It seems that the drafters of this agreement do not view privacy as a "legal right" as they should, but rather as another service that companies may offer, through the signing of the agreement.
However the main problem I have with the proposed agreement is not this, but the apparent lack of recourse for consumers who have complaints against copmanies who are signatories of the agreement. There seems to be no independent watch-dog proposed to ensure that signatories are complying with the regulations (I suppose, because of the self-regulatory nature of the agreement), and moreover, the regulatory groups are funded by the industry (conflict of interest, anyone?).
On top of this, "no self-regulatory group has ever referred a member company for investigation and the FTC has never provided remedies for any of the companies with which they have reached settlements" (from article cited below).
Does it really sound like the EU is looking after its citizens' interests or bowing down to pressure by the US?
To add to the above post: what about hotmail? is that not free? Free internet access is already available in Australia through companies like freeonline.com.au and goconnect.com.au in Australia - well, at least, free in the sense that all it takes is a local phone call!
I think the whole point is that an animal that size could not move itself around today, because of the forces of gravity. In fact, the article states: It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to.
Any interpretations of how it could be that the effects of gravity have changed since the time of the dinosaurs?
You _know_ the lawyers are behind it and that the bands just don't care about their fans.
I don't think you can legitimately portray artists as being such selfless people. I'm sure they are committed to their music and want everyone to have access to their art, like in your example of Ani DiFranco. However, not all artists are this selfless, and some part of them, like all humans, want personal gain and will kick up a fuss when their livelihood is taken away from them in such an insiduous way as Napster, Gnutella et al are doing.
We have seen before examples of artists kicking up a fuss about their revenues being cut, notably a couple of years ago in Australia over the Federal Government's proposals to cut the price of CD imports. One of their main arguments was that by cutting back the income of artists we are stifling the arts; how can artists survive on meagre incomes? They will turn to other, less inspiring work, unfortunately for the community who so obviously enjoys their work, evidenced by the great proliferation of their music in MP3 form.
Considering the other current applications of 3D images - mostly in movies at iMax or theme parks, for its novelty value - I don't think it's likely to take off.
3D movies at the cinema were incredibly popular at one point during the 1940s/50s, and then everyone realised the triviality of being able to see in 3D. Now all we have are the cliched "oh no look out, the dinosaur's coming towards me!" type we see at theme parks. Is this also the future for 3D monitors?
Put on top of this the prohibitive cost, and it sounds like you've just got another side-show for the Epcott centre.
Virtual war vs. bloody war
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
Can any country like the U.S. muster the determination and will -- evident in all of its previous wars up until Vietnam -- to do whatever it takes to win even as our leaders concede the conflict --thus the principle -- isn't worth any any substantial material or human cost to us?
IMHO this statement misses the point. If a virtual war is chosen over one in which there is human causalty it cannot be inferred that our leaders do not believe that the conflict is worth being involved in. More importantly, it definitely does not mean that the principle over which it is being fought is not worth fighting for, or is not "worth any any substantial material or human cost to us".
Rather, one would choose a virtual war because of the recognition of the value of human life. Why would we sacrifice a human life in a bloody conflict when we could achieve the same end without any loss of life, through a virtual war?
A virtual war is about cutting our losses; achieving the goal, upholding the principle, or as the author crudely puts it, doing whatever it takes to win, by the means which results in the least loss to us.
Let's hope the telcos sit up and pay attention to the dissatisfaction of rural Australians about the lack of services offered in the country by extending their Internet, especially cable services to more rural areas. They should have got the message with the outcome of the last Victorian State election, but if not hopefully the trend to elect out of office politicians sacrificing the needs of country Australia to the cities will continue at the next Federal election, sending out the feeling, strong and clear.
Slashdot Mirror
This is more informative
It seems that the drafters of this agreement do not view privacy as a "legal right" as they should, but rather as another service that companies may offer, through the signing of the agreement.
However the main problem I have with the proposed agreement is not this, but the apparent lack of recourse for consumers who have complaints against copmanies who are signatories of the agreement. There seems to be no independent watch-dog proposed to ensure that signatories are complying with the regulations (I suppose, because of the self-regulatory nature of the agreement), and moreover, the regulatory groups are funded by the industry (conflict of interest, anyone?).
On top of this, "no self-regulatory group has ever referred a member company for investigation and the FTC has never provided remedies for any of the companies with which they have reached settlements" (from article cited below).
Does it really sound like the EU is looking after its citizens' interests or bowing down to pressure by the US?
For more arguments against the proposal, see TACD Statement on U.S. Department of Commerce Draft International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles and FAQs.
To add to the above post: what about hotmail? is that not free? Free internet access is already available in Australia through companies like freeonline.com.au and goconnect.com.au in Australia - well, at least, free in the sense that all it takes is a local phone call!
Somethimg out of a post-apocolyptic novel? Or is it just me reading too much sci-fi lately??
I definitely think it's worth a look, and it's a pity that by giving this article a score of 0 some people will miss out on reading these arguments.
I think the whole point is that an animal that size could not move itself around today, because of the forces of gravity. In fact, the article states: It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to.
Any interpretations of how it could be that the effects of gravity have changed since the time of the dinosaurs?
I don't think you can legitimately portray artists as being such selfless people. I'm sure they are committed to their music and want everyone to have access to their art, like in your example of Ani DiFranco. However, not all artists are this selfless, and some part of them, like all humans, want personal gain and will kick up a fuss when their livelihood is taken away from them in such an insiduous way as Napster, Gnutella et al are doing.
We have seen before examples of artists kicking up a fuss about their revenues being cut, notably a couple of years ago in Australia over the Federal Government's proposals to cut the price of CD imports. One of their main arguments was that by cutting back the income of artists we are stifling the arts; how can artists survive on meagre incomes? They will turn to other, less inspiring work, unfortunately for the community who so obviously enjoys their work, evidenced by the great proliferation of their music in MP3 form.
Considering the other current applications of 3D images - mostly in movies at iMax or theme parks, for its novelty value - I don't think it's likely to take off.
3D movies at the cinema were incredibly popular at one point during the 1940s/50s, and then everyone realised the triviality of being able to see in 3D. Now all we have are the cliched "oh no look out, the dinosaur's coming towards me!" type we see at theme parks. Is this also the future for 3D monitors?
Put on top of this the prohibitive cost, and it sounds like you've just got another side-show for the Epcott centre.
IMHO this statement misses the point. If a virtual war is chosen over one in which there is human causalty it cannot be inferred that our leaders do not believe that the conflict is worth being involved in. More importantly, it definitely does not mean that the principle over which it is being fought is not worth fighting for, or is not "worth any any substantial material or human cost to us".
Rather, one would choose a virtual war because of the recognition of the value of human life. Why would we sacrifice a human life in a bloody conflict when we could achieve the same end without any loss of life, through a virtual war?
A virtual war is about cutting our losses; achieving the goal, upholding the principle, or as the author crudely puts it, doing whatever it takes to win, by the means which results in the least loss to us.
Let's hope the telcos sit up and pay attention to the dissatisfaction of rural Australians about the lack of services offered in the country by extending their Internet, especially cable services to more rural areas. They should have got the message with the outcome of the last Victorian State election, but if not hopefully the trend to elect out of office politicians sacrificing the needs of country Australia to the cities will continue at the next Federal election, sending out the feeling, strong and clear.