And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.
Snub legal-critique from someone who isn't a lawyer, and begins his comments the the oh-so-constructive 'slashdot has really lost it' bit. I bet you're also that type that whines because 'limp bizkit has lost it', or 'simpsons has gotten less funny by the week', and 'shit just doesn't stink like it used to'. Definitely deserving of the score of 5.
Is a fucking OPT-IN standard so much to ask? "Wouldn't it be nice to change the settings on your TV so your 4-year-old isn't getting the Victoria's Secret ads?" Fuck you Ben Isaacson. I've never wanted so badly to punch someone in the jaw. You greedy whore.
This ruling is nothing of the sort, and I think you'd agree with some more thought on the subject. It applies to misrepresentation, and I've seen all sorts of hoopla about how it's forced speech, but it should fall under the category of illegalizing deceptive advertising, cause that's what it is. And if anyone wants to tell me that laws against advertising that outright lies is unconstitutional, well, I could use a good laugh.
PErsonally I don't believe that there's an ounce of logic in giving a business comprised of people with rights rights of it's own. It's an it, and a marketing business doesn't have 1st amendment rights as far as I'm concerned.
Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.
AOL Time Warner accounts for around 1/5 of all media in the country. It's a big deal because in places like my hometown, Time Warner is the ONLY cable provider -- meaning they control EVERYTHING that EVERYONE SEES on TV. I live in Charlotte, NC, population 600,000. But TW-Cable goes beyond Charlotte, and serves most of the 6 million people who live within a 100 mile radius. It's a big deal because people don't hear about things like this if Time Warner doesn't WANT them to. And it's a big deal because they can manipulate people into complacent lazy asses who would defend Time Warner over the rights of their own family and friends. Are there any good reasons to oppose diversity of choice?? And for god sakes, make up your mind. Maybe you just like to argue.
I'll at least agree to one thing; it's time to turn off the TV, people. I lost my cable for two weeks when I moved, and now I barely watch TV at all. I just didn't miss it. I get my news online or on NPR if I'm driving. If I want news on TV, I watch the Daily Show, because it has just as much integrity as any of that other tripe. Other than that, I only turn it on to watch the House or Senate when I'm following a bill or politician. As cliche as it is, that idiot box really does rot the minds of the population. Knowing I'm surrounded by people who consider "Survivor" to be stimulating entertainment is depressing. The country would be better off if people pulled the plug and started thinking with their own brains more often. And I'm not saying "read a book, be intellectual like me" -- I'm a movie buff, myself. I'm saying 99% of TV is garbage or commercials trying to sell you garbage, provided by companies like TiVo and Time Warner who monitor your taste in garbage so that they know what other brands of garbage to offer you.
*ahem*
FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY, YOU CAN GET FREEDOM, ON SALE, AT THE LOWEST PRICE EVER!!! YES FRIENDS, IT'S TRUE! I'M NOT PULLING YOUR LEG! JUST TAKE THAT TELEVISION OF YOURS, PUSH IT OUT TO THE CURB, AND WA-LA! RAISES IQ! SAVES MONEY! COULD POSSIBLY RESULT IN YOU PRODUCING A CURE FOR LIFE THREATENING DISEASES, AS A RESULT OF INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY! ACT NOW!!!!'
"In addition, any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DCMA")."
And what exactly is your stake in this, Mr. 'I have only one post, and it's a pre-written statement'?
I'd really love an idea like that to get off the ground, but I don't think emusic is it.
"EMusic deals largely with record labels and occasionally with artists. All subscription revenue is split 50/50 with the label that owns the recording. The amount that the artist receives depends on the contract that they have with their record label."
Replace Quebec protests with the Seattle protests and you have the same police brutality, plus media coverage that blamed 'those damnable peaceful protesters!'
How long before Skyward or some other business, sells the information parents receive through this program? Kids habits and tastes are valuable to marketers, and plenty of schools eagerly seek out corporate funding. Will Skyward sell the information to businesses, or will schools cut out the middle-man and sell it themselves?
How many third parties will get a hold of the information when they aren't supposed to?
Can information collected on state property (schools) be held from the Government, if they demand access?
Maybe you should address their concerns instead of just stating that they're not 'clued-in'. When I see responses like this I know people are becoming MORE clued-in. But if you can defend the problem, and explain how a corporation deserves the rights of an individual when it's already comprised of individuals with rights, and when it's rights were previously outlined through corporate law, then please do.
This is my problem with the Libertarian party, and you've summed it up nicely. They understand what's right and what's wrong, but they're so misguided by anti-government rhetoric that they blind themselves to any possibility that a greedy, money-making machine, might be as big a problem as an oppressive government. Corporations are made up of people with rights like you and I, but the 'fascist government' you despise gave the corporation itself, the rights of an individual. A soulless machine with profit as it's only priority, has the same constitutional rights as a person with morals and ethics. These 'benefits' are bought and paid for, but despite the fact that they're sold by a corrupt government (that I imagine you agree is a problem), liberals can't see beyond a starry-eyed dream of 'capitalism in a free market'. At least, not long enough to admit that Corporate America is just as problematic. The founding fathers wrote corporate law for a reason, and it became unenforceable when corporations won the rights of a person. We can't restrict people from owning more than one home or business, we can't restrict their free speech, or their right to support an elected official with their hard-earned money. So now we can't Viacom/Infinity from owning half the radio stations in the country; now laws that regulate how many they can own are being misconstrued and shot down as 'unconstitutional'. We can't keep corporations from burying our government in bribes, because the money they spend is protected by the freaking 1st amendment! And when they use their mass-media ownership to give the entire country breaking news on crib safety instead of corporate welfare, there's nothing we can do but pile up on the couch and kiss democracy good-bye -- because corporate america is the American dream! A pristine ideal of profit in the free world! Besides, who cares about a little plutocaracy? If we don't watch dateline tonight our babies might die!!
Speculation accomplishes nothing, but I will say that it personally bugs me to see stories like this posted, only to see Slashdot continue to, at least, appear to be a part-time billboard for new Sony products.
And while I'm sort of on the subject, I really think that this disclaimer should be a requirement.
"Principals of Slashdot and Andover.net may have investments in the stocks of the companies discussed on this site and will disclose any interest if they are posting a story about those companies or their products. Contributors to this site may or may not have an interest in a company or product they are discussing. The decision to disclose that information is theirs to make."
Ahhhhhh, that is an interesting idea, and one I'd be interested to see. BUT, consider this -- will a webcam restrict peoples' freedom just as surveilance cameras on the streets do? Wouldn't someone be afraid to express themselves with a camera watching?
I couldn't agree more. Call me sappy, but reading a story like this is a really uplifting thing for me. Everyday it seems that I wake up to a new injustice. A CIPA, a UCITA, a CPRM, a new report on money in politics ignored by M$NBC because they helped put the money there, lives ruined in a drug war, lives taken in a legalized cartel. The frustration builds until it seems hopeless -- and then it's all erased by one day in a story like this one.
Anyway, enough with the mushy stuff, I just hope I'll be first in line.
I can tell you're quite a contribution to it. In all those words you added nothing but more insults, repeated what had been said already, and didn't explain why it needed to be said again or why I still didn't understand. You get off on flaming people to boost your ego, and the entire internet would be better off without people like you. If I'm wrong, please show me anything at all that your response accomplished, besides keeping this thread going.
I'm not even sure why this is a story. Asus originally proposed this back in July of 2000. I emailed that in on the last story, but I guess it didn't get read. Asus had plenty of time to think on this, and in fact, they met with just as much criticism in 2000. If this is anything, it's a publicity stunt, or possibly one last effort at getting these drivers out in hopes of monopolizing the market for 3D cards.
What I meant by 'drew a connection' was that I thought GM owned Ford because of the url 2600 used. In other words, at the time, I didn't see anything that would've explained to me why the address would contain 'generalmotors' and point to ford, so I assumed they had a partnership of some kind. You two must really get off on correcting other people if you're willing to take the time insulting something that apparently made no sense.
I don't use cookies and I don't register at NY Times. Since the site that pissed Ford off is fuckgeneralmotors.com (linked in the story) I drew a connection.
I don't see how General Motors has a cause at all. And if they do, better start hiding any hyperlinks you might have used to say something sucks. When you use your page to point visitors (via worded-link) to something that you think blows, you could argue that people aren't even sure what they're going to until they get there. They click a word like 'blows' and it takes them to something which may or may not blow. Hell, if people are as stupid as GM would have us believe, then anyone who clicked that last link is forever convinced that GM BLOWS. But obviously, this is just me expressing my opinion. The issue I'm making is that for GM to have a case, they would have to argue even beyond my use of links, by saying that someone who goes to fuckgeneralmotors.com might be confused, or might think that GM is somehow involved with it, and thusly wants to fuck themselves. GM wants to argue that people don't have the right to link to them in a critical manner, and that people who do are misusing their bandwidth by linking to a publicly accessable website, that is a completely valid target for criticism or parody.
When I read about this earlier on Politech, someone commented that....
"Canada might be a
kind country with a kind government, but not so kind as to
jeopardise its relations with the US for Keith's sake by
declaring the US a country that does not respect human rights,
which is exactly what a country does when it grants asylum to
the citizen of another country."
And frankly I'm starting to believe that this is exactly what the Canadian Government should declare.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank god we have AOL/TW to compete against Microsoft -- they're such a wonderful alternative to an obvious monopoly.
And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.
Snub legal-critique from someone who isn't a lawyer, and begins his comments the the oh-so-constructive 'slashdot has really lost it' bit. I bet you're also that type that whines because 'limp bizkit has lost it', or 'simpsons has gotten less funny by the week', and 'shit just doesn't stink like it used to'. Definitely deserving of the score of 5.
My guess would be that we're providing them cheap slave labor. Little do they know, that my clone will drive them insane with incessant whining.
Is a fucking OPT-IN standard so much to ask? "Wouldn't it be nice to change the settings on your TV so your 4-year-old isn't getting the Victoria's Secret ads?" Fuck you Ben Isaacson. I've never wanted so badly to punch someone in the jaw. You greedy whore.
This ruling is nothing of the sort, and I think you'd agree with some more thought on the subject. It applies to misrepresentation, and I've seen all sorts of hoopla about how it's forced speech, but it should fall under the category of illegalizing deceptive advertising, cause that's what it is. And if anyone wants to tell me that laws against advertising that outright lies is unconstitutional, well, I could use a good laugh.
PErsonally I don't believe that there's an ounce of logic in giving a business comprised of people with rights rights of it's own. It's an it, and a marketing business doesn't have 1st amendment rights as far as I'm concerned.
Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.
What a nutcase! Damn communist, that's what he was.
AOL Time Warner accounts for around 1/5 of all media in the country. It's a big deal because in places like my hometown, Time Warner is the ONLY cable provider -- meaning they control EVERYTHING that EVERYONE SEES on TV. I live in Charlotte, NC, population 600,000. But TW-Cable goes beyond Charlotte, and serves most of the 6 million people who live within a 100 mile radius. It's a big deal because people don't hear about things like this if Time Warner doesn't WANT them to. And it's a big deal because they can manipulate people into complacent lazy asses who would defend Time Warner over the rights of their own family and friends. Are there any good reasons to oppose diversity of choice?? And for god sakes, make up your mind. Maybe you just like to argue.
I'll at least agree to one thing; it's time to turn off the TV, people. I lost my cable for two weeks when I moved, and now I barely watch TV at all. I just didn't miss it. I get my news online or on NPR if I'm driving. If I want news on TV, I watch the Daily Show, because it has just as much integrity as any of that other tripe. Other than that, I only turn it on to watch the House or Senate when I'm following a bill or politician. As cliche as it is, that idiot box really does rot the minds of the population. Knowing I'm surrounded by people who consider "Survivor" to be stimulating entertainment is depressing. The country would be better off if people pulled the plug and started thinking with their own brains more often. And I'm not saying "read a book, be intellectual like me" -- I'm a movie buff, myself. I'm saying 99% of TV is garbage or commercials trying to sell you garbage, provided by companies like TiVo and Time Warner who monitor your taste in garbage so that they know what other brands of garbage to offer you.
*ahem*
FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY, YOU CAN GET FREEDOM, ON SALE, AT THE LOWEST PRICE EVER!!! YES FRIENDS, IT'S TRUE! I'M NOT PULLING YOUR LEG! JUST TAKE THAT TELEVISION OF YOURS, PUSH IT OUT TO THE CURB, AND WA-LA! RAISES IQ! SAVES MONEY! COULD POSSIBLY RESULT IN YOU PRODUCING A CURE FOR LIFE THREATENING DISEASES, AS A RESULT OF INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY! ACT NOW!!!!'
Replace Quebec protests with the Seattle protests and you have the same police brutality, plus media coverage that blamed 'those damnable peaceful protesters!'
Will kids be brought up to think that having an authority figure constantly monitoring them is ok?
Do kids have privacy rights or not?
How long before Skyward or some other business, sells the information parents receive through this program? Kids habits and tastes are valuable to marketers, and plenty of schools eagerly seek out corporate funding. Will Skyward sell the information to businesses, or will schools cut out the middle-man and sell it themselves?
How many third parties will get a hold of the information when they aren't supposed to?
Can information collected on state property (schools) be held from the Government, if they demand access?
Give this man a cookie.
I don't think anyone actually wakes up in the morning and sets out to chip away at their own rights and freedoms. Ignorance is the worst form of evil.
Maybe you should address their concerns instead of just stating that they're not 'clued-in'. When I see responses like this I know people are becoming MORE clued-in. But if you can defend the problem, and explain how a corporation deserves the rights of an individual when it's already comprised of individuals with rights, and when it's rights were previously outlined through corporate law, then please do.
This is my problem with the Libertarian party, and you've summed it up nicely. They understand what's right and what's wrong, but they're so misguided by anti-government rhetoric that they blind themselves to any possibility that a greedy, money-making machine, might be as big a problem as an oppressive government. Corporations are made up of people with rights like you and I, but the 'fascist government' you despise gave the corporation itself, the rights of an individual. A soulless machine with profit as it's only priority, has the same constitutional rights as a person with morals and ethics. These 'benefits' are bought and paid for, but despite the fact that they're sold by a corrupt government (that I imagine you agree is a problem), liberals can't see beyond a starry-eyed dream of 'capitalism in a free market'. At least, not long enough to admit that Corporate America is just as problematic. The founding fathers wrote corporate law for a reason, and it became unenforceable when corporations won the rights of a person. We can't restrict people from owning more than one home or business, we can't restrict their free speech, or their right to support an elected official with their hard-earned money. So now we can't Viacom/Infinity from owning half the radio stations in the country; now laws that regulate how many they can own are being misconstrued and shot down as 'unconstitutional'. We can't keep corporations from burying our government in bribes, because the money they spend is protected by the freaking 1st amendment! And when they use their mass-media ownership to give the entire country breaking news on crib safety instead of corporate welfare, there's nothing we can do but pile up on the couch and kiss democracy good-bye -- because corporate america is the American dream! A pristine ideal of profit in the free world! Besides, who cares about a little plutocaracy? If we don't watch dateline tonight our babies might die!!
/vent
And while I'm sort of on the subject, I really think that this disclaimer should be a requirement.
Ahhhhhh, that is an interesting idea, and one I'd be interested to see. BUT, consider this -- will a webcam restrict peoples' freedom just as surveilance cameras on the streets do? Wouldn't someone be afraid to express themselves with a camera watching?
I couldn't agree more. Call me sappy, but reading a story like this is a really uplifting thing for me. Everyday it seems that I wake up to a new injustice. A CIPA, a UCITA, a CPRM, a new report on money in politics ignored by M$NBC because they helped put the money there, lives ruined in a drug war, lives taken in a legalized cartel. The frustration builds until it seems hopeless -- and then it's all erased by one day in a story like this one.
Anyway, enough with the mushy stuff, I just hope I'll be first in line.
I can tell you're quite a contribution to it. In all those words you added nothing but more insults, repeated what had been said already, and didn't explain why it needed to be said again or why I still didn't understand. You get off on flaming people to boost your ego, and the entire internet would be better off without people like you. If I'm wrong, please show me anything at all that your response accomplished, besides keeping this thread going.
I'm not even sure why this is a story. Asus originally proposed this back in July of 2000. I emailed that in on the last story, but I guess it didn't get read. Asus had plenty of time to think on this, and in fact, they met with just as much criticism in 2000. If this is anything, it's a publicity stunt, or possibly one last effort at getting these drivers out in hopes of monopolizing the market for 3D cards.
What I meant by 'drew a connection' was that I thought GM owned Ford because of the url 2600 used. In other words, at the time, I didn't see anything that would've explained to me why the address would contain 'generalmotors' and point to ford, so I assumed they had a partnership of some kind. You two must really get off on correcting other people if you're willing to take the time insulting something that apparently made no sense.
I don't use cookies and I don't register at NY Times. Since the site that pissed Ford off is fuckgeneralmotors.com (linked in the story) I drew a connection.
I don't see how General Motors has a cause at all. And if they do, better start hiding any hyperlinks you might have used to say something sucks. When you use your page to point visitors (via worded-link) to something that you think blows, you could argue that people aren't even sure what they're going to until they get there. They click a word like 'blows' and it takes them to something which may or may not blow. Hell, if people are as stupid as GM would have us believe, then anyone who clicked that last link is forever convinced that GM BLOWS. But obviously, this is just me expressing my opinion. The issue I'm making is that for GM to have a case, they would have to argue even beyond my use of links, by saying that someone who goes to fuckgeneralmotors.com might be confused, or might think that GM is somehow involved with it, and thusly wants to fuck themselves. GM wants to argue that people don't have the right to link to them in a critical manner, and that people who do are misusing their bandwidth by linking to a publicly accessable website, that is a completely valid target for criticism or parody.
www.fuckgeneralmotors.com
www.fuckgeneralmotors.com
Is there a difference?
Note to self: generalizing millions of people who share a hobby as "stupid" because games are so "cheatable" is insightful and interesting.