The big problem with open webcams and such is that they use default passwords in the first place.
Routers went through this at one point too. They used to come pre-configured with the username of "admin" and the password of "password" (or some variation depending on manufacturer). This meant that most people would plug in their router and just leave the defaults in place. The most recent routers I've put into place have a setup step for setting the username and password. No, it can't prevent someone from using "12345" as their password, but at least the user isn't caught because the device just started working with no password configuration required.
Many people look at computers as if they are appliances. You don't need to know how to configure your toaster. You just plug it in and toast your bread. You don't need to edit some config file to make your refrigerator keep your food cold. Any "settings" come in the form of easy-to-read dials or buttons. Turn the dial on the stove and the heat goes on/up. Turn it the other way and it goes off. There's a group of people who expect computers to act like this. Unfortunately, computers are far more complex than any fridge or stove - especially once you go online and you are opened up to all of the security issues that this entails.
God: Ok, roll a saving throw. Sodom & Gomorrah: *rolls* 1. Uh-oh.
Ok, now someone needs to write a version of the bible with God as the DM and the major characters as players (or NPCs). Something along the lines of Darths and Droids.
Fine snow is light and easy to shovel, but tends to blow right back where you shoveled it from leading to a string of obscenities as your shoveled path disappears.
Wet snow is very heavy and can hurt your back shoveling it but at least stays where you put it. Plus, it is good for snowballs which you can throw at people who aren't shoveling their fair share.
If you have ice and snow? Get ready to slip and slide as you shovel.
I'm in the same situation except replace Comcast with Time Warner Cable (at least until the merger goes through) and replace AT&T with Verizon's DSL service. (Which besides being much slower is also regarded by Verizon as something to ditch ASAP.) So if I'm unhappy with Netflix performance over TWC, my option is to cancel Netflix and get more video content from TWC. This should result in monopoly abuse lawsuits.
This is why my condition for the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger would be the immediate splitting of Comcast-TWC into ISP and TV/Content companies. At least. Ideally, there would be more splitting, but I'd accept those two at minimum. This way, the ISP business wouldn't slow down Netflix to help their TV business.
Right. I don't think many people would argue with QoS policies being applied uniformly across all providers of similar services. Having all video set to a different QoS than all email isn't a problem. Having one video provider set at high priority and another one set at low is a problem.
Especially when the one video provider set at a low priority is in competition with the ISP's video services and the ISP has a monopoly (or duopoly) in the area for Internet access. Then the ISP is using their monopoly powers in one market to unfairly compete in another market. If the government had any backbone (and wasn't paid off... I mean lobbied, by the big ISPs so much), they would open anti-trust proceedings against any ISP that interfered with Internet video to prop up their TV services.
Comcast (just like AT&T in the 70s) should be broken up to increase competition and remove the monopoly powers that are currently being abused illegally.
Except that the breakup shouldn't be by region, but by service provided. Break up Comcast into three companies:
1) Networking - This company will maintain the network and sell access to Comcast's new ISP company (see #2) and other ISPs.
2) ISP - This company would sell Internet access to consumers and businesses. They wouldn't maintain the network but would instead purchase bandwidth from Networking.
3) Television - This company would sell television service to consumers. They might also own content or perhaps this would be split into a fourth company.
If they were split up this way, the reasons for the Network Neutrality violations (slowing down Netflix to help Comcast's TV service) would go away.
Perception is much more amenable to study than introspective activity, and we know that that process involves a lot of (often pretty impressive, sometimes embarrassing) culling of irrelevant input to allow conscious focus on a limited set of salient details. This has its advantages (picking a single speaker out of the background of a noisy room would be pretty nasty to do entirely consciously);
One of the problems that people with autism face is the inability to filter out sensory input. So while a neurotypical (non-autistic) person might be able to ignore the sounds of background conversation and various smells in the room in order to focus their thoughts on the conversation they are having, the person with autism might find themselves overwhelmed. Many will avoid social situations or completely melt down in frustration because of the overwhelming sensory overload. (My son and I both have autism so I've both seen this happen and have experienced this first hand.) Most people take this filtering ability for granted, but be glad you have it.
When a company like YouTube is served with a DMCA, they have two courses of action: 1) Take down the content or 2) Fight the DMCA and be liable for copyright infringement. Many times, companies will just blindly take down content since they can't judge the legality of all DMCA requests. Once the content is taken down, the uploader is informed and can either accept the take down or can counter that the DMCA wasn't valid (because they are the copyright owner, because the content is in public domain, because it is parody, etc). If this is the case, the content goes back online and the company tells the people who issued the DMCA "go sue the uploader if you want it taken down permanently."
Up to this point, I don't really have a problem. For all its flaws, this pretty much works as intended (though there should be some penalties - beyond the hypothetical-but-never-enforced perjury - for filing false DMCA claims). I've used this to take down content people stole from me.
The problem is what happened when YouTube told the people who issued the DMCA to sue the uploaders. They should not be giving out the person's personal information. If this can be done, then anyone who wants to harass anyone can simply issue a DMCA notice against that person, allow it to be challenged, and then use the personal information they get for malicious purposes, not legal purposes.
It's called "The Discovery Channel", but if they show us a man being eaten by a large snake, what is the discovery there?
The Learning Channel used to feature shows that had some educational value. They've long since dropped that and changed their name to TLC. Perhaps Discovery Channel will do the same and change their name. They might not be able to use "DC" though, because the garbage they show is completely different from the garbage that takes place in Washington, DC.
Yes, but doing so puts the snake's health at risk. A snake regurgitating a meal could injure itself and so only does it in an emergency situation. This person is putting the snake's life at risk. This isn't for scientific advances or to somehow help other snakes around the world. This is just a publicity stunt. What's next? Holding a shark still while a guy climbs inside its mouth and videos the way down? I'm sure Discovery could play this next Shark Week alongside their latest "documentary" featuring CGI footage being passed off as real proof that a long-extinct species of shark is swimming around our oceans.
Also you can put a truckload of apps in 3GB. If you need more than that, you are a power user and probably have a phone with 16+GB of internal storage... or you know how to root.
My boys each have a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2. Some of the games that they like playing take up hundreds of megabytes each. For example, looking at my own phone right now, Angry Birds Transformers is taking up 414 MB for the game and game data. If you only have 3GB of applications storage space, you can't store too many of these games. You can store even less once you factor in the pre-installed apps that you can't remove either because they are part of Android/Google services or because the manufacturer was paid to include them. That's why being able to move apps to an SD card was a benefit.
So can we install apps to the SD card again? At one point, you could move apps to the SD card and run them from there instead of from internal storage. This was great if you had about 3GB of "applications storage" (the internal storage area was divided into system, applications, etc) and were running some large Android games. You could get a cheap 32GB or larger microSD card, put that in, and instantly have all the space you would need for the foreseeable future, Then, this feature was removed and apps were restricted to the "applications" area of internal storage again. It would be great if you could put apps on the SD card again.
(Yes, I know this might be possible if you root the device, but there's something to be said for building this feature right in instead of keeping it only for the people who know how to root their devices.)
If you have a purely electronic system, how will you be able to tell that a vote in the system for Candidate Y was really for Candidate Y and not an "electronic mismark" (whether intentional or due to a bug) that was actually meant for Candidate X?
If you require the electronic voting machines to have printers, you introduce more complexity which means more chances of something going wrong. Printer jams, paper running out, ink running out, people tossing the receipts instead of putting them in the slots, etc. I think that the best compromise between the instant tallying of electronic voting and the verification of paper voting is the optical scanning method. You fill in little circles on the ballot and put your ballot into a scanner. The scanner either rejects your vote (if you didn't fill in the bubbles properly) or accepts it. If it rejects it, you fix the mistake. If it accepts it, the vote is stored electronically and the paper ballot is stored for recount/spot check purposes.
Pure electronic voting, however, is worse than a solution in search of a problem. It's an abuse waiting to happen.
Great, so how does that stop someone stuffing ballot boxes? Anonymous paper ballots are vulnerable to stuffing and loss.
Yes, they are, but you can take steps to minimize this and there is a paper trail that can be followed/investigated. Electronic ballot box stuffing can be sneakier. If the code is written so that every 3rd vote for Candidate X is turned into a Candidate Y vote and Candidate X actually had 60% of the vote to Y's 40%, how will you know that Candidate Y didn't really win with 60% of the vote? (Y's 40% plus 20% from X's votes mismarked as for Y.) This can be malicious in nature from the source (the voting machine company rigging the election), malicious via hacking (tampering with the voting machine when you go in to vote), or a mistake (bad coding). In any event, there would be no way to recount the votes or double-check them. Purely electronic voting machines are too prone to failure versus paper ballots.
Our voting procedure is very simple. I walked up, told the person my name, they looked it up and had me sign on the correct line. Then, I went to another person at the next table to get my ballot and a folder. I went to those folding tables with sides for privacy and marked in the little circles to indicate who I wanted to vote for. Next, I put the ballot in the folder and walked to a machine. I put the ballot in the machine and it pulled it in, scanning in my vote. I'm unsure what happens to the paper ballot at that point, but my guess is that it drops into a receptacle to be looked at if a hand or machine recount is needed. It's the best of computer-based voting (quick tallying of the votes) and paper-based voting (easy to recount to verify the votes). Is it tamper-proof? Of course not. Someone could still "lose" a bunch of ballots during a recount, but it makes it as difficult as possible to tamper with the results without over-complicating the voting process.
I had the opportunity to use a car with GPS-enabled navigation during a trip to New York City. At one point, the GPS navigation insisted that I was driving in the middle of the Hudson river. (I was definitely *not*.) Apparently, the signals can bounce off of the tall buildings and make the GPS unit think it is somewhere else. Luckily, I wasn't relying solely on GPS navigation and wouldn't be so stupid as to drive in an area that I'm not supposed to drive just because GPS told me to. If someone is going to drive off a cliff because GPS says "turn left" and there's a cliff there, then they're likely stupid enough to turn left because Old Man McGillicutty said to turn left too early in his directions.
The same thing happened when my boys and I watched some 80's He-Man episodes. I began to cringe at how bad they were but my boys were just enjoying them too much. They didn't care that the animation was subpar or the dialog was cheesy. Their enjoyment tempered my reaction and made the entire experience more enjoyable.
Interestingly, it wasn't the "manned lion robots form humanoid robot with sword" part. I'm willing to suspend disbelief for that component. It was bad dialog, character motivation that seemed to be "the plot needs us to do X so let's do X", and unexplained, story changing events (they break out of a prison on the enemy's planet and somehow wind back up on their own planet. How? Don't worry about that... they just did.). I didn't even get to the "Why don't they use the big sword as their first weapon since it works every time and nothing else seems to" part.
Childhood memory and the progression of expectations (both in storytelling/animation and in child->adult expectations) easily turn "Fantastic series" into "Why did I ever like this?!!!!"
If having the old stuff available meant that new stuff wasn't watched, then Netflix would kill movies being released in the Box Office. After all, why watch the latest movie when there's a ton of older movies available? The answer, of course, is that the old content being in Public Domain would spur on more creativity. For example, Ghostbusters was released in 1984. It would be in the public domain. And Ghostbusters 2 - released in 1989 - would enter the Public Domain in 3 years.
This would mean that a fan could make a movie based off of Ghostbusters (perhaps with new actors taking over the roles or as a "next generation of Ghostbusters" movie). They could also make a TV show based on it. Would much of the new content based off of the Public Domain title be garbage? Sure. But that's par for the course with any new content. (How many garbage movies get released every year versus good movies?) Mixed in with the trash spin-offs, though, would be a couple of gems that could re-ignite interest in the original while taking it in a completely new direction.
it also blows my mind to think of the amount of content that would be available as public domain if copyright only lasted 28 years.
It blows my mind how long we need to wait for content to get into the Public Domain. The trade-off was Content Creators get a monopoly on their work - getting to decide how it is used - as an incentive to produce more works. In return, the content creator gave the content back to society at the end of the copyright term. Giving the content back acted as fertilizer for others to create new works. Over the years, though, copyright terms lengthened and lengthened until they last 100 years or more. How does giving the Content Creator ownership of the content 70 years after his/her death give them incentive them to create more works? Are they going to rise from the dead to pen a sequel? As it stands now, they not only could pass the copyright on to their children, but to their grandchildren as well.
The balance is now thrown completely off. Content Creators don't put anything into the Public Domain now. (Ok, some people do declare their works in the Public Domain, but they are a tiny group of exceptions.) A work created today won't enter into the Public Domain (assuming the terms don't lengthen again - which is a big assumption) until the year 2134. Thankfully, this wasn't applied retroactively to 120 years in the past or we would just now be able to use content from 1894. As it stands now, the Public Domain only applies to content from 1923 - just before "the talkies" started taking hold. Here we are in 2014 and the Public Domain can't even include a movie with people talking in it.
Would you like to A) Pass oppressive new laws that otherwise wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing?, B) Accumulate more power to yourself, eroding Democracy while claiming to protect it?, or C) Both at the same time?
Slashdot Mirror
Time from a "Password of 12345" mention to a Space Balls joke: 105 minutes. Your slowing down Slashdot
(Begin recording time until someone corrects "Your" to "You're"...)
Routers went through this at one point too. They used to come pre-configured with the username of "admin" and the password of "password" (or some variation depending on manufacturer). This meant that most people would plug in their router and just leave the defaults in place. The most recent routers I've put into place have a setup step for setting the username and password. No, it can't prevent someone from using "12345" as their password, but at least the user isn't caught because the device just started working with no password configuration required.
I meant unfortunately for the person who was operating a computer while expecting a toaster level of complexity.
Many people look at computers as if they are appliances. You don't need to know how to configure your toaster. You just plug it in and toast your bread. You don't need to edit some config file to make your refrigerator keep your food cold. Any "settings" come in the form of easy-to-read dials or buttons. Turn the dial on the stove and the heat goes on/up. Turn it the other way and it goes off. There's a group of people who expect computers to act like this. Unfortunately, computers are far more complex than any fridge or stove - especially once you go online and you are opened up to all of the security issues that this entails.
God: Ok, roll a saving throw.
Sodom & Gomorrah: *rolls* 1. Uh-oh.
Ok, now someone needs to write a version of the bible with God as the DM and the major characters as players (or NPCs). Something along the lines of Darths and Droids.
And just to clarify for people who don't know:
Fine snow is light and easy to shovel, but tends to blow right back where you shoveled it from leading to a string of obscenities as your shoveled path disappears.
Wet snow is very heavy and can hurt your back shoveling it but at least stays where you put it. Plus, it is good for snowballs which you can throw at people who aren't shoveling their fair share.
If you have ice and snow? Get ready to slip and slide as you shovel.
Finally, step 2 is revealed!
Step 1: Trap a rainbow.
Step 2: Seize the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Step 3: Profit!
I'm in the same situation except replace Comcast with Time Warner Cable (at least until the merger goes through) and replace AT&T with Verizon's DSL service. (Which besides being much slower is also regarded by Verizon as something to ditch ASAP.) So if I'm unhappy with Netflix performance over TWC, my option is to cancel Netflix and get more video content from TWC. This should result in monopoly abuse lawsuits.
This is why my condition for the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger would be the immediate splitting of Comcast-TWC into ISP and TV/Content companies. At least. Ideally, there would be more splitting, but I'd accept those two at minimum. This way, the ISP business wouldn't slow down Netflix to help their TV business.
Especially when the one video provider set at a low priority is in competition with the ISP's video services and the ISP has a monopoly (or duopoly) in the area for Internet access. Then the ISP is using their monopoly powers in one market to unfairly compete in another market. If the government had any backbone (and wasn't paid off... I mean lobbied, by the big ISPs so much), they would open anti-trust proceedings against any ISP that interfered with Internet video to prop up their TV services.
Except that the breakup shouldn't be by region, but by service provided. Break up Comcast into three companies:
1) Networking - This company will maintain the network and sell access to Comcast's new ISP company (see #2) and other ISPs.
2) ISP - This company would sell Internet access to consumers and businesses. They wouldn't maintain the network but would instead purchase bandwidth from Networking.
3) Television - This company would sell television service to consumers. They might also own content or perhaps this would be split into a fourth company.
If they were split up this way, the reasons for the Network Neutrality violations (slowing down Netflix to help Comcast's TV service) would go away.
One of the problems that people with autism face is the inability to filter out sensory input. So while a neurotypical (non-autistic) person might be able to ignore the sounds of background conversation and various smells in the room in order to focus their thoughts on the conversation they are having, the person with autism might find themselves overwhelmed. Many will avoid social situations or completely melt down in frustration because of the overwhelming sensory overload. (My son and I both have autism so I've both seen this happen and have experienced this first hand.) Most people take this filtering ability for granted, but be glad you have it.
When a company like YouTube is served with a DMCA, they have two courses of action: 1) Take down the content or 2) Fight the DMCA and be liable for copyright infringement. Many times, companies will just blindly take down content since they can't judge the legality of all DMCA requests. Once the content is taken down, the uploader is informed and can either accept the take down or can counter that the DMCA wasn't valid (because they are the copyright owner, because the content is in public domain, because it is parody, etc). If this is the case, the content goes back online and the company tells the people who issued the DMCA "go sue the uploader if you want it taken down permanently."
Up to this point, I don't really have a problem. For all its flaws, this pretty much works as intended (though there should be some penalties - beyond the hypothetical-but-never-enforced perjury - for filing false DMCA claims). I've used this to take down content people stole from me.
The problem is what happened when YouTube told the people who issued the DMCA to sue the uploaders. They should not be giving out the person's personal information. If this can be done, then anyone who wants to harass anyone can simply issue a DMCA notice against that person, allow it to be challenged, and then use the personal information they get for malicious purposes, not legal purposes.
The Learning Channel used to feature shows that had some educational value. They've long since dropped that and changed their name to TLC. Perhaps Discovery Channel will do the same and change their name. They might not be able to use "DC" though, because the garbage they show is completely different from the garbage that takes place in Washington, DC.
Yes, but doing so puts the snake's health at risk. A snake regurgitating a meal could injure itself and so only does it in an emergency situation. This person is putting the snake's life at risk. This isn't for scientific advances or to somehow help other snakes around the world. This is just a publicity stunt. What's next? Holding a shark still while a guy climbs inside its mouth and videos the way down? I'm sure Discovery could play this next Shark Week alongside their latest "documentary" featuring CGI footage being passed off as real proof that a long-extinct species of shark is swimming around our oceans.
My boys each have a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2. Some of the games that they like playing take up hundreds of megabytes each. For example, looking at my own phone right now, Angry Birds Transformers is taking up 414 MB for the game and game data. If you only have 3GB of applications storage space, you can't store too many of these games. You can store even less once you factor in the pre-installed apps that you can't remove either because they are part of Android/Google services or because the manufacturer was paid to include them. That's why being able to move apps to an SD card was a benefit.
So can we install apps to the SD card again? At one point, you could move apps to the SD card and run them from there instead of from internal storage. This was great if you had about 3GB of "applications storage" (the internal storage area was divided into system, applications, etc) and were running some large Android games. You could get a cheap 32GB or larger microSD card, put that in, and instantly have all the space you would need for the foreseeable future, Then, this feature was removed and apps were restricted to the "applications" area of internal storage again. It would be great if you could put apps on the SD card again.
(Yes, I know this might be possible if you root the device, but there's something to be said for building this feature right in instead of keeping it only for the people who know how to root their devices.)
If you have a purely electronic system, how will you be able to tell that a vote in the system for Candidate Y was really for Candidate Y and not an "electronic mismark" (whether intentional or due to a bug) that was actually meant for Candidate X?
If you require the electronic voting machines to have printers, you introduce more complexity which means more chances of something going wrong. Printer jams, paper running out, ink running out, people tossing the receipts instead of putting them in the slots, etc. I think that the best compromise between the instant tallying of electronic voting and the verification of paper voting is the optical scanning method. You fill in little circles on the ballot and put your ballot into a scanner. The scanner either rejects your vote (if you didn't fill in the bubbles properly) or accepts it. If it rejects it, you fix the mistake. If it accepts it, the vote is stored electronically and the paper ballot is stored for recount/spot check purposes.
Pure electronic voting, however, is worse than a solution in search of a problem. It's an abuse waiting to happen.
Yes, they are, but you can take steps to minimize this and there is a paper trail that can be followed/investigated. Electronic ballot box stuffing can be sneakier. If the code is written so that every 3rd vote for Candidate X is turned into a Candidate Y vote and Candidate X actually had 60% of the vote to Y's 40%, how will you know that Candidate Y didn't really win with 60% of the vote? (Y's 40% plus 20% from X's votes mismarked as for Y.) This can be malicious in nature from the source (the voting machine company rigging the election), malicious via hacking (tampering with the voting machine when you go in to vote), or a mistake (bad coding). In any event, there would be no way to recount the votes or double-check them. Purely electronic voting machines are too prone to failure versus paper ballots.
Our voting procedure is very simple. I walked up, told the person my name, they looked it up and had me sign on the correct line. Then, I went to another person at the next table to get my ballot and a folder. I went to those folding tables with sides for privacy and marked in the little circles to indicate who I wanted to vote for. Next, I put the ballot in the folder and walked to a machine. I put the ballot in the machine and it pulled it in, scanning in my vote. I'm unsure what happens to the paper ballot at that point, but my guess is that it drops into a receptacle to be looked at if a hand or machine recount is needed. It's the best of computer-based voting (quick tallying of the votes) and paper-based voting (easy to recount to verify the votes). Is it tamper-proof? Of course not. Someone could still "lose" a bunch of ballots during a recount, but it makes it as difficult as possible to tamper with the results without over-complicating the voting process.
I had the opportunity to use a car with GPS-enabled navigation during a trip to New York City. At one point, the GPS navigation insisted that I was driving in the middle of the Hudson river. (I was definitely *not*.) Apparently, the signals can bounce off of the tall buildings and make the GPS unit think it is somewhere else. Luckily, I wasn't relying solely on GPS navigation and wouldn't be so stupid as to drive in an area that I'm not supposed to drive just because GPS told me to. If someone is going to drive off a cliff because GPS says "turn left" and there's a cliff there, then they're likely stupid enough to turn left because Old Man McGillicutty said to turn left too early in his directions.
The same thing happened when my boys and I watched some 80's He-Man episodes. I began to cringe at how bad they were but my boys were just enjoying them too much. They didn't care that the animation was subpar or the dialog was cheesy. Their enjoyment tempered my reaction and made the entire experience more enjoyable.
Interestingly, it wasn't the "manned lion robots form humanoid robot with sword" part. I'm willing to suspend disbelief for that component. It was bad dialog, character motivation that seemed to be "the plot needs us to do X so let's do X", and unexplained, story changing events (they break out of a prison on the enemy's planet and somehow wind back up on their own planet. How? Don't worry about that... they just did.). I didn't even get to the "Why don't they use the big sword as their first weapon since it works every time and nothing else seems to" part.
Childhood memory and the progression of expectations (both in storytelling/animation and in child->adult expectations) easily turn "Fantastic series" into "Why did I ever like this?!!!!"
If having the old stuff available meant that new stuff wasn't watched, then Netflix would kill movies being released in the Box Office. After all, why watch the latest movie when there's a ton of older movies available? The answer, of course, is that the old content being in Public Domain would spur on more creativity. For example, Ghostbusters was released in 1984. It would be in the public domain. And Ghostbusters 2 - released in 1989 - would enter the Public Domain in 3 years.
This would mean that a fan could make a movie based off of Ghostbusters (perhaps with new actors taking over the roles or as a "next generation of Ghostbusters" movie). They could also make a TV show based on it. Would much of the new content based off of the Public Domain title be garbage? Sure. But that's par for the course with any new content. (How many garbage movies get released every year versus good movies?) Mixed in with the trash spin-offs, though, would be a couple of gems that could re-ignite interest in the original while taking it in a completely new direction.
It blows my mind how long we need to wait for content to get into the Public Domain. The trade-off was Content Creators get a monopoly on their work - getting to decide how it is used - as an incentive to produce more works. In return, the content creator gave the content back to society at the end of the copyright term. Giving the content back acted as fertilizer for others to create new works. Over the years, though, copyright terms lengthened and lengthened until they last 100 years or more. How does giving the Content Creator ownership of the content 70 years after his/her death give them incentive them to create more works? Are they going to rise from the dead to pen a sequel? As it stands now, they not only could pass the copyright on to their children, but to their grandchildren as well.
The balance is now thrown completely off. Content Creators don't put anything into the Public Domain now. (Ok, some people do declare their works in the Public Domain, but they are a tiny group of exceptions.) A work created today won't enter into the Public Domain (assuming the terms don't lengthen again - which is a big assumption) until the year 2134. Thankfully, this wasn't applied retroactively to 120 years in the past or we would just now be able to use content from 1894. As it stands now, the Public Domain only applies to content from 1923 - just before "the talkies" started taking hold. Here we are in 2014 and the Public Domain can't even include a movie with people talking in it.
Root Access To Society Granted.
Would you like to A) Pass oppressive new laws that otherwise wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing?, B) Accumulate more power to yourself, eroding Democracy while claiming to protect it?, or C) Both at the same time?