Natural rights come from a very basic principle whit which Christians curiosuly nowadays, specially in the US, are amusingly unaware off: "don't do into others what you don't want done nto you".
Yes, so what? I'm sure the male black widow spider would just as soon live, too. The bottom line is, THAT'S A MORAL PRINCIPLE.
Do you want to kill sombedoy?So what if I do? I won't, because it's a grossly IMMORAL THING TO DO.
Thousends of years of common culture and experience have molded an overwhelming "no" for an answer.That is not a figment of our imagination, that is human natural law in action.
However you want to slice it, humankind has constructed a MORAL CODE that prohibits murder.
Again, what about all of the other animals in the animal kingdom that indiscriminantly kill their own species, even their own young? If it were truly a natural law, then this wouldn't happen.
But the point is, it's not. It is a MORAL PRINCIPLE that we as a species have adopted. A relatively obvious one, yes, but one nonetheless.
The only reason that you don't have a natural right to murder, rape, steal from or enslave me, is because I have a natural right NOT to be killed, raped, burgled or enslaved. No other reason.
Why not? Other animals kill other animals all the time. Even their own species. Heck some animals eat their own young. What makes us different? Why do we have a natural right to life, and those other species do not?
Natural rights come from God if we're religious, and are a figment of our imagination if we are not. And we know this for the very pragmatic reason that they must be enforced by society, usually through government, if they are to have any value.
There is no morality inherent in that statement,
Don't be absurd, of course there is. Even if I were to accept this ficticious notion of natural rights, the fact that we must respect them is itself a moral issue.
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering if you could comment on the strange dichotomy which you seem to support: The idea that your moral values are correct and ought to be supported by the government, and the idea that the moral values inherent in embryonic stem-cell research ought to be cast aside.
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering why you don't understand that it's not a matter of if government legislates morality, but what morality it legislates.
Murder is a moral issue. Rape is a moral issue. Theft is a moral issue. Slavery is a moral issue. I could go on.
The point being, that like it or not, the government legislates morality; and we decide by consensus what moral codes ought to be within the jurisdiction of the government, and which should not. Even libertarians, who love to claim the high ground in situations like this, fail to escape this basic truth.
Jefe: We have really caused quite a stir about the NVFS issue! El Guapo: How big of a stir? Jefe: A big stir! El Guapo: Jefe, would you say that it is a brouhaha? Jefe: Yes, El Guapo. It is a brouhaha. El Guapo: Jefe, what is a brouhaha?
Thanks for correcting my spelling, I'll refrain from correcting yours.
Touche'
You still have not made any logical arguments or pointed out any flaws with the actual work in question
Um, that's because I never intended to, and don't now. Other people can, and are, adequately addressing the shortcomings of the story. I made a two-line comment whose effective point was, "People need to quit fighting quixotic battles to overturn this election (point #1) and look forward to ways to make sure future elections are free from even this level of controversy (point #2)."
Finally, why would you decide to categorize me with a sport's announcer, or for that matter at all?
Umm, I haven't, yet, as I said. But if you had revealed yourself as actually ascribing serious credibility to the idea that Bush stole the election, I would be entirely justified in lumping you with those who share that point of view, includingfolks like Olbermann (now of MSNBC's Countdown) who has been grasping at straws trying to prove massive election fraud (and failing miserably at it). And it would be entirely appropriate for me to do so. But then again, you might take it as a compliment; I really don't know you.
then site a politician's opinion as your expert testimony on statistics.
Not just "a politician", but the one who stands to gain the most if any of these tinfoil hat theories proved true. (Incidentally, it's "cite", not "site".)
I'm not saying Bush did not win
Glad to hear it, I'd late to lump you in the same company as Keith Olbermann.
but the election results should be inspected and analyzed by anyone and everyone.
Sure they should. That doesn't mean we shouldn't demand far better work from people who make such outlandish claims.
1. Kerry lost. Period. Even he thinks these miscount conspiracies don't add up. 2. My vote (no pun intended) is for stateless touchscreen voting machines that print out readable paper ballots which are counted in a traditional manner.
There have been lots of great responses to my original post, thanks. I certainly expected (and deserved, given the somewhat flippant tone of my post) some of the "well, duh!" posts but most of you captured my intent.
The one thing I want to respond to is the question of whether or not humans will survive any ecosystem change. I can't help but think that the answer there is "of course". One thing that separates us from all of the other animals is our ability to artifically control our local environments. I think we would find a way to protect ourselves from the most deletrious effects of an large-scale shift in the ecosystem. Even a calamity that takes out 99% of the population leaves us with tens of millions of people, plenty to move forward and find ways to survive.
Please do not misunderstand: I am not saying we should let it GET to that point. I am simply saying that it is unlikely that any of the ideas we're tossing around now are going to screw up the ecosystem SO badly that we as a species cannot survive AT ALL.
I don't think it's impossible that we drive ourselves extinct in this way, just that it is far, far, far less probable than us wiping ourselves out through violent acts (war, WMD attacks, etc.)
...that any man-made alteration of the ecosystem is necessarily bad?
Seriously. OK, so a few species will go extinct. But who's to say that some species won't flourish as a result. The ecosystem will be different, but it won't necessarily be worse. The ecosystem will adapt.
I think it's safe to say that the poisons introduced by fossil fuel burning have a net negative effect. But wind farms? I mean, solve the bird blender problem and what's the harm otherwise?
I also wonder what effect huge solar farms would have on the ecosystem. Extracting energy from sunlight that would normally heat the crust of the earth might also have an interesting impact. But again, I don't think we should automatically assume that change is bad.
Umm, this has nothing to do with Windows Media DRM. This story is all about the video codec, and that's it. In fact, neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD has adopted Microsoft's audio codec or DRM, and are not likely to.
Actually I have an AES paper on my desktop discussing the audible limitations of the 16-bit, 44.1kHz CD format. They make some pretty persuasive arguments, using experimental psychoacoustic data, for a bare minimum of 11-bits, 52kHz if you use perfect noise shaping, and 19-bit, 52kHz if you use straight linear PCM. But that's a theoretical minimum based on our hearing threshold curve. They also argue persuasively for the need to do dithering, so you really need a couple more bits than that.
On top of that, they argue that higher sampling rates allow more benign analog reconstruction filtering. On that point they admit to having less hard evidence but their arguments are persuasive nonetheless.
So while I agree with you that most people won't notice the quality improvements, DVD-A and SACD make decent audiophile formats. (Frankly, DVD-A more than SACD; alas, SACD seems to be ahead in terms of titles.)
Even the CD DRM that prevents it from being played at all on computers, DVD players and older CD players.
There's a big difference here: copy protection is not built into the CD standard, so any copy protection system necessarily violates the standard. In this case, copy protection will be built into the standard, so all players will support it.
Having said that, I have no doubt that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both will be far less flexible than CD or DVD in playback due to the protection schemes employed. Ironically, Microsoft's presence in these format discussions will work in our favor here. They are certainly going to work towards PC-compatible playback, and whatever they enable will be enabled in Linux as well by the nature of the standard.
I really wonder why they even bother. Unless they include hardware DRM to disallow access to all unauthorized programs, this WILL be cracked. And either one does do such a thing, the other one will almost assuredly win the format wars.
First of all, both formats are considering the same DRM. I suspect that there will be no differentiation between the two formats in this respect.
Secondly, don't be too sure about the ability of these DRM measures to be cracked. It is not instructive to look at DVD as a lesson; there were significant flaws in its implementation. I frankly don't think they'll make that "mistake" again. The copy control system will likely be stronger than the successful systems employed for, say, SACD and/or DVD-A, involving both hardware and software based methods.
You will need a new player to play HD-DVDs. However, you will be able to play old DVDs on these new players.
The DRM will indeed be stronger. The "AACS" system is being considered for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Over at AVS Forum we've been talking about these formats a lot, with input an industry rep on the Blu-Ray side. The DRM will not prevent good old-fashoned "insert and hit play", but it will prevent uncontrolled ripping and copying. It remains to be seen if they will support media servers and other applications but AACS does provide that capability.
I don't agree. Unlike Beta vs. VHS, we now have studios with an interest in the new technology instead of a fear of it. In fact, they are now beginning to align with the different formats.
It was the studios that ultimately forced the compromises that led to a single SD-DVD format, and I think the same will happen with Blu-Ray. Whichever format has the clear majority of titles in print wins.
Now I personally am a two-party man. I don't particularly have difficult with the two-party system. And I believe that the best way for people who lean to third-party platforms to effect change is to work through their local elections on up.
Having said that I would quite welcome an approval voting system, whereby we can vote for as many candidates that we choose for any given office. This would allow people to safely register their support for a third-party candidate while risking becoming a "spoiler" for the candidate that they frankly would tolerate if they had to. So for example, a Nader supporter could vote for both Nader and Kerry. A Constitution party supporter could vote for Peroutka and Bush.
As a result, we could all get an honest assessment of how much support and influence these third-party candidates would receive. I would still advocate a "trigger" of, say, 5-10% before a party would receive preferential treatment with regards to public funding and/or debate access. Nevertheless, I think that grassroots efforts would be far more likely to take hold in such a system.
The specific profiles chosen for DivX may not scale well to high bit rates. However, the version of MPEG4 chosen for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray supposedly works quite well for high-def material.
As people have rightly stated, I misspoke. Yes, because VC-1 is a mandatory codec, any player that expects to support Blu-Ray content will have to implement VC-1. What is true is that the studios are not required to use it; they may select any of the three formats.
However, this is a long way from saying that it will only work on Microsoft OS's. First of all, VC-1 is fully published and adopted by SMPTE. The decoder is set in stone, and as a result, nobody need worry thta Microsoft will suddenly change how HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are encoded.
Plus, because the spec is published, it will be possible to implement decoders on a variety of non-MS platforms. Yes, royalties will have to be paid if you're going to stay legal. But this is the case with MPEG4 as well---in that respect nothing has changed. And the royalty process is not going to be controlled by Microsoft but rather the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD consortia. So yes, if you insist on paying NOTHING for your media player, you may be screwed. But the royalty structure for VC-1 is actually more attractive than for MPEG4.
Finally, it's important to note that this has nothing to do with DRM. That's a separate decision process that has not yet been nailed down for either spec. Microsoft doesn't seem to be heavily involved, at least in that they don't seem to have much traction promoting their own DRM technology. At the same time, having Microsoft and Dell and HP in these consortia is only helping to make sure that these formats are PC playable.
Still, I think people should be far more concerned about the DRM schemes being considered for these formats than the selection of a Microsoft codec.
For the record, Blu-Ray also has MPEG2 and MPEG4 AVC High Profile as mandatory codecs. So it's not like anyone is forced to use VC-1.
It might seem surprising that they would mandate 3 codecs, due to the added complexity of supporting them together. But it turns out that once you've implemented an MPEG4 decoder in silicon, VC-1 is not that difficult to add on. As for MPEG2, that's needed for back compatability, but as anyone who uses DivX knows, it's far less efficient than modern codecs.
Slashdot Mirror
Natural rights come from a very basic principle whit which Christians curiosuly nowadays, specially in the US, are amusingly unaware off: "don't do into others what you don't want done nto you".
Yes, so what? I'm sure the male black widow spider would just as soon live, too. The bottom line is, THAT'S A MORAL PRINCIPLE.
Do you want to kill sombedoy?So what if I do? I won't, because it's a grossly IMMORAL THING TO DO.
Thousends of years of common culture and experience have molded an overwhelming "no" for an answer.That is not a figment of our imagination, that is human natural law in action.
However you want to slice it, humankind has constructed a MORAL CODE that prohibits murder.
Again, what about all of the other animals in the animal kingdom that indiscriminantly kill their own species, even their own young? If it were truly a natural law, then this wouldn't happen.
But the point is, it's not. It is a MORAL PRINCIPLE that we as a species have adopted. A relatively obvious one, yes, but one nonetheless.
Why not? Other animals kill other animals all the time. Even their own species. Heck some animals eat their own young. What makes us different? Why do we have a natural right to life, and those other species do not?
Natural rights come from God if we're religious, and are a figment of our imagination if we are not. And we know this for the very pragmatic reason that they must be enforced by society, usually through government, if they are to have any value.
There is no morality inherent in that statement,
Don't be absurd, of course there is. Even if I were to accept this ficticious notion of natural rights, the fact that we must respect them is itself a moral issue.
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering why you don't understand that it's not a matter of if government legislates morality, but what morality it legislates.
Murder is a moral issue. Rape is a moral issue. Theft is a moral issue. Slavery is a moral issue. I could go on.
The point being, that like it or not, the government legislates morality; and we decide by consensus what moral codes ought to be within the jurisdiction of the government, and which should not. Even libertarians, who love to claim the high ground in situations like this, fail to escape this basic truth.
You guys seem to be assuming that the cost to the distributor is $100. I see no indication of that at all. Maybe $100 is the intended retail price.
Jefe: We have really caused quite a stir about the NVFS issue!
El Guapo: How big of a stir?
Jefe: A big stir!
El Guapo: Jefe, would you say that it is a brouhaha?
Jefe: Yes, El Guapo. It is a brouhaha.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a brouhaha?
Touche'
You still have not made any logical arguments or pointed out any flaws with the actual work in question
Um, that's because I never intended to, and don't now. Other people can, and are, adequately addressing the shortcomings of the story. I made a two-line comment whose effective point was, "People need to quit fighting quixotic battles to overturn this election (point #1) and look forward to ways to make sure future elections are free from even this level of controversy (point #2)."
Finally, why would you decide to categorize me with a sport's announcer, or for that matter at all?
Umm, I haven't, yet, as I said. But if you had revealed yourself as actually ascribing serious credibility to the idea that Bush stole the election, I would be entirely justified in lumping you with those who share that point of view, includingfolks like Olbermann (now of MSNBC's Countdown) who has been grasping at straws trying to prove massive election fraud (and failing miserably at it). And it would be entirely appropriate for me to do so. But then again, you might take it as a compliment; I really don't know you.
Not just "a politician", but the one who stands to gain the most if any of these tinfoil hat theories proved true. (Incidentally, it's "cite", not "site".)
I'm not saying Bush did not win
Glad to hear it, I'd late to lump you in the same company as Keith Olbermann.
but the election results should be inspected and analyzed by anyone and everyone.
Sure they should. That doesn't mean we shouldn't demand far better work from people who make such outlandish claims.
1. Kerry lost. Period. Even he thinks these miscount conspiracies don't add up.
2. My vote (no pun intended) is for stateless touchscreen voting machines that print out readable paper ballots which are counted in a traditional manner.
There have been lots of great responses to my original post, thanks. I certainly expected (and deserved, given the somewhat flippant tone of my post) some of the "well, duh!" posts but most of you captured my intent.
The one thing I want to respond to is the question of whether or not humans will survive any ecosystem change. I can't help but think that the answer there is "of course". One thing that separates us from all of the other animals is our ability to artifically control our local environments. I think we would find a way to protect ourselves from the most deletrious effects of an large-scale shift in the ecosystem. Even a calamity that takes out 99% of the population leaves us with tens of millions of people, plenty to move forward and find ways to survive.
Please do not misunderstand: I am not saying we should let it GET to that point. I am simply saying that it is unlikely that any of the ideas we're tossing around now are going to screw up the ecosystem SO badly that we as a species cannot survive AT ALL.
I don't think it's impossible that we drive ourselves extinct in this way, just that it is far, far, far less probable than us wiping ourselves out through violent acts (war, WMD attacks, etc.)
...that any man-made alteration of the ecosystem is necessarily bad?
Seriously. OK, so a few species will go extinct. But who's to say that some species won't flourish as a result. The ecosystem will be different, but it won't necessarily be worse. The ecosystem will adapt.
I think it's safe to say that the poisons introduced by fossil fuel burning have a net negative effect. But wind farms? I mean, solve the bird blender problem and what's the harm otherwise?
I also wonder what effect huge solar farms would have on the ecosystem. Extracting energy from sunlight that would normally heat the crust of the earth might also have an interesting impact. But again, I don't think we should automatically assume that change is bad.
Are they going to prevent PPV movies from being burned to DVD? (Do they now?) That seems like one workaround to the autodelete problem.
I believe that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are looking at AACS.
http://www.aacsla.com/
Umm, this has nothing to do with Windows Media DRM. This story is all about the video codec, and that's it. In fact, neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD has adopted Microsoft's audio codec or DRM, and are not likely to.
On top of that, they argue that higher sampling rates allow more benign analog reconstruction filtering. On that point they admit to having less hard evidence but their arguments are persuasive nonetheless.
So while I agree with you that most people won't notice the quality improvements, DVD-A and SACD make decent audiophile formats. (Frankly, DVD-A more than SACD; alas, SACD seems to be ahead in terms of titles.)
If the market is large enough, a Linux HD-DVD player will be developed.
But if people expect it for free (beer), then I agree with you, it ain't gonna happen.
There's a big difference here: copy protection is not built into the CD standard, so any copy protection system necessarily violates the standard. In this case, copy protection will be built into the standard, so all players will support it.
Having said that, I have no doubt that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both will be far less flexible than CD or DVD in playback due to the protection schemes employed. Ironically, Microsoft's presence in these format discussions will work in our favor here. They are certainly going to work towards PC-compatible playback, and whatever they enable will be enabled in Linux as well by the nature of the standard.
First of all, both formats are considering the same DRM. I suspect that there will be no differentiation between the two formats in this respect.
Secondly, don't be too sure about the ability of these DRM measures to be cracked. It is not instructive to look at DVD as a lesson; there were significant flaws in its implementation. I frankly don't think they'll make that "mistake" again. The copy control system will likely be stronger than the successful systems employed for, say, SACD and/or DVD-A, involving both hardware and software based methods.
You will need a new player to play HD-DVDs. However, you will be able to play old DVDs on these new players.
The DRM will indeed be stronger. The "AACS" system is being considered for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Over at AVS Forum we've been talking about these formats a lot, with input an industry rep on the Blu-Ray side. The DRM will not prevent good old-fashoned "insert and hit play", but it will prevent uncontrolled ripping and copying. It remains to be seen if they will support media servers and other applications but AACS does provide that capability.
It was the studios that ultimately forced the compromises that led to a single SD-DVD format, and I think the same will happen with Blu-Ray. Whichever format has the clear majority of titles in print wins.
I love how it can balance on its back two wheels with such little effort.
It seems to me that these Segway folks could harness that balancing technology to make a scooter with only two wheels. Now that would be cool.
Now I personally am a two-party man. I don't particularly have difficult with the two-party system. And I believe that the best way for people who lean to third-party platforms to effect change is to work through their local elections on up.
Having said that I would quite welcome an approval voting system, whereby we can vote for as many candidates that we choose for any given office. This would allow people to safely register their support for a third-party candidate while risking becoming a "spoiler" for the candidate that they frankly would tolerate if they had to. So for example, a Nader supporter could vote for both Nader and Kerry. A Constitution party supporter could vote for Peroutka and Bush.
As a result, we could all get an honest assessment of how much support and influence these third-party candidates would receive. I would still advocate a "trigger" of, say, 5-10% before a party would receive preferential treatment with regards to public funding and/or debate access. Nevertheless, I think that grassroots efforts would be far more likely to take hold in such a system.
The specific profiles chosen for DivX may not scale well to high bit rates. However, the version of MPEG4 chosen for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray supposedly works quite well for high-def material.
If you meen "free" as in beer, then that was true even BEFORE the Microsoft codec was adopted. You don't think MPEG4 was royalty-free, do you?
As people have rightly stated, I misspoke. Yes, because VC-1 is a mandatory codec, any player that expects to support Blu-Ray content will have to implement VC-1. What is true is that the studios are not required to use it; they may select any of the three formats.
However, this is a long way from saying that it will only work on Microsoft OS's. First of all, VC-1 is fully published and adopted by SMPTE. The decoder is set in stone, and as a result, nobody need worry thta Microsoft will suddenly change how HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are encoded.
Plus, because the spec is published, it will be possible to implement decoders on a variety of non-MS platforms. Yes, royalties will have to be paid if you're going to stay legal. But this is the case with MPEG4 as well---in that respect nothing has changed. And the royalty process is not going to be controlled by Microsoft but rather the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD consortia. So yes, if you insist on paying NOTHING for your media player, you may be screwed. But the royalty structure for VC-1 is actually more attractive than for MPEG4.
Finally, it's important to note that this has nothing to do with DRM. That's a separate decision process that has not yet been nailed down for either spec. Microsoft doesn't seem to be heavily involved, at least in that they don't seem to have much traction promoting their own DRM technology. At the same time, having Microsoft and Dell and HP in these consortia is only helping to make sure that these formats are PC playable.
Still, I think people should be far more concerned about the DRM schemes being considered for these formats than the selection of a Microsoft codec.
For the record, Blu-Ray also has MPEG2 and MPEG4 AVC High Profile as mandatory codecs. So it's not like anyone is forced to use VC-1.
It might seem surprising that they would mandate 3 codecs, due to the added complexity of supporting them together. But it turns out that once you've implemented an MPEG4 decoder in silicon, VC-1 is not that difficult to add on. As for MPEG2, that's needed for back compatability, but as anyone who uses DivX knows, it's far less efficient than modern codecs.