It's a license, applied atop copyright. A "copyright" is the exclusive right granted to the creator by a government to copy their work. More rights are given, but they are given by way of a license, which is a contractual agreement.
Second things first... The situation of sites being forced into.xxx may be un-Libertarian, but this is not a Libertarian situation we're dealing with. Nobody's been forced into any domains as of yet, but a.com setting up in a.org space isn't going to generate near the measure of moral indignation than having PORN (!!!) outside its bounds. Examine that one of the reasons thrown around for this is "protecting people from porn"... without some sort of force, that goal would be no better served than on the current Internet. Having places for widely objectionable material is just opening the door for regulation forcing that material into its place. As I mentioned before, the conflict with that comes when someone doesn't feel their site is pornographic, but the ones in power do.
In things like movies and music, the rating requirement has been largely kept as a private function (with the PMRC stickers and MPAA ratings), but the difference is that the restrictive costs in distribution mean that the private companies can take an effective "gatekeeper" role. Any distributor that can reach a reasonably wide audience is allied with the ratings system, which has made it universal enough that external forces need not apply. With the Internet, though, a site can go online for less than $100 a year, and there's no "Wal-Mart" of the Internet that's big enough to influence private action. What does this leave? Government intervention and legislation.
Compulsory filtering certainly won't happen, I agree (the people do need their porn, after all), but if compulsory filing-as-.XXX comes into play, it does mean that some of these edge-case "maybe" sites are basically being forced to register to the quick-and-easy central-control block-list that many filtering providers will undoubtably implement across the board. Although I do understand that the Libertarian idea would be "they can block it or not block it", realistically, what blocker is going to scour.xxx looking for sites that might be miscategorised, just so they can put a sticker on the box saying "Now Blocks 10% Less.xxx Sites!" The problem is not that the blocking is universal and compulsory, but that the blacklist would be universal, and implementing the.xxx ghetto just asks for it to be made compulsory.
Bingo. Add to that the fact that most of the labels with the ability to promote on an adequately worldwide level for "star making" are the long-time heavyweights with solidified standards-and-practices (and less innovation). Unless some label takes a U-turn or some smaller company finds a way to muscle into common popular radio, I doubt you'll see much innovation in "rising stars". The sweet spot (IMO) is in the "indie labels"-- labels that are big enough and discriminating enough to provide some promotion and crap-filtering, but small and nimble enough to have some freedom to innovate.
The general rationale (I believe) is that.xxx can become a "black hole" that sites are put into whether they want it or not. The problem isn't as much "porn goes here" as the varying things that people find objectionable and wish to put in that place. Just look at the controversies around varying types of filtering software, and the "woops!" reclassifications that keep happening as different opinions keep changing the opinion. Now, imagine that the blocklist was global, enforcable only by an "all-or-nothing" policy. The unfairness isn't with obvious and stated porn sites, but with the types of sites of more questionable intent.
Also, there's the matter of sites giving up their long-established domain names in a number of different TLDs, and having to fight and re-buy.xxx domains.
It won't help in immersiveness, people are trying to escape that crap, not get more into it.
I disagree. Well-applied, advertisements and other added micro-realism can help an "escapism", by helping with the suspension of disbelief. More "escape from reality" can come from doing or being unrealistic things in the world you already know than having to swallow both a new role and a new world.
Granted, it's a tightrope, as advertisers need (ought) to give up some freedom in how the player may interact with their ads, and game designers should only portray the product placements in a realistic light. Unfortunately, many advertisers and trademark-owners can't give up that control, and games either end up genericized or plastered with unnatural ads.
The right game would show us that. It would also show us how they became the way they are but it would be a bit tedious playing a game in which you are consistently abused by their parents, fellow students, and teachers, which is pretty much mandatory for kids to come out this way.
All you'd need are some cut scenes or flashbacks at the right time to get the idea across.
I'd always found that Shadowrun had *too much* backstory into it... granted, that's probably more my perspective than anything... but I'm just more of a fan of a game that gives the GM/players more chance to shape and make up the world, including the backstory.
If a document used a given foreign word or acronym, would you want to have to have to ask everybody who reads the document to install the word's pronunciation into his or her own user account's dictionary before the screen reader will pronounce the word correctly?
You'd probably have more luck doing that than expecting every person who writes something to go back and reader-annotate their documents.
As a matter of fact, while this is not enshrined in UK law this is what the current Health and Safety guidelines say and the person (if he is still alive) or his estate have a very fair chance of lodging a successfull lawsuit against his company under the UK Health and Safety act.
If you learn the "don't leave your baby crying" part, why would you need to learn the "or people will come take your baby away" part ?
That question is irrelevant. The story says that the kid learned that "people will take your baby away if you leave it crying". I'd say that there is a good case that a young child might never come upon this specific lesson in the course of everyday life. It's like a child finding out that, say, synthetic clothing will melt to your skin if you catch on fire. A kid probably knows "Fire can burn you", but the specifics might actually be new and novel information.
That's all well and good on an idealistic level, but in the real world, it's usually much easier for the company to survive until a new person is brought in than it is for the employee to survive until they can find a new job. Granted, you might be one of those who has their finances well-squared away and has 4 or 6 months of "emergency money" on hand, or you might be someone at the top of their game, with employability at a whim, but don't forget that people, on average, are average, and many people rely on a steady income.
The only road-block is that the other person you're talking to has to have the same setup. For 99% of people, it isn't worth the cost. For businesses & gov't agencies, it certainly is.
(Ring-ring...) (Ring-ring...) (Recorded voice) "This is an encrypted telephone call. It appears you do not have a compatible decryption device. Please have a pencil and paper ready, and follow along as I read you some simple instructions. First, write a list of 256 random numbers from 1 to 16. When you have completed this step, press pound."
(scribble-scribble-scribble... bleep.)
(Recorded voice) Now, divide the first number by... six, noting the remainder. Divide the second number by... twelve, noting the remainder. Divide the third number by... eight, noting the...
Perhaps one of these smaller anti-spyware developers needs to come up with a new terminology. It's not "spyware" or "adware", it's "Crap", or "Software we don't like". Purely opinion-based, so there's no "misrepresentation" claims that keep picking up those pesky lawsuits.
and I am an intelligent person that can destroy your arguments without a second thought.
You're destroying things, but the arguments aren't it (Hint: Aim for the content! The CONTENT!). And, yes, it's rather obvious you aren't sparing a second thought on this thread, but it's nothing really worth boasting about.
So, in conclusion: July, STFU. CRC, please don't feed the trolls. FLEB, take your own advice.
The problem is that the government already has, long ago... often even legitimately in the purpose of the public good... but it has meant that the government now has to (or "ought to") juggle and balance back and forth in order to keep things fair.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a copyright.
It's a license, applied atop copyright. A "copyright" is the exclusive right granted to the creator by a government to copy their work. More rights are given, but they are given by way of a license, which is a contractual agreement.
Unless I'm just not following you.
Second things first... The situation of sites being forced into .xxx may be un-Libertarian, but this is not a Libertarian situation we're dealing with. Nobody's been forced into any domains as of yet, but a .com setting up in a .org space isn't going to generate near the measure of moral indignation than having PORN (!!!) outside its bounds. Examine that one of the reasons thrown around for this is "protecting people from porn"... without some sort of force, that goal would be no better served than on the current Internet. Having places for widely objectionable material is just opening the door for regulation forcing that material into its place. As I mentioned before, the conflict with that comes when someone doesn't feel their site is pornographic, but the ones in power do.
.xxx looking for sites that might be miscategorised, just so they can put a sticker on the box saying "Now Blocks 10% Less .xxx Sites!" The problem is not that the blocking is universal and compulsory, but that the blacklist would be universal, and implementing the .xxx ghetto just asks for it to be made compulsory.
In things like movies and music, the rating requirement has been largely kept as a private function (with the PMRC stickers and MPAA ratings), but the difference is that the restrictive costs in distribution mean that the private companies can take an effective "gatekeeper" role. Any distributor that can reach a reasonably wide audience is allied with the ratings system, which has made it universal enough that external forces need not apply. With the Internet, though, a site can go online for less than $100 a year, and there's no "Wal-Mart" of the Internet that's big enough to influence private action. What does this leave? Government intervention and legislation.
Compulsory filtering certainly won't happen, I agree (the people do need their porn, after all), but if compulsory filing-as-.XXX comes into play, it does mean that some of these edge-case "maybe" sites are basically being forced to register to the quick-and-easy central-control block-list that many filtering providers will undoubtably implement across the board. Although I do understand that the Libertarian idea would be "they can block it or not block it", realistically, what blocker is going to scour
Bingo. Add to that the fact that most of the labels with the ability to promote on an adequately worldwide level for "star making" are the long-time heavyweights with solidified standards-and-practices (and less innovation). Unless some label takes a U-turn or some smaller company finds a way to muscle into common popular radio, I doubt you'll see much innovation in "rising stars". The sweet spot (IMO) is in the "indie labels"-- labels that are big enough and discriminating enough to provide some promotion and crap-filtering, but small and nimble enough to have some freedom to innovate.
The general rationale (I believe) is that .xxx can become a "black hole" that sites are put into whether they want it or not. The problem isn't as much "porn goes here" as the varying things that people find objectionable and wish to put in that place. Just look at the controversies around varying types of filtering software, and the "woops!" reclassifications that keep happening as different opinions keep changing the opinion. Now, imagine that the blocklist was global, enforcable only by an "all-or-nothing" policy. The unfairness isn't with obvious and stated porn sites, but with the types of sites of more questionable intent.
.xxx domains.
Also, there's the matter of sites giving up their long-established domain names in a number of different TLDs, and having to fight and re-buy
A debatable point, but very well put.
Meh, don't make too much of it. I got a fast-busy the last time I tried to call 911... on a landline.
It won't help in immersiveness, people are trying to escape that crap, not get more into it.
I disagree. Well-applied, advertisements and other added micro-realism can help an "escapism", by helping with the suspension of disbelief. More "escape from reality" can come from doing or being unrealistic things in the world you already know than having to swallow both a new role and a new world.
Granted, it's a tightrope, as advertisers need (ought) to give up some freedom in how the player may interact with their ads, and game designers should only portray the product placements in a realistic light. Unfortunately, many advertisers and trademark-owners can't give up that control, and games either end up genericized or plastered with unnatural ads.
The right game would show us that. It would also show us how they became the way they are but it would be a bit tedious playing a game in which you are consistently abused by their parents, fellow students, and teachers, which is pretty much mandatory for kids to come out this way.
All you'd need are some cut scenes or flashbacks at the right time to get the idea across.
Not first, but best.
I'd always found that Shadowrun had *too much* backstory into it... granted, that's probably more my perspective than anything... but I'm just more of a fan of a game that gives the GM/players more chance to shape and make up the world, including the backstory.
If a document used a given foreign word or acronym, would you want to have to have to ask everybody who reads the document to install the word's pronunciation into his or her own user account's dictionary before the screen reader will pronounce the word correctly?
You'd probably have more luck doing that than expecting every person who writes something to go back and reader-annotate their documents.
As a matter of fact, while this is not enshrined in UK law this is what the current Health and Safety guidelines say and the person (if he is still alive) or his estate have a very fair chance of lodging a successfull lawsuit against his company under the UK Health and Safety act.
If you learn the "don't leave your baby crying" part, why would you need to learn the "or people will come take your baby away" part ?
That question is irrelevant. The story says that the kid learned that "people will take your baby away if you leave it crying". I'd say that there is a good case that a young child might never come upon this specific lesson in the course of everyday life. It's like a child finding out that, say, synthetic clothing will melt to your skin if you catch on fire. A kid probably knows "Fire can burn you", but the specifics might actually be new and novel information.
Yeah, it says their httpd.conf got borked.
And with all reality finally blocked out... you'll miss your stop. (Or at least have to run some sort of pop-up time-based notification.)
That's all well and good on an idealistic level, but in the real world, it's usually much easier for the company to survive until a new person is brought in than it is for the employee to survive until they can find a new job. Granted, you might be one of those who has their finances well-squared away and has 4 or 6 months of "emergency money" on hand, or you might be someone at the top of their game, with employability at a whim, but don't forget that people, on average, are average, and many people rely on a steady income.
Well... have you ever considered a rewarding career in insurance sales?
MySpace isn't the great Internet evil, you know.
"The"... "a"... Still, you've got to admit it'd be a step in the right direction.
The only road-block is that the other person you're talking to has to have the same setup. For 99% of people, it isn't worth the cost. For businesses & gov't agencies, it certainly is.
(Ring-ring...)
(Ring-ring...)
(Recorded voice) "This is an encrypted telephone call. It appears you do not have a compatible decryption device. Please have a pencil and paper ready, and follow along as I read you some simple instructions. First, write a list of 256 random numbers from 1 to 16. When you have completed this step, press pound."
(scribble-scribble-scribble... bleep.)
(Recorded voice) Now, divide the first number by... six, noting the remainder.
Divide the second number by... twelve, noting the remainder.
Divide the third number by... eight, noting the...
Perhaps one of these smaller anti-spyware developers needs to come up with a new terminology. It's not "spyware" or "adware", it's "Crap", or "Software we don't like". Purely opinion-based, so there's no "misrepresentation" claims that keep picking up those pesky lawsuits.
I'd like to solve the puzzle, Pat.
At times like these, we need a Captain America to fight for truth, justice, and Western values.
As well as a plunger and some Scotch tape.
and I am an intelligent person that can destroy your arguments without a second thought.
You're destroying things, but the arguments aren't it (Hint: Aim for the content! The CONTENT!). And, yes, it's rather obvious you aren't sparing a second thought on this thread, but it's nothing really worth boasting about.
So, in conclusion: July, STFU. CRC, please don't feed the trolls. FLEB, take your own advice.
Spread the Gospel! Just don't misrepresent it, and you can have at it.
The problem is that the government already has, long ago... often even legitimately in the purpose of the public good... but it has meant that the government now has to (or "ought to") juggle and balance back and forth in order to keep things fair.