Not a perfect analogy, but I think you'll get what I'm saying.
Finally, if you like the Grey Album, you should check out the Double Black Album. It's got a heavier sound for obvious reasons, but it's still pretty good.
One of the responses to my post put it very well: if I request certain things to be blocked, it's not censorship. If I wanted a version of E.T. where the police officers carried flashlights instead of guns (pretend the director/studio didn't do this themselves), then I could either edit my copy of the movie or I could ask someone to do it for me. If someone else, say Walmart (seriously, who buys their movies at Walmart though), decided to do it without me asking for it, then I'd definitely take issue with that.
The step from voluntary to mandatory is very clear in this instance. If the end user wants their copy to be different, they can do so. If they want the original, then middlemen, the government, church, etc has no right changing it or requiring them to change it. Not sure where the slippery slope is in this case.
In fact, this is very similar to ABC wanting Tivo to disable the fastforward button. People should be able to watch content as they see fit, even moreso in this case, since they actually paid for the DVD itself.
I'd have no problem if you were making a collection of my posts and edited them for your personal use. Nor would I have a problem if you were to ask a friend or company to do the same thing for you. As long as I received the same amount of compensation for my work (which in your example is nothing), I wouldn't care one way or another.
I do understand what you're point out, that editing a movie could change its artistic value or the points the artists are trying to make. I think that's a weak argument, though, since the people watching know the naughty bits are removed and aren't being given the false impression that it's the original. Besides, most movies out there would have the exact same plot and feel with fewer curses, violence, and sex. Obviously movies like Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, or Eyes Wide Open may not, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
Technology in certain instances is overrated, but in most cases it's not. Golf is a prime example where technology can result in huge improvements in performance, which is also why they have banned certain clubs and balls. Baseball is the same way, with special bats and balls that can increase hitting distance. Sure, they don't change how accurate your swing and timing are (except for increasing bat acceleration due to less mass), but they can definitely change the outcome of a game.
As for sports that deal with less equipment, like running, swimming, etc, technology does still play a role. When races are measured in fractions of seconds, decreasing drag due to wind or water resistance can play a role. It may not make as much of a difference in high school athletics, but in world class athletics it definitely does.
As for the deficiencies comment, the easiest way to highlight the improvements of any product are to point out the shortcomings of old ones.
I understand where the movie companies are coming from in terms of copyright... they don't want people taking a DVD, adding additional clips/features/menus/etc, and selling that for a profit. Then again, I don't really understand why they have an issue with that. They're getting just as much money from each DVD sale, so it's not like they're losing any business. In fact, they're probably gaining business from those people who wouldn't normally buy a certain movie due to violent/sexual/etc content, but will if they get an edited version of the movie.
As for the directors and producers that claim their artistic vision was impeded upon, they sure don't have an issue with those movies being modified in the exact same way for broadcast on network tv. All they care about is the large amount of money the networks give them.
So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up. Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA.
Now that that those are taken care of, where do Microsoft, the Kansas Board of Education, America, Republicans, sports, and current music stars fit in?;)
For those posters that say the networks need to switch to a subscriber business method like HBO or Showtime, keep in mind that the majority of people out there probably don't enjoy the shows you like. Most Sci-Fi, like Stargate SG-1 and Firefly, would have never been created in such an environment. Despite those shows being popular with most of us, the production costs would exceed what those shows would bring in subscriber revenues. Hence, we'd end up with cheap-to-produce dramas like Desperate Housewives and reality shows like American Idol while the gems that took a while to catch on, like The X-Files and Simpsons, would have never been made or would have been canceled early on.
Not that I agree with disabling fast forwarding... just something to think about.
In your blind rage, you seemed to have forgotten how to comprehend English. Not once did I say that it wasn't possible for criminals to do the things that the tinfoil hat crowd (read: you) worry about, I said that in this case it's extremely unlikely. I even provided some basic supporting logic that you failed to comprehend.
Before ranting about random bullshit, how about making sure you understand what someone is saying first. I'm also curious how my comment warrants a tinfoil hat. Am I somehow generating a conspiracy theory without even knowing it? The only thing that remotely relates to conspiracy theories is the comment about credit reports, but then your comment would just be asinine since credit problems as a result of identity theft is proven fact, not the stuff of tinfoil hats.
I guess I should put on a tinfoil hat because I wear a seatbelt too.
ScentCone's comment hits it on the head, but I'll take it a bit further. Even though it is pretty simple to set a drive to read-only or make a bitwise copy of it, you'd have to ask WHY someone would do that. If the person that stole the laptop was actually out to steal sensitive data, they would do so and then destroy the laptop instead of risking having it tracked back to them.
So, if they were smart psychic criminals that knew the data was on the laptop, they'd not worry about covering their tracks the hard way... they'd just destroy the laptop once they had the data. After all, the data would be worth far more than the laptop itself.
If it was a criminal that just stole a bunch of high tech gear from the house, which is far more likely, then if the FBI really is using these methods, then the data wasn't accessed.
Just more tinfoil hat comments dominating the responses, though. In any case, EVERYONE, not just people whos data might have been compromised, should check their credit reports regularily and pay close attention to their financial information.
Ok... while he DID say the direct feedback comment, it was in response to challenges that Oracles TAB will address. His response to the question of why they're not in the OSDL is:
Let's just say that one part of the OSDL is trying to represent businesses to the Linux community. I know that a number of the members aren't heavily involved in Linux but still are members.
We basically know where to go. We have a good relationship directly with people in the Linux community. We have all our partners. So there is no immediate advantage to being a member for us.
Not to sound arrogant, but we know how to deal with the Linux community.
What he's saying is that they're fine on their own, and that they're trying to avoid some of the problems that the OSDL has.
So their complaint is that the French PM's office wouldn't arrange a meeting with them, so they showed up at the door with a petition? And then they go on to try contrasting it with how the world's richest man (Gates) was received by the PM's office?
Give me a freakin' break.
Although Stallman has done a lot for free software, government officials probably don't know nor care who he is. I'm sure the French PM's schedule is CRAZY, and like any head of state they would NEVER allow a walk-in visitor. The behavior of the PM's office is predictable, and yet they decided to go anyway instead of finding some better method of getting their petition to the PM.
Stallman should focus on actually trying to improve the state of things instead of weak publicity stunts like this. He's an attention whore, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I just thought of something else. There's many people that need acute motor rehabilitation in their hands that aren't stroke victims: people that have been in car accidents, have had major surgury, people who are just getting older. The list goes on. Stroke victims are the most obvious candidates since they require a LOT of rehabilitation and there's many of them, but there's plenty of other people that could use this as well. In those instances, seizures wouldn't be an issue at all.
People who have had a stroke have a greater tendancy to have a seizure. It's something like 5% within the first 24 hours (they wouldn't be getting therapy at this point anyway) and 2-3% within the first year. There are plenty of medications that prevent seizures, though, and many stroke patients take a form of these. You also have doctor supervision (remotely in some instances).
Additionally, the patient wouldn't be looking at their screen for long periods of time. Therapy sessions are generally limited to short periods of time... there's no use in long periods of therapy. My wife, who is an occupational therapist, suggested that someone with many hours a day of possible rehab time might only spend an hour or two doing actual rehab, and that time should be broken up into 15-20 minute segments.
Finally, there is something special about this. An Xbox is much more standardized than most computers. The interface for the hardware will be exactly the same on every Xbox, making it easy for therapists and patients to use. Plus it doesn't have to be updated with security patches, virus scanners, etc, so it's more stable than a common desktop computer. It's also cheaper than most computers, coming in around $100-$125 these days.
Some of the equipment my wife uses costs tens of thousands of dollars and wouldn't be as effective as this. I showed her this article and she's excited enough to show all of her therapist friends at the hospital.
The Times may not be located in Britain, but I'm sure they have readership there. If they have the technical capability to follow the laws of a certain region, then they should. If this were real censorship, they'd be hiding the article from everyone.
As much as I dislike the Times, I think this is a non-issue. If people are upset about the Times doing this, they should contact their politicians in Britain to change the law that the Times was following. If you're not from the UK, then it doesn't affect you anyway, so what are you complaining about?
Many passengers are growing tired of the invasive security screenings
Asking people to remove their shoes and preventing them from bringing liquids on board is that invasive? There are the rare extreme cases of people being unfairly searched, but that's a handful of people out of hundreds of thousands that fly each day.
the increasing prices
This made me laugh. All of the major carriers just significantly lowered their prices in response to United Airlines doing so.
lost and stolen luggage
Put an address tag on it and a solid lock. I know many people who travel and a few have had issues with their luggage, but if they had proper identifying info on it, they got it... just a few days late.
and the decreasing quality of service with commercial flights in the United States
Some of the carriers are actually improving their quality of service. Look at Midwest Express as an example... extra wide seats on every flight and you get 1 or 2 hot cookies. Used to be that you only got the cookie on flights out of Milwaukee, but now you get them on inbound flights too. I've flown other carriers and I've never had a problem getting a drink, pillow, snack, etc. What exactly are you referring to?
As for your main question, if you're complaining about costs for a commercial flight, you're out of your mind if you think you can afford even sharing the cost of a chartered plane. Remember that many of the major air carriers get government assistance because they can't turn a profit even with their "high prices". If you remove that subsidy, you'll be paying a lot more even if you can find enough people to fill a 747.
Yeah, I was more referring to the small towns surrounding smaller cities. Even though the prices have gone up in recent years, you can still get a decent house for a lot less than houses near NY, Seattle, San Fran, etc. My wife and I bought our house last year for around $150K, and it's in a great neighborhood and location with many parks and things to do nearby. On a decent amount of land, too. I'm sure you could get the same thing in a rural town for a lot less, but we do have the benefit of being able to work/play in Milwaukee if we want.
The comment about tech jobs in Milwaukee is accurate, but there's still plenty of jobs to go around. I know of 6 companies (just through friends) trying to hire on various tech staff right now.
Many small towns are pretty close to medium sized cities as well, so the comments about not being able to spend your money after your rent is kind of silly. I live just outside Milwaukee, WI (grew up in Waukesha, which was recently ranked the 36th small city in the US). Besides the fact that Wisconsin is one of the best states in the country for outdoor activities (hiking, boating, fishing, camping, biking, etc), close to Milwaukee you also have professional sports teams, theater, festivals, malls, and a lot more. We also have Chicago relatively close in case we need even more to do. The only major negative is the winter weather.
I'm sure many other cities like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland, Pittsburg, etc are similar in that they have small communities around them that give you all the benefits of inexpensive living combined with the benefits of city life within 30 minutes.
Those types of small towns are the ones to focus on if you're looking to relocate. How many people really relocate JUST to relocate anyway? Don't you normally move to a specific job or family?
I worked at a nonprofit (job training for adults and teens) for a couple of years. We got our funding from the federal and state governments, which meant that not only did we face the red tape that government agencies face, we couldn't always do the things in the best interest of our organization or target population. Everything in a nonprofit is about getting as much money as possible in the next government grant or donation, which meant that we would burn through extra cash purchasing stuff we didn't need, just like government agencies do. After all, if you don't use it, you obviously don't need it and won't get it the next time around.
People that think that nonprofits avoid the issues that corporations face need to look at OIC in Milwaukee. Lots of corruption and wasted money for something that was a good idea gone wrong.
I'd much rather see open competition between private corporations for city-wide wireless access. Due to competition, it's far more likely to be high quality and low cost for end users.
I understand the reason this is in the censorship section is related to videos showing abusive behavior by US troops, but the Pentagon has far better reasons for clamping down on these videos. Just as they censored the embedded news reports during the initial push into Iraq, they should censor some of these videos because they can reveal operational protocol and troop movements, which would make it even easier to inflict damage on our troops.
Despite what a lot of people want you to believe, most of our troops are good people trying to help establish infrastructure and order in Iraq. It's a small handful of people that are giving the US military a bad image, and those individuals should be exposed and punished for their behavior.
Everything isn't always black and white... this is definitely one instance where there's a lot of gray area.
Your comment is way off. All of the database varieties I've worked with have differences in their SQL syntax. I actually have an O'Reilly book that details commands for Oracle, MS SQL, and mySql. Pretty much every command has differences depending on which database version you're using. It's kind of like CSS... in a perfect world every browser would follow the standard exactly, but not a single one actually does in real life.
The thing is, if someone learns one variety of SQL, they're going to be able to pick up on another pretty quickly since they are basically the same thing. I had never used MS SQL, but I was able to work with it after working with mySql for a long time without reading any sort of manual or book.
Quit Microsoft hating and realize that it's not a MS issue... it's industry wide, and it's really not a bad thing. ODBC, ADO.Net, Perl's DBI, etc all make it easy to work with a certain version of database server without having to worry about the flavor of SQL.
Project Orion has been used in a lot of sci-fi stories. The basic premise is that nuclear warheads are dropped below the ship, where the detonate and the blast lifts the ship. Relatively cheap way to lift immense masses.
:)
It'd be the easiest way to establish a permanent moon base or make a trip to Mars, but of course people don't like the idea of thousands of nuclear warheads going off in their backyard.
Obviously only the name is the same with this latest version.
I know what you're saying and thought about that while making my post. The problem comes in when I'm trying to do other memory intensive tasks in the background while trying to browse the web. If Firefox continues on this same path, it won't be long before it's using 100mb to look at the same site. People like to get on Microsoft's case about each OS release using more and more system resources, but Firefox is doing the same thing.
I just think it's silly that Firefox will take 44mb of ram when I have a Win98 computer (soon to be linux once I decide on a distro) with 32mb of TOTAL ram that I can use for browsing.
Oh, and I have used all the memory tweaks that people have recommended, which is probably why I'm not using even more memory.
Pure symantics. Even though I'm a developer, I refer to release candidates and point releases as releases, even if they're not "full releases". I think it's quite obvious that when people talk about previous releases being less bloated and faster, they're referring to 0.X betas. Even if we go with the strict definition of releases, 1.0 was faster and less bloated than 1.5, which is faster and less bloated than 2.0.
d -roadmap.html), on which the first 4 betas mention speed increases, size improvements, and "lots of destruction". It's obvious that Firefox has gotten larger over time, and it will only continue until the developers realize that people would rather have a fast browser that can use extentions than a slow browser with everything in it by default.
If you want to dig into this further, take a look at the Firebird roadmap (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/firebir
I understand that, but my main point is that Firefox used to take as little ram as IE. IE may take less for specific reasons, but Firefox shouldn't use that as an excuse, they should use it as a challenge.
I don't use/need mouse gestures, spell checking, etc. Other people don't need the color eyedropper extension that I use. Those things should be in extensions only.
Whoever marked this as a troll is a tool. It's pretty funny, but also kind of true in the eyes of a lot of people. The reason I switched to Firefox wasn't because of the neat features, it was because it used less memory and was significantly faster than IE. With every release Firefox has gotten more and more bloated, to the point that it is taking 42mb of RAM to display only this thread on Slashdot. IE is taking 22mb to do the exact same thing. That's just rediculous.
I really wish Firefox would go back to the lightweight browser it once was. The power was the ability to have extensions to do anything you wanted, but it was my choice which ones I wanted using my system resources.
I'm making the decision to let someone else do it for me, though. It's similar to letting someone else hold the remote control for the Tivo... I trust that they're only skipping the content I don't want to see.
If this were about censorship, as many people are saying it is, then I wouldn't have the decision one way or another. Based on your comment, I would have to watch a movie off DVD before I watch the broadcast TV version, just to know what I'm missing. Some people choose that they don't want to see certain things, which this ruling and your comments are taking away their ability to do.
This instance is closer to a fair use issue than a copyright issue, though. If I were to edit my copy of a movie to remove a few curses, should I be able to do that? If I don't have the technical ability, should I be able to hire someone else to do it? I understand what you're saying, and I do agree that control over derivative works is required in some instances, but this isn't one of them.
As for your test, I disagree completely. Who gets to decide if it's promoting or destroying creativity? If my form of art is taking existing artwork I find offensive, like sculptures with the naughty bits showing, and changing them to be a "clean" version of that artwork by adding flowers over those areas, who's to tell me that isn't art? Not a perfect analogy, but I think you'll get what I'm saying.
Finally, if you like the Grey Album, you should check out the Double Black Album. It's got a heavier sound for obvious reasons, but it's still pretty good.
One of the responses to my post put it very well: if I request certain things to be blocked, it's not censorship. If I wanted a version of E.T. where the police officers carried flashlights instead of guns (pretend the director/studio didn't do this themselves), then I could either edit my copy of the movie or I could ask someone to do it for me. If someone else, say Walmart (seriously, who buys their movies at Walmart though), decided to do it without me asking for it, then I'd definitely take issue with that.
The step from voluntary to mandatory is very clear in this instance. If the end user wants their copy to be different, they can do so. If they want the original, then middlemen, the government, church, etc has no right changing it or requiring them to change it. Not sure where the slippery slope is in this case.
In fact, this is very similar to ABC wanting Tivo to disable the fastforward button. People should be able to watch content as they see fit, even moreso in this case, since they actually paid for the DVD itself.
I'd have no problem if you were making a collection of my posts and edited them for your personal use. Nor would I have a problem if you were to ask a friend or company to do the same thing for you. As long as I received the same amount of compensation for my work (which in your example is nothing), I wouldn't care one way or another.
I do understand what you're point out, that editing a movie could change its artistic value or the points the artists are trying to make. I think that's a weak argument, though, since the people watching know the naughty bits are removed and aren't being given the false impression that it's the original. Besides, most movies out there would have the exact same plot and feel with fewer curses, violence, and sex. Obviously movies like Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, or Eyes Wide Open may not, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
I feel like I'm using too many commas, btw.
Technology in certain instances is overrated, but in most cases it's not. Golf is a prime example where technology can result in huge improvements in performance, which is also why they have banned certain clubs and balls. Baseball is the same way, with special bats and balls that can increase hitting distance. Sure, they don't change how accurate your swing and timing are (except for increasing bat acceleration due to less mass), but they can definitely change the outcome of a game.
As for sports that deal with less equipment, like running, swimming, etc, technology does still play a role. When races are measured in fractions of seconds, decreasing drag due to wind or water resistance can play a role. It may not make as much of a difference in high school athletics, but in world class athletics it definitely does.
As for the deficiencies comment, the easiest way to highlight the improvements of any product are to point out the shortcomings of old ones.
I understand where the movie companies are coming from in terms of copyright... they don't want people taking a DVD, adding additional clips/features/menus/etc, and selling that for a profit. Then again, I don't really understand why they have an issue with that. They're getting just as much money from each DVD sale, so it's not like they're losing any business. In fact, they're probably gaining business from those people who wouldn't normally buy a certain movie due to violent/sexual/etc content, but will if they get an edited version of the movie.
;)
As for the directors and producers that claim their artistic vision was impeded upon, they sure don't have an issue with those movies being modified in the exact same way for broadcast on network tv. All they care about is the large amount of money the networks give them.
So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up. Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA.
Now that that those are taken care of, where do Microsoft, the Kansas Board of Education, America, Republicans, sports, and current music stars fit in?
For those posters that say the networks need to switch to a subscriber business method like HBO or Showtime, keep in mind that the majority of people out there probably don't enjoy the shows you like. Most Sci-Fi, like Stargate SG-1 and Firefly, would have never been created in such an environment. Despite those shows being popular with most of us, the production costs would exceed what those shows would bring in subscriber revenues. Hence, we'd end up with cheap-to-produce dramas like Desperate Housewives and reality shows like American Idol while the gems that took a while to catch on, like The X-Files and Simpsons, would have never been made or would have been canceled early on.
Not that I agree with disabling fast forwarding... just something to think about.
In your blind rage, you seemed to have forgotten how to comprehend English. Not once did I say that it wasn't possible for criminals to do the things that the tinfoil hat crowd (read: you) worry about, I said that in this case it's extremely unlikely. I even provided some basic supporting logic that you failed to comprehend.
Before ranting about random bullshit, how about making sure you understand what someone is saying first. I'm also curious how my comment warrants a tinfoil hat. Am I somehow generating a conspiracy theory without even knowing it? The only thing that remotely relates to conspiracy theories is the comment about credit reports, but then your comment would just be asinine since credit problems as a result of identity theft is proven fact, not the stuff of tinfoil hats.
I guess I should put on a tinfoil hat because I wear a seatbelt too.
ScentCone's comment hits it on the head, but I'll take it a bit further. Even though it is pretty simple to set a drive to read-only or make a bitwise copy of it, you'd have to ask WHY someone would do that. If the person that stole the laptop was actually out to steal sensitive data, they would do so and then destroy the laptop instead of risking having it tracked back to them.
So, if they were smart psychic criminals that knew the data was on the laptop, they'd not worry about covering their tracks the hard way... they'd just destroy the laptop once they had the data. After all, the data would be worth far more than the laptop itself.
If it was a criminal that just stole a bunch of high tech gear from the house, which is far more likely, then if the FBI really is using these methods, then the data wasn't accessed.
Just more tinfoil hat comments dominating the responses, though. In any case, EVERYONE, not just people whos data might have been compromised, should check their credit reports regularily and pay close attention to their financial information.
What he's saying is that they're fine on their own, and that they're trying to avoid some of the problems that the OSDL has.
Summary put a bit of spin on that one.
So their complaint is that the French PM's office wouldn't arrange a meeting with them, so they showed up at the door with a petition? And then they go on to try contrasting it with how the world's richest man (Gates) was received by the PM's office?
Give me a freakin' break.
Although Stallman has done a lot for free software, government officials probably don't know nor care who he is. I'm sure the French PM's schedule is CRAZY, and like any head of state they would NEVER allow a walk-in visitor. The behavior of the PM's office is predictable, and yet they decided to go anyway instead of finding some better method of getting their petition to the PM.
Stallman should focus on actually trying to improve the state of things instead of weak publicity stunts like this. He's an attention whore, plain and simple.