Maybe you could explain how that's vengeful, when it seems like common sense to the rest of us. Or maybe you could just stop trolling.
The rest of us? It's just you and me, man. Anyway, have you ever seen the inside of a prison? I generally wish that upon very few individuals -- and only for the most heinous of actions. The fact is that your logic is based on emotion and subjective thinking more than logical and objective discussion. When these types of attitudes are based purely upon emotion, we generally see a vengeful, punitive attitude. In your case, it is no different. When you talk about removing someone from our society (prison, not exile) for what amounts to no more than really bad judgement (not malice)...it's vengeful.
FWIW, I looked into the Webster's definition of malice...it was the first place I looked. I didn't get your definition...how long did you search for that? I also checked google. I'm not saying that you made it up -- I'm sure it's out there. However, did you have to dig for that? Were you perhaps trolling there?
If this were such a common sense attitude, why is trying drunk drivers for murder such a new thing? Did we just wake up and smell the common sense 14 years ago? Were we not enlightened enough 14 years ago? Or, were organizations like MADD just really successful in their propaganda camapigns? Ever wonder what they mean by alcohol related traffic fatalities? They massage the crap out of their numbers to present the data in an alarming way.
Look, DUI/DWI is a problem. I'm not going to deny that. However, our overall legislative response to it has not been reasonable or rational. Our rights have been trampled so people like you can feel better. Your posts about it have shown that you are not willing to have an objective discussion about it. It's cut-and-dry for you, and is clearly an emotion-driven issue.
No, in that case, you're defending someone else's wanton disregard for the rights of others or for the value of human life. Which is still disgusting. The law says it's murder; the dictionary agrees that it's malicious. Revenge has nothing to do with it. Nobody who displays such a profound disregard for other people should be permitted to be part of society.
Oh please -- that's a totally vengeful attitude. You're also sounding pretty elitist. I hope it takes you far.
Sounds to me like killing someone by driving while drunk qualifies.
I've gotta disagree again -- especially given the current legal definition of intoxicated (.08 BAC). Now, I don't drive drunk (and rarely drink otherwise) -- and I certainly don't condone it. This is not a case of me definding my behavior. However, I don't see it as a wanton distrgard for the rights of others of for the value of human life. This issue is simply not that clear. No amount of MADD propaganda and number massaging is ever going to change that.
You can call it whatever you want, but the murder argument is starting to sound as specious as the argument that doctors who perform abortions are murders and should be charged accordingly or otherwise dealt with using terrorist methodologies. It sounds to me that this train of thought is about revenge, and revenge is just stupid.
Even if a DVD were playing on the dash, and the driver wasn't intentionally watching it, it's very likely the driver's eyes were drawn to the video. Our eyes are very sensitive to movement (particularly with our peripheral vision), and flickering video images draw our eyes' attention almost constantly. And if he took his eyes off the road for a few seconds, he could have gotten in an accident.
So...should the charge be the same if a passenger was using a laptop computer in the front seat? I certainly wouldn't consider that negligent. The point is that the facts aren't in yet, and alot of folks are assuming the worst. If this guy was watching a DVD while driving, sure -- he's an asshole...but the facts certainly aren't in, and the ones that we are presented with are all very disputable.
If you were trying to make a judgement based solely on what was presented in the CNN article, I'd hope that you would find the evidence inconclusive. We're talking about another person's life here. Why be so quick to judge? Is revenge really the answer here? What does it do for anyone?
Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.
How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read the article? Do you know what their proof was? Here's a quote if you didn't read up:
"We know it was," she said. "It was wired so that the screen was in the open position when the ignition key was turned out."
So I'll sum it up. The video screen was open while the car was turned off (and there was a video disc in the player). That's all of their evidence...for a murder case. I sure hope (for all of our sake) that the DA has to produce better evidence than that to destroy a third life.
As far as I'm concerened they should be! When you are drunk and you are behind a wheel that's no different then walking into my house and pulling a trigger.. you are JUST as irresponsible.
That's just wrong...and not very smart reasoning either. Did you think about what you were saying before posting? Read that logically -- is it really just as irresponsible as walking into your house and firing a gun? You're just plain wrong. There is a difference, and DUI/DWI is not malicous murder. It sounds to me like you're arguing for stronger DUI/DWI laws for malicous and emotion-driven reasons. Which is actually pretty selfish on your part. Our DUI/DWI laws are already pretty outragous. If you're intersted, I'll post a position paper from the NMA that I (mostly) agree with.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects? People who are familiar enough that they can catch an exploit that may only take 3-4 lines of code to perform?
No -- the government is not going to do this. What is going to happen is that some vendor will come to them with an embedded Linux solution. The vendor will have their auditing and security requirements in their proposal. If they sell 15 different products for 4 different agencies, one could assume that they would have the expertise to audit code changes. The farthest the government will go is to put in a code audit requirement in an RFP.
Your concerns about individual libraries is certainly a valid one. However, many of these efforts have already happened, and we are left with products like Security Enhanced Linux. I don't know the details of the product, but I'd be willing to bet that they've gone through the C libraries. You can make the same argument here for any open standard, or for any closed/embedded application (for example -- is the STL really safe for coding DoD applications? What if some MS employee on the VC++ team knows you're using Math.h and puts a few exploiting lines in that?). The argument can be made for any type of code. Someone needs to comb whatever code for bugs and exploits. Does everyone on the project have top-notch security clearance? Usually not...not for independantly coding some (unclassified) math library that a larger classified system uses.
Yes, the code will likely have to undergo the same level of scrunity that propritary/closed code will -- but it only has to be done once, and the cost is still less than building a propritary system from scratch.
Is OSS a threat to national security? Most likely not -- at least no more than propritary software is. Are the cost savings as potentially large as they are in the private sector? Probably not. Can money still be saved? Most likely, however, it depends on the vendor implementing and supporting it. Anyone can screw up a large project, regardless of the licensing -- but if a good contractor implements the project, the savings potential is there with F/OSS...and that's what counts.
I believe that there are jurisdictions in which car mods (or some kinds) are illegal. (California comes to mind).
In the US, some car mods will make your car illegal for operation on public roads. For example, remove the cat and muffler to get a freer flowing exhaust -- probably illegal in most states. It likely won't meet exhaust and noise regulations. But the point is that the law does not prevent you from modifying your car. There are safety regulations which dictate minimum standards. This is why you can't run slicks on the road (must be DOT approved tires). However, there is no law that states that you can't modify your car at all (including the engine management software). You are free to remove a speed governer, increase the rev limiter, raise turbo boost pressure (when applicable), change valve timing, etc. This may void your warranty, but nobody is coming after you for this.
However, the devil's advocate arguments are 1. If you could chip your Ford and have it produce another one for free, they'd probably sue. 2. If you were extracting trade secrets and/or selling them, they'd probably sue.
"As for your comment about Windows and Linux - Microsoft freely admits that there's BSD code in Windows, just as there is BSD code in Linux."
Could you elaborate more here, please? No, I'm not trying to shoot you down here or set a trap for you or anything like that, I am just curious what you meant here. I'm not just blindly reading what you're saying and poo-pooing it here.
I can answer for this a little. Run strings on Microsoft's ftp.exe from any Windows machine (you'll need cygwin on Windows, or a Unix box with strings on it). You'll see a bunch of crap, but at the end, you will see this:
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
If you go to any Linux kernel tree and do a "grep -r Regents *" or a "grep -r California *", you will see credit given to the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley. See below
arch/arm/nwfpe/softfloat.h:processor in collaboration with the University of California at Berkeley,
drivers/net/slhc.c: * Copyright (c) 1989 Regents of the University of California
Actually, you'll see a crapload of it -- enough that you'll ctrl-c it way before it finishes.
Or did I completely misread your comment and you were actually just asking how this information is relevant?
I'm obviously saying just about the same things, over and over again, so I'm going to give up on this conversation. Feel free to post another reply if you like, but if it's the same points of contention as before, I will not bother to reply again.
My thoughts exactly. Yay -- we finally agree on something:)
I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Let's plan on revisiting this in ten years so one of us can gloat, or we can both commiserate if by some freak chance we are both wrong.
You must be thinking of something else, like VCDs or whatnot. LaserDiscs were not limited by computing power (they weren't even digital), nor are they inferior to DVDs... LaserDiscs have a resolution that is practically just as high as DVDs, and LaserDiscs use the same AC3 audio format that DVDs now use.
Unless you're giving the word "practically" a really wide berth, you're just wrong. Laserdiscs have a maximum respolution os 400x482. That's around 240 lines of vertical resolution that you're missing there...which is quite a bit, if you ask me -- especially as a percentage.
Now, back to computing power...you're right -- they weren't digital because they couldn't be. Our MPEG2 chips were extremely expensive (and when laserdiscs were first released, weren't available at all). DVD could not exist in the consumer market back then...it's as simple as that.
Another thing to think about when it comes to resolution is that there was no option for a higher resolution TV back in the day. NTSC has remained unchanged for decades. We didn't have a choice -- there was simply no home video that took full advantage of NTSC resolution until DVD that could take full advantage of standard NTSC resolution. When DVD was released, HDTV was already available (yet for 99.9999% of the population, it was still "vaporware"). Now, with more and more new TV's able to scan up to HD resolutions, people will want to take advantage of it -- and it ain't just the $3500 plasmas. Here is a 27" HD-ready TV for $550. I'm sure they're avaialble for cheaper too -- that's the first one I found.
It's a good metric. Sure, TVs are lower res than HDTVs, but just as DVDs are not using up the full resolution of HDTVs, so too were VHS tapes not using up the full res of standard TVs.
It's still a bad metric. You are either forgetting the history of home video, or you are too young and think that we always had it. What did we have before VHS? There was no home video market. It's not as if VHS/BetaMax replaced another home video device that was in every house. VHS/BetaMax was as good as we could do for the money at the time. Laserdiscs never caught on because they were so cumbersome. For example, without a dual sided player, you had to flip the disc every 30 or 60 minutes, depending on the disc -- and the better quality movies came on 2-3 discs. They weren't just expensive, they were a pain to use, with huge (12") media and the market didn't want them (except for the videophiles and home theater geeks). The point is, in a brand-spanking-new market -- people wanted whatever was cheap, with the largest library of movies...and don't even mention BetaMax. If the players could have played VHS tapes, the standard may have survived...but because it was one or the other, the marketplace picked the cheaper one.
And that is assuming perfect backwards compatibility, which is actually quite unlikely.
How and why is this unlikely? I honestly don't know much about blu-ray DVD's (and they were just an example -- there are a number of standards up for consideration of the HD-DVD home)...but if most DVD players are backwards compatible with DVD's and VCD's, how is backwards compatability between the next-gen HD-DVD and standard DVD's unlikely?
Potentially stronger DRM restrictions.
Why is this a problem for the average buyer? If DRM were such a problem, DVD's never would have caught on. You're projecting your Slashdot mentality to the market...which largely doesn't care.
Higher cost of players
This is only an initial cost. If it gains market acceptance, the players will be as cheap as standard DVD players. There is absol
It has very little to do with LCD and Plasma, and everything to do with size... And that is the flaw in your argument.
You could be right -- and this may be where the market is going...but I tend to disagree with you. Here's why: First of all, I was able to see MPEG2 artifacting with my first DVD player, because I was using a computer monitor -- which has a much higher quality CRT than most TV's. Furthermore, conventional televisions tend to "bleed" pixels together -- making imprefections harder to see, regardless of size. On the other hand, LCD's, plasma's, and DLP/LCD projection TV's tend to show a far more pure image.
The physical space just isn't there, not to mention price. So when people replace their 27" TVs with 27" widescreen HDTVs, the artifacts on DVDs still won't be very aparent.
This is untrue...especially if I can spot those artifacts on a 19" monitor where I'm unable to spot them on a 50" CRT. I'm no videophile either...just a guy who doesn't want to buy a TV.
We had a similar situation back in the VHS days. The enthusiasts had bigger TVs with better quality, and VHS didn't cut it. DVD isn't what happened... LaserDisc is what happened! That's right, if history is any indicator, DVDs will be around for decades, and a new format (Blu-Ray, HD-DVD) will come along and only sell to the real enthusiasts, while the vast majority of us continue to be just fine watching our DVDs.
You're using a poor metric here. Back in the laserdisc era, displays hadn't seen anywhere near the kinds of advances that they have seen in the past 10 years. Furthermore, laserdisc technology was even old when it hit the mass market, but it was among the best technologies available at the time for the consumer. We simply didn't have the computing power available to us to cheaply make anything close to the quality a DVD player. Now, our digital video technology has advanced to the point where we can have something far better than DVD for the same price. Assuming backwards compatibility, why wouldn't we see widespread market acceptance?
As for our predictions go -- it could really go either way. I still feel that new television/monitor technologies coming to mass-market may be the downfall of DVD's -- or at least allow for a competing standard or two. One way or the other, people want to actually see what they got for their $3500 home theater display...I sure would if I were willing to shell out that kind of money on a display.
Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?
So, you're against DRM, and believe that Microsoft writes shitty, buggy software. If you're against DRM, shouldn't you WELCOME Microsoft's Janus into all commerically available movies? This way, it will be exploited quickly and you can get right back to pirating even higher quality versions of movies. In this case, the DMCA is pretty much irrelevant, because it clearly hasn't stopped the proliferation of IP on P2P networks.
Look, I understand the dangerous precedent here...but the short-to-medium term practical reality of this isn't such a big deal.
VoD may be the next great thing, and this seems to be what Mr. Gates was hinting at. I cannot speak for the direction the VoD market is going. However, I think that regardless of the state of VoD, DVD's (we we know them) will be going the way of the VHS tape well within 10 years.
When DVD's were introduced, they were lightyears ahead of any other consumer-level media. However, the CRT TV's had changed little in 50 years -- adding color to the mainstream market in the early 60's and introducing incremental changes in quality throughout, such as Sony's Trinitron technology. Still, none of these incremental quality boosts were earth-shattering. Consumer-level CRT's were inherently limited in visual quality.
With the (post-DVD) advent of consumer-land LCD's and Plasma displays, the visual limitations of DVD's are becoming more apparent. High-quality displays show MPEG artifacting that normally wouldn't be seen in older CRT TV's. Furthermore, when compared against HDTV broadcasts, DVD's don't look quite as good as they did next to VHS movies.
The next nail in the coffin is the speed and price of computer technology. DVD players can be had for under $50. The manufacture of cheap DVD players is a reality, partly because of the economies of scale, but also in part, due to our ability to make the IC components in the players cheaper and smaller. We have the technology to make a high definition DVD, using better compression algorithms (both in terms of how much data they can compress, and the overall visual quality of the video) that require greater computing horsepower. This technology can be produced at a cost similar to the current cost of DVD players -- especially after a widespread market adoption over a few years. We are also able to produce players that use a media similar to DVD (optical media sharing the same dimensions and material to its DVD coutnerpart) which have a far greater data density, such as the blue-ray DVD's.
Assuming backwards compatibility with the traditional DVD format, this technology could become viable within 1-2 years. In this case, the obsolescence of the DVD (in its current state) is completely reasonable and foreseeable within 10 years.
Well...it's clear that the federal government disagrees with us both -- at least on some level. The federal government has no problem with suggestive dancing on TV -- they probably never will. In my opinion suggestive dancing is absolutely an art form, but I've lived with enough dancers to come to an understanding that it is. I don't even appreciate it, but can understand why they feel so strongly about it. Ever see a Middle Eastern Gypsy Dance (AKA belly dancing)? That's suggestive and an art form too. But I digress. As far as gyrating one's body in a lewd fashion...that means that an old Elvis concert is not kosher for public TV in your eyes? Your idea that suggestive dancing should be banned from public airwaves is as likely to happen as hard core porn flying on the public airwaves. Really -- your ideal on this is extreme, and while it may be just as valid as mine, you need to understand that is is extremeist.
If the federal government should be more conservative in what they allow, I have a few questions. First, why more conservative? This is speech that we're talking about, and there is no concrete evidence that nudity causes harm to children. It is because you have more conservative political ideals than I? Second, (and this is the crux of the problem) these laws should more conservative in relation to whom or what? Why should a New Yorker have to endure the decency standards of the MidWest? Do you feel that you should have to adhere to broadcast decency standards of...say...an Islamic community in the Pacific Northwest where (for example) showing womens ankles is considered obscene? I sure don't. I'll bet that you don't. If these things are going to be regulated, they need to be done on a local level. I have no problem with my kids seeing nudity. I actually find it offensive that "obscene" language is censored from movies...it's part of the art, and was put into the script for a reason -- and contrary to your beliefs, it's not just for money or shock value...That's as ignorant as someone saying that your are pushing this agenda in order to push your church's beliefs on everyone else. You may be from a different area than I with different community standards. I can live with that...I don't have to live in your community. The fact is that there are enough different community standards in the USA that the federal government has no business trying to enforce a national standard of decency -- because we clearly don't have national decency standards. We all need to respect this.
Next, why do v-chips not work? Because you can't/won't use it, or because of this single incident when something was improperly rated? Do you think that because of a single screw-up, we should throw our hands up and say "it didn't work...everyone must pay!"? You're saying that we should spend more money to go after people who broadcast things that you don't like instead of going after the people who rated it wrong. (I'll remind you of the federal witchhunt against people like Howard Stern). That's some crazy-talk if I've ever heard it, and is counter to free speech. What's so difficult for you about compromise? I'm willing to compromise on this -- I already bought a TV with a V-chip that I'll probably never use -- but I guess that's still not good enough. I feel that the rest of us have been pretty flexible -- letting people push us around for the sake of their "family values". At a certain point, I just say that you need to look after yours in your own home, and I'll look after mine in my own home...and stop trying to push legislature down my throat. If you don't like what's on TV don't watch it. Why is that so difficult?
Right, but I presume from what you wrote above, we must be able to conclude that your total belief is "just as bullshit as saying that" BSA suffered all those damages?
Absolutely -- I'm not hiding behind anything, and I'm glad that you pointed out my nod to the above. It's all completely antecdotal. However, one can formulate an opinion on something completely unprovable...and of course it's bullshit...it's an opinion. Think: nature vs. nurture debate. Can you prove any of it? I'll bet you still have a stance on it.
Braodcast TV is rarely about political speech and should be generally considered entertainment or comercial speech. The latter two categories are less protected by the first amendment that the first (by supreme court case law).
First of all, even though it's entertainment, it's still an art, which is protected. Furthermore, when the broadcast media is being used to push a moral or social agenda (such as speech decency standards), it becomes de-facto political speech. If Jackson's breast was an act of political speech protesting decency standards (I'm not arguing that it was, just suggesting a hypothetical situation) -- it wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment for broadcast anyway.
Case and statuaroy law both are clear that broadcast TV is a generally available medium and it is considered to be invasive because every house in the US has one (nearly) and most have two or more. The specialty piece of equipment is obviously not a burden to obtain access to programming. A new TV may be purchased for less than $50.
Is this old or new case/statutory law? Remember, the fed says we all have to buy a V-Chip in our new TV's -- it's the law and it's been the law for quite some time. There is technology in place so the airwaves are no longer intrusive. That particular argument has been completely nullified.
I am all for you having access to what ever depravity ridden programming you may desire. Don't put it in on the public airwaves. Suggestive dancing is not the same as PETA protesting a cannery. It does not qualify for first amendment protection.
You're pointing out a hypocracy in a system that you seem to support. Suggestive dancing does, in fact, qualify for first amendment protection because it has artistic value. Maybe not to you, but I can think of a whole lot of angry professional dancers who would vehemently disagree with you. I'm saying that we should be allowed to put whatever the hell we want on public airwaves. If it's truly offensive to enough of the populus, the market (and associated sponsors, which are part of the market) will weed it out. Again, there is a technological solution to making sure that kids are protected -- or to ensure that we don't have to see content that we don't want to -- it's called the V-Chip. If my money has to go into this, why can't I be trusted to make use of it? What was the point of having it if we're still regulating the content itself? I fail to understand why the already-imposed technical solution isn't good enough...it's a win-win situation for you. Or is this about more than just protecting your kids? What is it that you're trying to control -- the community standards themselves?
have signed an agreement with the government to adhere to FCC rules governing decency.
Here's part of the problem: The FCC refuses to define their rules concerning decency. So they've signed an agreement with the government to adhere to undefined rules. Greaaaaaaat.
Here's another problem with your argument (going back to your grandparent post). You said that you turned the superbowl halftime show off because it was too raunchy. Well -- up until the point where you turned it off, there was no violation of "standards"...your argument doesn't add up -- at least on a legal level. Sexually suggestive dancing meets the national standards for TV-Y. It sounds like your standards are more restrictive than that. Not a problem -- but if you continue following your track, you will need to start arguing for dumping the FCC's rules and going with a local/regional system to actually represents the community standards rather than just arbitrarily making them up and going after high profile targets so it appears that they're doing their job (and to ensure that they don't lose their jobs).
I think that your logic is further skewed, however. Just because a broadcast is "beamed" into your house -- just because it's free of charge does not give an excuse to censor it. TV is not beamed directly into your head, you need a specialized piece of technology to receive it, decode it, and display it. We have been forced by our government to buy TV's with V-chips in them. If you're going to enforce anything, enforce the ratings. We've created this witchhunt, hunting the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Is the FCC going after people for inaccurately rating their programs? Hell no, they're going after the most visible targets (like Howard Stern).
I think that with most censorship proponents, however, this issue goes far beyond keeping their children away from content they don't like. If there is a technological solution, why do we need a crackdown on the content itself? Why not just enforce the ratings (especially for "family" oriented programs)? I believe it is because they want to control what we say, see, and/or hear. They want to control the "moral" direction of our country...it's not "I don't want my kids to see that" (although that's what the majority of 'em will say) -- it becomes a question of "I don't want you to say that, because I don't want anyone else to feel the same way you do about this". A perfect example is the Parents Television Council, who goes after cable tv for adult-oriented programming. They have a v-chip in their TV -- the cable network repeatedly warns that the program is graphic and unsuitable for some audiences, but I guess this isn't good enough for some people. What else could they possibly want? Hiding behind kids to push a communications/mind control agenda is pretty deplorable -- far moreso than showing off some nipples. Frankly, the control aspect of this scares me -- even if you don't want to control my mind, you should surely be able to see how this is frightening to anyone concerned with civil liberties.
...or will you not speak up until they come after you?
A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience.
Wait -- you're trying to tell me that the BSA's report on the billions that the software industry is losing is based on some sort of fact? It's just as bullshit as saying that pirating software increases the userbase. The crux of this discussion is based on pure speculation. Sure, if everyone who used "software package X" paid for it -- "software company X" would be see a whole lot more revenue, but that clearly doesn't mean dick. You should know better.
As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.
I'm not sure what you mean by optimizing the relationship. Surely you're not refering to copyright dongles or annoying serial keys that just assume that everyone who uses your software is a criminal? As someone who legitimately buys most (if not all) of their software, I can tell you that I'd rather pirate a piece of software and be criminal than buy it be and be treated like one. It's also funny that in my experience, it's easier to run cracked software than to have to use copy protection dongles and/or hunt for SafeCD CD's. But you still trust them to optimize the relationship. Sorry if I went off on a bad interpretation of what you wrote -- I was honestly guessing what you meant by that.
In any case, is it that difficult to believe that piracy increases a userbase? I totally believe that piracy has almost certainly helped Microsoft reach market dominance...although this can quickly become a chicken/egg discussion. As you point out, there is no hard data to show either side as correct. However, you fail to point out the agenda of both sides of the argument. The freeloaders want free shit -- it's that simple. I've heard the try-and-buy argument since the old BBS days -- I practice it and still believe it, but I'd bet dollars to dimes that this is a rarity. The developers, however, usually have shareholders to report to. Let's try an example -- let's say that Microsoft didn't make their numbers last quarter. Rather than figuring out why, they make up some numbers on what they could have made if all of the copes of "package y" were actually legimiately purchased. They give these numbers to their board with some other random figures on software piracy and funnel more into the BSA and churn out more BSA PSA's. Nobody loses their jobs and everyone's happy. Does it happen all the time? I have no proof, but it's a really easily accepted excuse to explain your dwingling revenues...and companies (public and private) have to report to their shareholders.
But if it's not recorded, how are they going to sell it? They'd be better off selling 100 copies and having 1 million copies made for free than making no copies at all.
You misread that post. Go back and re-read it. He is saying that in order to have perfect copy protection, you must make all equipment capable of recording illegal...except that which is owned by the recording industry. What he's saying is that they (IP owners) are not just fighting piracy. They're fighting to maintain their monopoly in the digital age -- they don't want their 3000 artists (or whatever) all using their cheap home-studios to start recording and distributing their content for peanuts over the Internet and removing the IP owners from the loop.
And here you exemplify the reason I find the reference offensive. To
you it is nothing more than a mass of tissue. To me it is a life. Not
just a life, but a human life. I'll spare you any religious arguments
behind it as they would be a waste of electrons from your viewpoint.
Were you waiting for a chance to sound off this morning when you woke up? Perhaps you were thinking that you could find some obscure reference that allows you to push your morality down everyone else's throat...telling us that we have to forget about ourselves and think of the children!
A fetus is a parasite inside of a mother...regardless of whether it is life, human life, or whatever you want to call it. Because you want to save it from the evildoers of the world does not change the fact that the relationship between a fetus and mother is mostly parasitic. All the tea in China won't change this fact. If you completely outlawed abortion tomorrow -- this fact wouldn't change. If hell froze over, the fact that the relationship between a fetus and its mother is mostly parasitic wouldn't change. My grandparent poster put it really eloquently when they said "Your religious viewpoint is leading you to ascribe pejorative values to a biological term that has none.".
I'll spare you any argument on the abortion issue itself...I'm sure you'll feel it too is a waste of electrons. However, this stem cell issue is a hot topic for the anti-abortion camp...and it shouldn't be. It's similar to the medical marijuana debate. The feeling is that if any ground is given to the medical-marijuana advocates, it is basically just a nod to legalization...the same way that needle-exchange programs for herion users "sends the wrong message to our children" and should therefore be banned/cancelled. This are some serious parallels here. Judgement for the greater good can be easily clouded when it has to do with an issue that one is passionate about. Let me ask you this: If the fetuses are already aborted and the damage is already done, is there really any harm in harvesting stem cells from those fetuses? We're talking about taking something that you hate, and reducing the harm. It seems that you don't like this issue because you want to keep abortion as dirty as possible. Would you prefer that doctors perform the procedure with a chainsaw so there is no question as to the evil of the process? Wouldn't that be akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face? This goes back to your problem with considering a child a parasite...you are not thinking objectively. Where is the greater good and why are you unable to weigh out the greater good outside of the confines of your pet issue?
However, as we are unable to determine at what point a child would
survive on their own, as certainly there are some children who have
reach the point of maturity that they would be able to continue living
outside the mother yet are still aborted, we must bestow human right to
life upon the child even within the mother. Since there is no other
point that is definitive besides birth, which is really an inadequate
demarcation of human life, and conception, conception must be the mark
of when a life becomes human. As such, to take that life it is murder.
I don't want to touch the abortion issue with a 10-foot-pole here, but your logic is severely skewed in the above paragraph. It's screwy enough that I'm not even going to pick it apart. If you can't re-read that and figure out how wrong it is (think: can a day-old fetus actually survive outside the mother?) -- you need to have your head examined.
However, you still fail to explain, or argue in any fashion why stem
cells must be taken when other sources are abundant and being discovered
regularly. It is this disdain for human life that is so abhorrent to
those who argue against stem cell research from using aborted children.
While it is difficult to argue with the results, if I can help it, I will never purchase Internet service from a company who arbitrarily blocks ports (especially ones that I may want to use...outbound port 25 being one).
When I buy Internet service, I want the whole Internet -- I don't want surprise ports blocked when my ISP thinks it's convenient. What's worse is that they typically don't inform users that the ports are blocked. You just have to figure that out.
At work, I have users who work at home and use dialup and broadband service from providers like Cox (cable), Comcast, and Earthlink. All of these providers block port 25 in at least a few regions. This is a major PITA, since I need company mail to come thorugh company mail servers (various reasons, one being that many of these ISP's don't have particularly good SMTP service and I deal with calls like "X didn't get my email, what's up?") I've set up service on a separate port, but it just adds one more configuration step for users who are already completely lost.
Again, I understand why ISP's are turning to this, and I can see the results, but it's still a lame policy. If I can help it, I won't buy Internet service (business or personal) from any company that blocks port 25.
Slashdot Mirror
The rest of us? It's just you and me, man. Anyway, have you ever seen the inside of a prison? I generally wish that upon very few individuals -- and only for the most heinous of actions. The fact is that your logic is based on emotion and subjective thinking more than logical and objective discussion. When these types of attitudes are based purely upon emotion, we generally see a vengeful, punitive attitude. In your case, it is no different. When you talk about removing someone from our society (prison, not exile) for what amounts to no more than really bad judgement (not malice)...it's vengeful.
FWIW, I looked into the Webster's definition of malice...it was the first place I looked. I didn't get your definition...how long did you search for that? I also checked google. I'm not saying that you made it up -- I'm sure it's out there. However, did you have to dig for that? Were you perhaps trolling there?
If this were such a common sense attitude, why is trying drunk drivers for murder such a new thing? Did we just wake up and smell the common sense 14 years ago? Were we not enlightened enough 14 years ago? Or, were organizations like MADD just really successful in their propaganda camapigns? Ever wonder what they mean by alcohol related traffic fatalities? They massage the crap out of their numbers to present the data in an alarming way.
Look, DUI/DWI is a problem. I'm not going to deny that. However, our overall legislative response to it has not been reasonable or rational. Our rights have been trampled so people like you can feel better. Your posts about it have shown that you are not willing to have an objective discussion about it. It's cut-and-dry for you, and is clearly an emotion-driven issue.
So...uhh, who's the troll now, troll?
Maybe these guys will. Oh wait -- they already do.
Oh please -- that's a totally vengeful attitude. You're also sounding pretty elitist. I hope it takes you far.
I've gotta disagree again -- especially given the current legal definition of intoxicated (.08 BAC). Now, I don't drive drunk (and rarely drink otherwise) -- and I certainly don't condone it. This is not a case of me definding my behavior. However, I don't see it as a wanton distrgard for the rights of others of for the value of human life. This issue is simply not that clear. No amount of MADD propaganda and number massaging is ever going to change that.
You can call it whatever you want, but the murder argument is starting to sound as specious as the argument that doctors who perform abortions are murders and should be charged accordingly or otherwise dealt with using terrorist methodologies. It sounds to me that this train of thought is about revenge, and revenge is just stupid.
So...should the charge be the same if a passenger was using a laptop computer in the front seat? I certainly wouldn't consider that negligent. The point is that the facts aren't in yet, and alot of folks are assuming the worst. If this guy was watching a DVD while driving, sure -- he's an asshole...but the facts certainly aren't in, and the ones that we are presented with are all very disputable.
If you were trying to make a judgement based solely on what was presented in the CNN article, I'd hope that you would find the evidence inconclusive. We're talking about another person's life here. Why be so quick to judge? Is revenge really the answer here? What does it do for anyone?
How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read the article? Do you know what their proof was? Here's a quote if you didn't read up:
So I'll sum it up. The video screen was open while the car was turned off (and there was a video disc in the player). That's all of their evidence...for a murder case. I sure hope (for all of our sake) that the DA has to produce better evidence than that to destroy a third life.That's just wrong...and not very smart reasoning either. Did you think about what you were saying before posting? Read that logically -- is it really just as irresponsible as walking into your house and firing a gun? You're just plain wrong. There is a difference, and DUI/DWI is not malicous murder. It sounds to me like you're arguing for stronger DUI/DWI laws for malicous and emotion-driven reasons. Which is actually pretty selfish on your part. Our DUI/DWI laws are already pretty outragous. If you're intersted, I'll post a position paper from the NMA that I (mostly) agree with.
If he were distracted by an aardvark he'd let loose in the truck, he would not have been charged with manslaughter in the first place.
That's not to say, however, that his DVD-watching behavior wasn't negligent.
No -- the government is not going to do this. What is going to happen is that some vendor will come to them with an embedded Linux solution. The vendor will have their auditing and security requirements in their proposal. If they sell 15 different products for 4 different agencies, one could assume that they would have the expertise to audit code changes. The farthest the government will go is to put in a code audit requirement in an RFP.
Your concerns about individual libraries is certainly a valid one. However, many of these efforts have already happened, and we are left with products like Security Enhanced Linux. I don't know the details of the product, but I'd be willing to bet that they've gone through the C libraries. You can make the same argument here for any open standard, or for any closed/embedded application (for example -- is the STL really safe for coding DoD applications? What if some MS employee on the VC++ team knows you're using Math.h and puts a few exploiting lines in that?). The argument can be made for any type of code. Someone needs to comb whatever code for bugs and exploits. Does everyone on the project have top-notch security clearance? Usually not...not for independantly coding some (unclassified) math library that a larger classified system uses.
Yes, the code will likely have to undergo the same level of scrunity that propritary/closed code will -- but it only has to be done once, and the cost is still less than building a propritary system from scratch.
Is OSS a threat to national security? Most likely not -- at least no more than propritary software is. Are the cost savings as potentially large as they are in the private sector? Probably not. Can money still be saved? Most likely, however, it depends on the vendor implementing and supporting it. Anyone can screw up a large project, regardless of the licensing -- but if a good contractor implements the project, the savings potential is there with F/OSS...and that's what counts.
In the US, some car mods will make your car illegal for operation on public roads. For example, remove the cat and muffler to get a freer flowing exhaust -- probably illegal in most states. It likely won't meet exhaust and noise regulations. But the point is that the law does not prevent you from modifying your car. There are safety regulations which dictate minimum standards. This is why you can't run slicks on the road (must be DOT approved tires). However, there is no law that states that you can't modify your car at all (including the engine management software). You are free to remove a speed governer, increase the rev limiter, raise turbo boost pressure (when applicable), change valve timing, etc. This may void your warranty, but nobody is coming after you for this.
However, the devil's advocate arguments are 1. If you could chip your Ford and have it produce another one for free, they'd probably sue. 2. If you were extracting trade secrets and/or selling them, they'd probably sue.
Well, in that case, you'll have to refer to the parent. I won't make his/her argument -- just the facts...man :)
I can answer for this a little. Run strings on Microsoft's ftp.exe from any Windows machine (you'll need cygwin on Windows, or a Unix box with strings on it). You'll see a bunch of crap, but at the end, you will see this:
If you go to any Linux kernel tree and do a "grep -r Regents *" or a "grep -r California *", you will see credit given to the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley. See below Actually, you'll see a crapload of it -- enough that you'll ctrl-c it way before it finishes.Or did I completely misread your comment and you were actually just asking how this information is relevant?
My thoughts exactly. Yay -- we finally agree on something :)
I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Let's plan on revisiting this in ten years so one of us can gloat, or we can both commiserate if by some freak chance we are both wrong.
This is getting tiresome.
Unless you're giving the word "practically" a really wide berth, you're just wrong. Laserdiscs have a maximum respolution os 400x482. That's around 240 lines of vertical resolution that you're missing there...which is quite a bit, if you ask me -- especially as a percentage.
Now, back to computing power...you're right -- they weren't digital because they couldn't be. Our MPEG2 chips were extremely expensive (and when laserdiscs were first released, weren't available at all). DVD could not exist in the consumer market back then...it's as simple as that.
Another thing to think about when it comes to resolution is that there was no option for a higher resolution TV back in the day. NTSC has remained unchanged for decades. We didn't have a choice -- there was simply no home video that took full advantage of NTSC resolution until DVD that could take full advantage of standard NTSC resolution. When DVD was released, HDTV was already available (yet for 99.9999% of the population, it was still "vaporware"). Now, with more and more new TV's able to scan up to HD resolutions, people will want to take advantage of it -- and it ain't just the $3500 plasmas. Here is a 27" HD-ready TV for $550. I'm sure they're avaialble for cheaper too -- that's the first one I found.
It's still a bad metric. You are either forgetting the history of home video, or you are too young and think that we always had it. What did we have before VHS? There was no home video market. It's not as if VHS/BetaMax replaced another home video device that was in every house. VHS/BetaMax was as good as we could do for the money at the time. Laserdiscs never caught on because they were so cumbersome. For example, without a dual sided player, you had to flip the disc every 30 or 60 minutes, depending on the disc -- and the better quality movies came on 2-3 discs. They weren't just expensive, they were a pain to use, with huge (12") media and the market didn't want them (except for the videophiles and home theater geeks). The point is, in a brand-spanking-new market -- people wanted whatever was cheap, with the largest library of movies...and don't even mention BetaMax. If the players could have played VHS tapes, the standard may have survived...but because it was one or the other, the marketplace picked the cheaper one.
How and why is this unlikely? I honestly don't know much about blu-ray DVD's (and they were just an example -- there are a number of standards up for consideration of the HD-DVD home)...but if most DVD players are backwards compatible with DVD's and VCD's, how is backwards compatability between the next-gen HD-DVD and standard DVD's unlikely?
Why is this a problem for the average buyer? If DRM were such a problem, DVD's never would have caught on. You're projecting your Slashdot mentality to the market...which largely doesn't care.
This is only an initial cost. If it gains market acceptance, the players will be as cheap as standard DVD players. There is absol
You could be right -- and this may be where the market is going...but I tend to disagree with you. Here's why: First of all, I was able to see MPEG2 artifacting with my first DVD player, because I was using a computer monitor -- which has a much higher quality CRT than most TV's. Furthermore, conventional televisions tend to "bleed" pixels together -- making imprefections harder to see, regardless of size. On the other hand, LCD's, plasma's, and DLP/LCD projection TV's tend to show a far more pure image.
This is untrue...especially if I can spot those artifacts on a 19" monitor where I'm unable to spot them on a 50" CRT. I'm no videophile either...just a guy who doesn't want to buy a TV.
You're using a poor metric here. Back in the laserdisc era, displays hadn't seen anywhere near the kinds of advances that they have seen in the past 10 years. Furthermore, laserdisc technology was even old when it hit the mass market, but it was among the best technologies available at the time for the consumer. We simply didn't have the computing power available to us to cheaply make anything close to the quality a DVD player. Now, our digital video technology has advanced to the point where we can have something far better than DVD for the same price. Assuming backwards compatibility, why wouldn't we see widespread market acceptance?
As for our predictions go -- it could really go either way. I still feel that new television/monitor technologies coming to mass-market may be the downfall of DVD's -- or at least allow for a competing standard or two. One way or the other, people want to actually see what they got for their $3500 home theater display...I sure would if I were willing to shell out that kind of money on a display.
So, you're against DRM, and believe that Microsoft writes shitty, buggy software. If you're against DRM, shouldn't you WELCOME Microsoft's Janus into all commerically available movies? This way, it will be exploited quickly and you can get right back to pirating even higher quality versions of movies. In this case, the DMCA is pretty much irrelevant, because it clearly hasn't stopped the proliferation of IP on P2P networks.
Look, I understand the dangerous precedent here...but the short-to-medium term practical reality of this isn't such a big deal.
VoD may be the next great thing, and this seems to be what Mr. Gates was hinting at. I cannot speak for the direction the VoD market is going. However, I think that regardless of the state of VoD, DVD's (we we know them) will be going the way of the VHS tape well within 10 years.
When DVD's were introduced, they were lightyears ahead of any other consumer-level media. However, the CRT TV's had changed little in 50 years -- adding color to the mainstream market in the early 60's and introducing incremental changes in quality throughout, such as Sony's Trinitron technology. Still, none of these incremental quality boosts were earth-shattering. Consumer-level CRT's were inherently limited in visual quality.
With the (post-DVD) advent of consumer-land LCD's and Plasma displays, the visual limitations of DVD's are becoming more apparent. High-quality displays show MPEG artifacting that normally wouldn't be seen in older CRT TV's. Furthermore, when compared against HDTV broadcasts, DVD's don't look quite as good as they did next to VHS movies.
The next nail in the coffin is the speed and price of computer technology. DVD players can be had for under $50. The manufacture of cheap DVD players is a reality, partly because of the economies of scale, but also in part, due to our ability to make the IC components in the players cheaper and smaller. We have the technology to make a high definition DVD, using better compression algorithms (both in terms of how much data they can compress, and the overall visual quality of the video) that require greater computing horsepower. This technology can be produced at a cost similar to the current cost of DVD players -- especially after a widespread market adoption over a few years. We are also able to produce players that use a media similar to DVD (optical media sharing the same dimensions and material to its DVD coutnerpart) which have a far greater data density, such as the blue-ray DVD's.
Assuming backwards compatibility with the traditional DVD format, this technology could become viable within 1-2 years. In this case, the obsolescence of the DVD (in its current state) is completely reasonable and foreseeable within 10 years.
If the federal government should be more conservative in what they allow, I have a few questions. First, why more conservative? This is speech that we're talking about, and there is no concrete evidence that nudity causes harm to children. It is because you have more conservative political ideals than I? Second, (and this is the crux of the problem) these laws should more conservative in relation to whom or what? Why should a New Yorker have to endure the decency standards of the MidWest? Do you feel that you should have to adhere to broadcast decency standards of...say...an Islamic community in the Pacific Northwest where (for example) showing womens ankles is considered obscene? I sure don't. I'll bet that you don't. If these things are going to be regulated, they need to be done on a local level. I have no problem with my kids seeing nudity. I actually find it offensive that "obscene" language is censored from movies...it's part of the art, and was put into the script for a reason -- and contrary to your beliefs, it's not just for money or shock value...That's as ignorant as someone saying that your are pushing this agenda in order to push your church's beliefs on everyone else. You may be from a different area than I with different community standards. I can live with that...I don't have to live in your community. The fact is that there are enough different community standards in the USA that the federal government has no business trying to enforce a national standard of decency -- because we clearly don't have national decency standards. We all need to respect this.
Next, why do v-chips not work? Because you can't/won't use it, or because of this single incident when something was improperly rated? Do you think that because of a single screw-up, we should throw our hands up and say "it didn't work...everyone must pay!"? You're saying that we should spend more money to go after people who broadcast things that you don't like instead of going after the people who rated it wrong. (I'll remind you of the federal witchhunt against people like Howard Stern). That's some crazy-talk if I've ever heard it, and is counter to free speech. What's so difficult for you about compromise? I'm willing to compromise on this -- I already bought a TV with a V-chip that I'll probably never use -- but I guess that's still not good enough. I feel that the rest of us have been pretty flexible -- letting people push us around for the sake of their "family values". At a certain point, I just say that you need to look after yours in your own home, and I'll look after mine in my own home...and stop trying to push legislature down my throat. If you don't like what's on TV don't watch it. Why is that so difficult?
Absolutely -- I'm not hiding behind anything, and I'm glad that you pointed out my nod to the above. It's all completely antecdotal. However, one can formulate an opinion on something completely unprovable...and of course it's bullshit...it's an opinion. Think: nature vs. nurture debate. Can you prove any of it? I'll bet you still have a stance on it.
First of all, even though it's entertainment, it's still an art, which is protected. Furthermore, when the broadcast media is being used to push a moral or social agenda (such as speech decency standards), it becomes de-facto political speech. If Jackson's breast was an act of political speech protesting decency standards (I'm not arguing that it was, just suggesting a hypothetical situation) -- it wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment for broadcast anyway.
Is this old or new case/statutory law? Remember, the fed says we all have to buy a V-Chip in our new TV's -- it's the law and it's been the law for quite some time. There is technology in place so the airwaves are no longer intrusive. That particular argument has been completely nullified.
You're pointing out a hypocracy in a system that you seem to support. Suggestive dancing does, in fact, qualify for first amendment protection because it has artistic value. Maybe not to you, but I can think of a whole lot of angry professional dancers who would vehemently disagree with you. I'm saying that we should be allowed to put whatever the hell we want on public airwaves. If it's truly offensive to enough of the populus, the market (and associated sponsors, which are part of the market) will weed it out. Again, there is a technological solution to making sure that kids are protected -- or to ensure that we don't have to see content that we don't want to -- it's called the V-Chip. If my money has to go into this, why can't I be trusted to make use of it? What was the point of having it if we're still regulating the content itself? I fail to understand why the already-imposed technical solution isn't good enough...it's a win-win situation for you. Or is this about more than just protecting your kids? What is it that you're trying to control -- the community standards themselves?
Here's part of the problem: The FCC refuses to define their rules concerning decency. So they've signed an agreement with the government to adhere to undefined rules. Greaaaaaaat.
Here's another problem with your argument (going back to your grandparent post). You said that you turned the superbowl halftime show off because it was too raunchy. Well -- up until the point where you turned it off, there was no violation of "standards"...your argument doesn't add up -- at least on a legal level. Sexually suggestive dancing meets the national standards for TV-Y. It sounds like your standards are more restrictive than that. Not a problem -- but if you continue following your track, you will need to start arguing for dumping the FCC's rules and going with a local/regional system to actually represents the community standards rather than just arbitrarily making them up and going after high profile targets so it appears that they're doing their job (and to ensure that they don't lose their jobs).
I think that your logic is further skewed, however. Just because a broadcast is "beamed" into your house -- just because it's free of charge does not give an excuse to censor it. TV is not beamed directly into your head, you need a specialized piece of technology to receive it, decode it, and display it. We have been forced by our government to buy TV's with V-chips in them. If you're going to enforce anything, enforce the ratings. We've created this witchhunt, hunting the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Is the FCC going after people for inaccurately rating their programs? Hell no, they're going after the most visible targets (like Howard Stern).
I think that with most censorship proponents, however, this issue goes far beyond keeping their children away from content they don't like. If there is a technological solution, why do we need a crackdown on the content itself? Why not just enforce the ratings (especially for "family" oriented programs)? I believe it is because they want to control what we say, see, and/or hear. They want to control the "moral" direction of our country...it's not "I don't want my kids to see that" (although that's what the majority of 'em will say) -- it becomes a question of "I don't want you to say that, because I don't want anyone else to feel the same way you do about this". A perfect example is the Parents Television Council, who goes after cable tv for adult-oriented programming. They have a v-chip in their TV -- the cable network repeatedly warns that the program is graphic and unsuitable for some audiences, but I guess this isn't good enough for some people. What else could they possibly want? Hiding behind kids to push a communications/mind control agenda is pretty deplorable -- far moreso than showing off some nipples. Frankly, the control aspect of this scares me -- even if you don't want to control my mind, you should surely be able to see how this is frightening to anyone concerned with civil liberties.
Wait -- you're trying to tell me that the BSA's report on the billions that the software industry is losing is based on some sort of fact? It's just as bullshit as saying that pirating software increases the userbase. The crux of this discussion is based on pure speculation. Sure, if everyone who used "software package X" paid for it -- "software company X" would be see a whole lot more revenue, but that clearly doesn't mean dick. You should know better.
I'm not sure what you mean by optimizing the relationship. Surely you're not refering to copyright dongles or annoying serial keys that just assume that everyone who uses your software is a criminal? As someone who legitimately buys most (if not all) of their software, I can tell you that I'd rather pirate a piece of software and be criminal than buy it be and be treated like one. It's also funny that in my experience, it's easier to run cracked software than to have to use copy protection dongles and/or hunt for SafeCD CD's. But you still trust them to optimize the relationship. Sorry if I went off on a bad interpretation of what you wrote -- I was honestly guessing what you meant by that.
In any case, is it that difficult to believe that piracy increases a userbase? I totally believe that piracy has almost certainly helped Microsoft reach market dominance...although this can quickly become a chicken/egg discussion. As you point out, there is no hard data to show either side as correct. However, you fail to point out the agenda of both sides of the argument. The freeloaders want free shit -- it's that simple. I've heard the try-and-buy argument since the old BBS days -- I practice it and still believe it, but I'd bet dollars to dimes that this is a rarity. The developers, however, usually have shareholders to report to. Let's try an example -- let's say that Microsoft didn't make their numbers last quarter. Rather than figuring out why, they make up some numbers on what they could have made if all of the copes of "package y" were actually legimiately purchased. They give these numbers to their board with some other random figures on software piracy and funnel more into the BSA and churn out more BSA PSA's. Nobody loses their jobs and everyone's happy. Does it happen all the time? I have no proof, but it's a really easily accepted excuse to explain your dwingling revenues...and companies (public and private) have to report to their shareholders.
You misread that post. Go back and re-read it. He is saying that in order to have perfect copy protection, you must make all equipment capable of recording illegal...except that which is owned by the recording industry. What he's saying is that they (IP owners) are not just fighting piracy. They're fighting to maintain their monopoly in the digital age -- they don't want their 3000 artists (or whatever) all using their cheap home-studios to start recording and distributing their content for peanuts over the Internet and removing the IP owners from the loop.
Were you waiting for a chance to sound off this morning when you woke up? Perhaps you were thinking that you could find some obscure reference that allows you to push your morality down everyone else's throat...telling us that we have to forget about ourselves and think of the children!
A fetus is a parasite inside of a mother...regardless of whether it is life, human life, or whatever you want to call it. Because you want to save it from the evildoers of the world does not change the fact that the relationship between a fetus and mother is mostly parasitic. All the tea in China won't change this fact. If you completely outlawed abortion tomorrow -- this fact wouldn't change. If hell froze over, the fact that the relationship between a fetus and its mother is mostly parasitic wouldn't change. My grandparent poster put it really eloquently when they said "Your religious viewpoint is leading you to ascribe pejorative values to a biological term that has none.".
I'll spare you any argument on the abortion issue itself...I'm sure you'll feel it too is a waste of electrons. However, this stem cell issue is a hot topic for the anti-abortion camp...and it shouldn't be. It's similar to the medical marijuana debate. The feeling is that if any ground is given to the medical-marijuana advocates, it is basically just a nod to legalization...the same way that needle-exchange programs for herion users "sends the wrong message to our children" and should therefore be banned/cancelled. This are some serious parallels here. Judgement for the greater good can be easily clouded when it has to do with an issue that one is passionate about. Let me ask you this: If the fetuses are already aborted and the damage is already done, is there really any harm in harvesting stem cells from those fetuses? We're talking about taking something that you hate, and reducing the harm. It seems that you don't like this issue because you want to keep abortion as dirty as possible. Would you prefer that doctors perform the procedure with a chainsaw so there is no question as to the evil of the process? Wouldn't that be akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face? This goes back to your problem with considering a child a parasite...you are not thinking objectively. Where is the greater good and why are you unable to weigh out the greater good outside of the confines of your pet issue?
I don't want to touch the abortion issue with a 10-foot-pole here, but your logic is severely skewed in the above paragraph. It's screwy enough that I'm not even going to pick it apart. If you can't re-read that and figure out how wrong it is (think: can a day-old fetus actually survive outside the mother?) -- you need to have your head examined.
From reading the art
While it is difficult to argue with the results, if I can help it, I will never purchase Internet service from a company who arbitrarily blocks ports (especially ones that I may want to use...outbound port 25 being one).
When I buy Internet service, I want the whole Internet -- I don't want surprise ports blocked when my ISP thinks it's convenient. What's worse is that they typically don't inform users that the ports are blocked. You just have to figure that out.
At work, I have users who work at home and use dialup and broadband service from providers like Cox (cable), Comcast, and Earthlink. All of these providers block port 25 in at least a few regions. This is a major PITA, since I need company mail to come thorugh company mail servers (various reasons, one being that many of these ISP's don't have particularly good SMTP service and I deal with calls like "X didn't get my email, what's up?") I've set up service on a separate port, but it just adds one more configuration step for users who are already completely lost.
Again, I understand why ISP's are turning to this, and I can see the results, but it's still a lame policy. If I can help it, I won't buy Internet service (business or personal) from any company that blocks port 25.