London has a congestion charging system that requires drivers travelling into a centrally-located zone. The cameras are located at the zone boundary and track only the registration numbers (licence plates) of those vehicles that enter the zone between 7.00am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. This is done only to record which vehicles need to pay the charge on any given day; nothing more, nothing less.
All data, except in the case of vehicles that do not pay the charge within the alloted time (for which data is kept as evidence until payment is resolved), is deleted within 24 hours. This, together with other information on the scheme can be found on its official web site.
Want to explain how? The government is exempt from the Data Protection Act so asking the government for "your file" and getting anything back seems like fiction. Care to explain just exactly how he went about it?
Frankly, what you're suggesting seems so unlikely that I'm inclined to call "bullshit".
Either way, my original post stands: the government doesn't have a network of cameras tracking the individual. If they did, crime would be non-existant: the fact that it isn't only further proves my point. In fact, the majority of CCTV cameras that you'll come across in the UK are privately operated, in stores, car parks, on public transport systems, etc. And I can tell you from experience that these aren't networked in any meaningful way.
Yeah, right. I find it hilarious that people really believe that there's a blanket network of cameras in the UK to track individuals no matter where they go.
You and every other fool who perpetuates this myth needs to stop believing every half-assed "news" story that they read.
1. Zone Alarm Pro (software firewall) 2. Ad-Aware (spyware killer) 3. Sophos Anti-Virus (anti-virus package) 4. Opera (browser that Mozilla, etc play catch-up to) 5. Eudora plus Hotmail Popper (email client, plus applet that allows POP3 access to Hotmail) 6. Winzip / WinRAR (compression tools) 7. Winamp (media player) 8. Adobe Reader (PDF reader) 9. dBpowerAMP (fantastic audio ripping tool) 10. Azureus (Java-based BitTorrent client)
In fact, that set up is what I would consider to be "bare bones". Some people might prefer different applications (AVG instead of Sophos, Firefox instead of Opera, etc) but those are the tools that every PC user should have.
Here in Britain, what Americans call an ATM we call a cashpoint: simple and to the point. Similarly, nobody over here talks about VCRs, they talk about videos and an SUV is just called a 4x4 (pronounced "four by four").
I'm sure the distinction between the US and UK names for these products is purely down to marketing. However, it does seem to me that Americans love acronyms more than their British counterparts. Don't ask me why, but it just seems to be true.
As to why "Tivo" sticks more than "DVR", as many others have pointed out, it's because product names are often more memorable than the products they describe. Hoover, Kleenex, Polaroid, Walkman, PC, Photoshop, FireWire, even iPod, are all examples of brands that have become generic terms that have grown beyond their original definitions. In that regard, Tivo is no different.
I call this hotel room guest syndrome: nothing was missing/broken during your stay, it was like that when you got there.
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
You, sir, are either a troll or a fool who likes the sound of his own voice.
You asked for evidence, so I gave you evidence. Then you attack that evidence, without actually bothering to read it, calling it "stupidity and superstition".
Without looking at more than the article summary, which is intentionally short and simple, you dismiss the paper as being "pervaded with... things that I despise". Gee, way to keep an open mind there, Bob. And I thought that when you said you wanted proof, you really meant that you wanted proof.
In case you didn't notice, this paper was written by scientists from three respected universities and the Met Office, which is the British Government's independent meteorlogical institute and one of the oldest and most foremost weather and climate observation organisations. None of the paper's authors are fly-by-night merchants, and their evidence is clearly laid out, but yet you're able to magically determine that it's all mumbo jumbo just by browsing two lines on the cover sheet.
By the way, have you never seen a scientific paper before? They all have basic summaries, so why you feel the need to ridicule this paper's one for being so plainspoken and to the point is a mystery.
The rest of your post, just like your previous ones, is full of petty pedantry, quibbling over semantics and transposition of your thoughts and beliefs onto mine just so that you can more easily use my words as a punchbag. I'm not interested in what you want to twist my words to say, I'm interested in the science of the situation.
I started this whole debate off by saying that "Maybe because climate change caused by global warming is potentially (note, I said potentially) a man-made disaster waiting to happen", which is a pretty unambiguous statement, and one that makes no claims either way about what will happen. Heck, I intentionally used the word "potentially" there and then went to the trouble of pointing that I used it intentionally because I approach the future with an open mind.
Unfortunately, with your dismissive approach (asking for scientific proof, then dismissing it without so much as a glance when you're given it) an open mind is the one thing that you're sorely lacking.
I'm sure you'll add a reply to this comment but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply. You've already shown a disdain for anything resembling rational debate and a dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares disagree with you so I won't waste my time with further replies to someone who has clearly demonstrated a lack of objectivity.
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I see, anyone who's at all concerned about this situation should automatically go back to living in a cave? Right. Grow a brain AC.
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
As someone who is agnostic leaning towards athiesm, I take issue with your acribing the word "miracle" to only have a religious context: the modern usage of the word has evolved way beyond religion and is commonly used to refer to exceptional and/or improbable events beyond probability (eg, "a miraculous recovery", "Music City Miracle"): perhaps you've even heard of the phrase "miracle of modern science"?
Whatever evidence I provide here will no doubt be ridiculed by you in some way, shape or form, but here's just one recent story you could read and then look into further if you really have an open mind:
"The Greenland ice-sheet would melt faster in a warmer climate and is likely to be eliminated - except for residual glaciers in the mountains - if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 3 C. This could raise the global average sea-level by 7 metres over a period of 1,000 years or more. We show here that concentrations of greenhouse gases
will probably have reached levels before the year 2100 that are sufficient to raise the temperature past this warming threshold."
(Emphasis added by me, to clearly illustrate my point.)
Frankly though, the fact that you need me to find material that you could quite easily google for shows me that you're the kind of individual that's unwilling to accept anything that isn't staring them directly in the face.
Lastly, it's you that turned this into a debate about the political agendas of the left or the right; I simply pointed out that climate change was a hot potato that no politician (well, no politician belonging to any mainstream political party) was willing to handle.
The reason for this political apathy is mostly because the environment is way down the most people's list of priorities when it comes to deciding how to caste their vote. However, just because the issue doesn't engage the electorate as much as, say, terrorism or the economy that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored. On the contrary, it may be the one thing that politicians should least ignore but it'll probably remain on the back-burner for far too long.
I look forward to your more informed retort once you've actually read the article.
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
How the hell you can bring religion into this is amazing. We're talking about measurable climate change and the impact it has upon our environment, not Noah's Ark, so please refrain from taking a tangent off in completely another direction.
As to your belief that the our actions aren't effecting our environment to "a measurable degree", well, that's a nice "I'll stick my head in the sand and pretend it's all nature at work" attitude. That man can profoundly effect his environment, through pollution, deforestation, etc isn't deniable but you choose to deny it anyway.
That you dismiss all related science as "superstitious", "leftist", etc is incredible. Science is science: don't try to politicise or subvert it to suit your own agenda; stick to the facts please.
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 2
Uh, I think you'll find that their is a large proportion of ice being supported by Greenland. This isn't ice floating on water, it's ice that's on land, and if it melts then we're in serious shit. Just this month, scientists released data about what would happen if that ice were to melt. A 7-8 metre rise in global sea levels is not something to joke about.
If you're going to try and ridicule someone then at least back it up with knowledge. Not for my sake (I could care less if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing's happening) but the sake of those you are trying to convince.
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
I've never suggested that man is in control of the climate, only that man has an effect on it: the two are two very different things. The former is from the pages of science fiction, the later is science fact.
Re:Maybe it is because we are skeptical...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We humans can adapt to environmental change but what about the rest of the food chain? If you think that adaptation is the solution then you're sadly mistaken.
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Your entire post is, frankly, complete and utter bullshit.
Ever heard of deforestation? Or of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels? Don't you think these things have any effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Do you know how much CO2 has been released since the dawn of the industrial revolution? Or that in nature it sometimes only takes a change of a few percent here or there to have catastrophic effects on an ecosystem?
Do you know that the US produces and consumes 25 percent of the world's power and yet has only 4 percent of the world's population? Yet you think that the US has a negative effect on CO2 production?
Where did you learn all the crap that you're spouting? A Halliburton "fact" sheet?
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe because climate change caused by global warming is potentially (note, I said potentially) a man-made disaster waiting to happen, whereas drilling down to the Earth's core isn't actually happening and being hit by an asteroid the size of Texas is highly unlikely for the immediate future.
The attitude of a lot of people here on Slashdot with regards to global warming amazes me. This is something that could possibly devastate society as we know it, perhaps not for us, but for our children or our children's children, but there's a great many people who either dismiss it as never going to happen or something that can be easily controlled without any major shifts in lifestyle or attitude.
Someone once said "This is a fragile ball we're living on. It's a miracle and we're destroying it." That's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than any politician, especially any politician who's made a killing from exploiting fossil fuels, will ever admit to.
Let's make one thing clear: the law as it stands makes you a criminal for possessing any video recording device whilst in a cinema, regardless of whether it's switched on off and in your backpack, or whether it's on and in your hand. That's a bad thing: it's the equivalent of punishing someone for having a packet of cigarettes in their pocket when they visit a non-smoking restaurant or bar.
As for the issue of mobile phones left on during a public performance, well, if you're arguing that it's both selfish and inconsiderate to other patrons then I agree with you totally. But, as I've pointed out, it's the mere possession of a device capable of recording video that makes you a criminal here, not its use, and asking all cinema-goers who have video mobiles to leave them at home is hardly the proper solution here. The most appropriate solution is to punish people who are caught breaching copyright, not those that are just watching the movie that they paid to see.
I have issue with this law as it stands. Taking a camcorder into a cinema shouldn't be illegal, what should be illegal is taking it in and using it to record the film being screened.
If I visit New York as a tourist, camcorder in hand, and decide to go to the movies on the spur on the moment I shouldn't be treated as a criminal because of something that may be at the bottom of my backpack.
Some people might consider that scenario to be unlikely, or one that is avoidable, but what do you want to bet that the legislation as it's worded covers all equipment capable of recording video, including laptops, PDAs and even video mobiles? Do we really want to make criminals of anyone who has a mobile phone in their pocket?
I don't know why I am responding to a person who knows less about baseball than they should, but for the record, and to clear this up once and for all, the World Series is not so named because its orginal sponsor was a newspaper called the New York World; that's just an urban legend.
How you got modded "informative" for continuing to spread what's commonly known to be a fallacy is beyond me.
So your solution to infestation is legislation? Yeah, that's going to work, especially with the kind of political lobby that the GM producers command.
Organic farmers rely on independent certification of their crops to be able to sell their crops as organic produce. That certification relies on everything from how long it's been since artificial fertilizers and pesticides were used on the land (the requirement is measured in years), to the type of seed used, etc. Any infestation of GM material on an organic crop field can make the entire crop ineligible for organic certification and render the field uncertifiable for several years to come.
Given that organic farmers spend a lot of money making the transition to organic farming and that their crop yields are lower, not being able to sell their crops at the price commanded by organic produce can be a staggering blow.
Perhaps you should do some further reading on the subject. I suggest you google the words "organic farming GM" and read the facts for yourself if you want more than my words to convince you.
Half the reason for creating GM crop varieties is (supposedly) to make life easier for farmers, so that they don't have to use so many pesticides, etc. Creating a need for them to use more pesticides such as you suggest is counter-productive, time-consuming and expensive.
Also, contrary to what you believe, lab analysis doesn't constitute letting a farmer "easily tell" what variety of GM infestation he's dealing with: lab analysis takes time and money too, plus there's no telling how many samples a farmer might have to send in to determine the various infestations that he's dealing with at any one time.
Lastly, you clearly know nothing about organic farming (which is no surprise, because you clearly no nothing about farming whatsoever). People buy organic produce because they want food that's been processed as little as possible, that's been grown (or reared) non-intensively using only natural methods and without the use of artificial pesticides or stimulants and they want it for medical as well as ethical reasons: there's proof linking pesticides found in modern farming use to dietary and other disorders, and research into the effects of the growth hormones given to chickens and other livestock to humans after consumption is also disturbing.
If you have no concerns whatsoever about the widespread use of GM foods and GM plants in general then you are a fool. Michael Meacher, the UK government minister in charge of DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), had some pretty damning things to say about GM crops until he was fired by Tony Blair. Given that Mr Meacher had probably read more briefings about GM products than you've had hot dinners I think that you shouldn't be so keen to turn over your long-term health to company's as unethical as Monsanto.
Well, you might jest but what happens when this seed is blown over agricultural land? How will a farmer kill off this weed (weed being what you call any unwanted plant growth) without killing his crop?
Even if the GM grass can be killed with a specific pesticide that only kills off that variety of GM grass that's not a practical solution: what are you going to do about all the other GM varieties that exist: spray once for each specific variety? How does a farmer easily tell which variety has spread onto his land in the first place?
And what about organic farmers who livelyhoods depend on the use of no artificial chemicals whatsoever? GM infestation can destroy their businesses faster than you can imagine.
These and other concerns haven't been properly addressed by Monsanto, etc in their rush to make a profit at any cost.
Why do people try to equate movie DVDs to music CDs this way? It's such a flawed comparison. Here are two big reasons why (and I'm sure there are others):
1. A movie will have made money at the box office; DVD sales are just gravy on top of that. Music isn't sold to you twice this way, you buy it on CD and that's it.
2. You'll get far more use out of a CD than you will a DVD. Think how many times you've listened to your favourite albums. Now think how many times you've watched your favourite films. Unless you're the sort of fool who wastes half his/her life watching Star Wars, Titanic or Grease every week then there's no comparision. With music, you get far more bang for your buck.
Please, stop trying to compare two totally different forms of entertainment in such a crude way. Just because they both come on a shiny 5.25 in. disc and they're sold in the same stores that doesn't mean they are equal.
By your rationale, all PC and console software should cost $10-20 too, but I think you're going to be seriously disappointed if you expect the price of new games to come down to that level just so that all the similar-looking shiny round things cost the same at your local mall.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely wrong.
London has a congestion charging system that requires drivers travelling into a centrally-located zone. The cameras are located at the zone boundary and track only the registration numbers (licence plates) of those vehicles that enter the zone between 7.00am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. This is done only to record which vehicles need to pay the charge on any given day; nothing more, nothing less.
All data, except in the case of vehicles that do not pay the charge within the alloted time (for which data is kept as evidence until payment is resolved), is deleted within 24 hours. This, together with other information on the scheme can be found on its official web site.
Want to explain how? The government is exempt from the Data Protection Act so asking the government for "your file" and getting anything back seems like fiction. Care to explain just exactly how he went about it?
Frankly, what you're suggesting seems so unlikely that I'm inclined to call "bullshit".
Either way, my original post stands: the government doesn't have a network of cameras tracking the individual. If they did, crime would be non-existant: the fact that it isn't only further proves my point. In fact, the majority of CCTV cameras that you'll come across in the UK are privately operated, in stores, car parks, on public transport systems, etc. And I can tell you from experience that these aren't networked in any meaningful way.
Yeah, right. I find it hilarious that people really believe that there's a blanket network of cameras in the UK to track individuals no matter where they go.
You and every other fool who perpetuates this myth needs to stop believing every half-assed "news" story that they read.
1. X-Files was filmed in Canada: I don't hear too many people disparaging that for being filmed there, so there goes you poor excuse for a joke.
2. Andromeda was good for even a split second? Are you Steve Jobs? You must be because your reality distortion field is on overdrive.
1. Zone Alarm Pro (software firewall)
2. Ad-Aware (spyware killer)
3. Sophos Anti-Virus (anti-virus package)
4. Opera (browser that Mozilla, etc play catch-up to)
5. Eudora plus Hotmail Popper (email client, plus applet that allows POP3 access to Hotmail)
6. Winzip / WinRAR (compression tools)
7. Winamp (media player)
8. Adobe Reader (PDF reader)
9. dBpowerAMP (fantastic audio ripping tool)
10. Azureus (Java-based BitTorrent client)
In fact, that set up is what I would consider to be "bare bones". Some people might prefer different applications (AVG instead of Sophos, Firefox instead of Opera, etc) but those are the tools that every PC user should have.
Try it! It works in almost any permutation!
1. Build lame eBay clone that's buggy, insecure and has no user-base
2. eBay
3. Profit!
Hmmm, seems like "almost" isn't working for my dotcom-path-to-richness masterplan.
Here in Britain, what Americans call an ATM we call a cashpoint: simple and to the point. Similarly, nobody over here talks about VCRs, they talk about videos and an SUV is just called a 4x4 (pronounced "four by four").
I'm sure the distinction between the US and UK names for these products is purely down to marketing. However, it does seem to me that Americans love acronyms more than their British counterparts. Don't ask me why, but it just seems to be true.
As to why "Tivo" sticks more than "DVR", as many others have pointed out, it's because product names are often more memorable than the products they describe. Hoover, Kleenex, Polaroid, Walkman, PC, Photoshop, FireWire, even iPod, are all examples of brands that have become generic terms that have grown beyond their original definitions. In that regard, Tivo is no different.
I call this hotel room guest syndrome: nothing was missing/broken during your stay, it was like that when you got there.
You, sir, are either a troll or a fool who likes the sound of his own voice.
... things that I despise". Gee, way to keep an open mind there, Bob. And I thought that when you said you wanted proof, you really meant that you wanted proof.
You asked for evidence, so I gave you evidence. Then you attack that evidence, without actually bothering to read it, calling it "stupidity and superstition".
Without looking at more than the article summary, which is intentionally short and simple, you dismiss the paper as being "pervaded with
In case you didn't notice, this paper was written by scientists from three respected universities and the Met Office, which is the British Government's independent meteorlogical institute and one of the oldest and most foremost weather and climate observation organisations. None of the paper's authors are fly-by-night merchants, and their evidence is clearly laid out, but yet you're able to magically determine that it's all mumbo jumbo just by browsing two lines on the cover sheet.
By the way, have you never seen a scientific paper before? They all have basic summaries, so why you feel the need to ridicule this paper's one for being so plainspoken and to the point is a mystery.
The rest of your post, just like your previous ones, is full of petty pedantry, quibbling over semantics and transposition of your thoughts and beliefs onto mine just so that you can more easily use my words as a punchbag. I'm not interested in what you want to twist my words to say, I'm interested in the science of the situation.
I started this whole debate off by saying that "Maybe because climate change caused by global warming is potentially (note, I said potentially) a man-made disaster waiting to happen", which is a pretty unambiguous statement, and one that makes no claims either way about what will happen. Heck, I intentionally used the word "potentially" there and then went to the trouble of pointing that I used it intentionally because I approach the future with an open mind.
Unfortunately, with your dismissive approach (asking for scientific proof, then dismissing it without so much as a glance when you're given it) an open mind is the one thing that you're sorely lacking.
I'm sure you'll add a reply to this comment but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply. You've already shown a disdain for anything resembling rational debate and a dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares disagree with you so I won't waste my time with further replies to someone who has clearly demonstrated a lack of objectivity.
Oh, I see, anyone who's at all concerned about this situation should automatically go back to living in a cave? Right. Grow a brain AC.
Whatever evidence I provide here will no doubt be ridiculed by you in some way, shape or form, but here's just one recent story you could read and then look into further if you really have an open mind:
Climatology: Threatened loss of the Greenland ice-sheet: article from Nature.com, dated 8 April 2004.
To quote the article summary in full:
(Emphasis added by me, to clearly illustrate my point.)
Frankly though, the fact that you need me to find material that you could quite easily google for shows me that you're the kind of individual that's unwilling to accept anything that isn't staring them directly in the face.
Lastly, it's you that turned this into a debate about the political agendas of the left or the right; I simply pointed out that climate change was a hot potato that no politician (well, no politician belonging to any mainstream political party) was willing to handle.
The reason for this political apathy is mostly because the environment is way down the most people's list of priorities when it comes to deciding how to caste their vote. However, just because the issue doesn't engage the electorate as much as, say, terrorism or the economy that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored. On the contrary, it may be the one thing that politicians should least ignore but it'll probably remain on the back-burner for far too long.
I look forward to your more informed retort once you've actually read the article.
How the hell you can bring religion into this is amazing. We're talking about measurable climate change and the impact it has upon our environment, not Noah's Ark, so please refrain from taking a tangent off in completely another direction.
As to your belief that the our actions aren't effecting our environment to "a measurable degree", well, that's a nice "I'll stick my head in the sand and pretend it's all nature at work" attitude. That man can profoundly effect his environment, through pollution, deforestation, etc isn't deniable but you choose to deny it anyway.
That you dismiss all related science as "superstitious", "leftist", etc is incredible. Science is science: don't try to politicise or subvert it to suit your own agenda; stick to the facts please.
Uh, I think you'll find that their is a large proportion of ice being supported by Greenland. This isn't ice floating on water, it's ice that's on land, and if it melts then we're in serious shit. Just this month, scientists released data about what would happen if that ice were to melt. A 7-8 metre rise in global sea levels is not something to joke about.
If you're going to try and ridicule someone then at least back it up with knowledge. Not for my sake (I could care less if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing's happening) but the sake of those you are trying to convince.
I've never suggested that man is in control of the climate, only that man has an effect on it: the two are two very different things. The former is from the pages of science fiction, the later is science fact.
We humans can adapt to environmental change but what about the rest of the food chain? If you think that adaptation is the solution then you're sadly mistaken.
Your entire post is, frankly, complete and utter bullshit.
Ever heard of deforestation? Or of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels? Don't you think these things have any effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Do you know how much CO2 has been released since the dawn of the industrial revolution? Or that in nature it sometimes only takes a change of a few percent here or there to have catastrophic effects on an ecosystem?
Do you know that the US produces and consumes 25 percent of the world's power and yet has only 4 percent of the world's population? Yet you think that the US has a negative effect on CO2 production?
Where did you learn all the crap that you're spouting? A Halliburton "fact" sheet?
Maybe because climate change caused by global warming is potentially (note, I said potentially) a man-made disaster waiting to happen, whereas drilling down to the Earth's core isn't actually happening and being hit by an asteroid the size of Texas is highly unlikely for the immediate future.
The attitude of a lot of people here on Slashdot with regards to global warming amazes me. This is something that could possibly devastate society as we know it, perhaps not for us, but for our children or our children's children, but there's a great many people who either dismiss it as never going to happen or something that can be easily controlled without any major shifts in lifestyle or attitude.
Someone once said "This is a fragile ball we're living on. It's a miracle and we're destroying it." That's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than any politician, especially any politician who's made a killing from exploiting fossil fuels, will ever admit to.
Let's make one thing clear: the law as it stands makes you a criminal for possessing any video recording device whilst in a cinema, regardless of whether it's switched on off and in your backpack, or whether it's on and in your hand. That's a bad thing: it's the equivalent of punishing someone for having a packet of cigarettes in their pocket when they visit a non-smoking restaurant or bar.
As for the issue of mobile phones left on during a public performance, well, if you're arguing that it's both selfish and inconsiderate to other patrons then I agree with you totally. But, as I've pointed out, it's the mere possession of a device capable of recording video that makes you a criminal here, not its use, and asking all cinema-goers who have video mobiles to leave them at home is hardly the proper solution here. The most appropriate solution is to punish people who are caught breaching copyright, not those that are just watching the movie that they paid to see.
I have issue with this law as it stands. Taking a camcorder into a cinema shouldn't be illegal, what should be illegal is taking it in and using it to record the film being screened.
If I visit New York as a tourist, camcorder in hand, and decide to go to the movies on the spur on the moment I shouldn't be treated as a criminal because of something that may be at the bottom of my backpack.
Some people might consider that scenario to be unlikely, or one that is avoidable, but what do you want to bet that the legislation as it's worded covers all equipment capable of recording video, including laptops, PDAs and even video mobiles? Do we really want to make criminals of anyone who has a mobile phone in their pocket?
I don't know why I am responding to a person who knows less about baseball than they should, but for the record, and to clear this up once and for all, the World Series is not so named because its orginal sponsor was a newspaper called the New York World; that's just an urban legend.
How you got modded "informative" for continuing to spread what's commonly known to be a fallacy is beyond me.
Germany and West Germany? Are you trying to get modded "redundant"?
So your solution to infestation is legislation? Yeah, that's going to work, especially with the kind of political lobby that the GM producers command.
Organic farmers rely on independent certification of their crops to be able to sell their crops as organic produce. That certification relies on everything from how long it's been since artificial fertilizers and pesticides were used on the land (the requirement is measured in years), to the type of seed used, etc. Any infestation of GM material on an organic crop field can make the entire crop ineligible for organic certification and render the field uncertifiable for several years to come.
Given that organic farmers spend a lot of money making the transition to organic farming and that their crop yields are lower, not being able to sell their crops at the price commanded by organic produce can be a staggering blow.
Perhaps you should do some further reading on the subject. I suggest you google the words "organic farming GM" and read the facts for yourself if you want more than my words to convince you.
Half the reason for creating GM crop varieties is (supposedly) to make life easier for farmers, so that they don't have to use so many pesticides, etc. Creating a need for them to use more pesticides such as you suggest is counter-productive, time-consuming and expensive.
Also, contrary to what you believe, lab analysis doesn't constitute letting a farmer "easily tell" what variety of GM infestation he's dealing with: lab analysis takes time and money too, plus there's no telling how many samples a farmer might have to send in to determine the various infestations that he's dealing with at any one time.
Lastly, you clearly know nothing about organic farming (which is no surprise, because you clearly no nothing about farming whatsoever). People buy organic produce because they want food that's been processed as little as possible, that's been grown (or reared) non-intensively using only natural methods and without the use of artificial pesticides or stimulants and they want it for medical as well as ethical reasons: there's proof linking pesticides found in modern farming use to dietary and other disorders, and research into the effects of the growth hormones given to chickens and other livestock to humans after consumption is also disturbing.
If you have no concerns whatsoever about the widespread use of GM foods and GM plants in general then you are a fool. Michael Meacher, the UK government minister in charge of DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), had some pretty damning things to say about GM crops until he was fired by Tony Blair. Given that Mr Meacher had probably read more briefings about GM products than you've had hot dinners I think that you shouldn't be so keen to turn over your long-term health to company's as unethical as Monsanto.
Well, you might jest but what happens when this seed is blown over agricultural land? How will a farmer kill off this weed (weed being what you call any unwanted plant growth) without killing his crop?
Even if the GM grass can be killed with a specific pesticide that only kills off that variety of GM grass that's not a practical solution: what are you going to do about all the other GM varieties that exist: spray once for each specific variety? How does a farmer easily tell which variety has spread onto his land in the first place?
And what about organic farmers who livelyhoods depend on the use of no artificial chemicals whatsoever? GM infestation can destroy their businesses faster than you can imagine.
These and other concerns haven't been properly addressed by Monsanto, etc in their rush to make a profit at any cost.
Why do people try to equate movie DVDs to music CDs this way? It's such a flawed comparison. Here are two big reasons why (and I'm sure there are others):
1. A movie will have made money at the box office; DVD sales are just gravy on top of that. Music isn't sold to you twice this way, you buy it on CD and that's it.
2. You'll get far more use out of a CD than you will a DVD. Think how many times you've listened to your favourite albums. Now think how many times you've watched your favourite films. Unless you're the sort of fool who wastes half his/her life watching Star Wars, Titanic or Grease every week then there's no comparision. With music, you get far more bang for your buck.
Please, stop trying to compare two totally different forms of entertainment in such a crude way. Just because they both come on a shiny 5.25 in. disc and they're sold in the same stores that doesn't mean they are equal.
By your rationale, all PC and console software should cost $10-20 too, but I think you're going to be seriously disappointed if you expect the price of new games to come down to that level just so that all the similar-looking shiny round things cost the same at your local mall.