There is one basic faulty premise in these sorts of argument (not one you necessarily proclaim); which is the idea that one mother and one father is the "prime" example or "optimal" condition of a parenthood. BR>There are quite a few other assumptions here. One is that these people must optimally be the biological parents. Even though it has long been recognised that the "legal father" and "biological father" need not be the same people. Or that with the modern fashion of babies being born in maternity hospitals it's prefectly possible for them to end up with the "wrong" parents. The other assumption here is making a big fuss about "couples" raising the children. The "nuclear family" stereotype is just that.
...at least in France, where you can choose several marriages type, one being "communal" where all money and belongings gained during the duration of the marriage do belong equally to both
What about property which predates the marriage? In some places marriage law appears redefine anything which predates the marriage "communal" which as well as being very "golddigger friendly" can result in great injustices.
I agree with you that sports are valued too much, but you're pretty silly to assert that the United States had anything much to do with this ridiculous invention.
Like someone else said, DNA doesn't glow green, so they either used tagged nucleotides or just spiked their DNA-containing ink with a green fluorescent dye. The dye, I suspect, is just so they know where they put the DNA without having to actually discolor the ball.
Their new model is: "We create content. You pay for this content online at the same inflated prices as physical media, except that we don't have to pay for printing any physical media,
Or the distribution of the media and associated infrastructure.
and this is a peer-to-peer system which means the customers are paying for bandwidth costs as well! We don't allow them to alter or burn this content in any way because of the restrictive DRM we place on it. Basically, you only get to watch it when, where, and how we say so, because of our precious IP.
In some ways even more so than the physical media. DVD's are generally portable between different DVD players and usually include multiple language and subtitle options (including "no subtitles with original actors' voices").
The market doesn't work that way... it's not the costs that determine price, it's what people are willing to pay... if that wasn't the case Windows would sell for ten bucks.
You first need to actually have a market, copyright means that you are more likely to have a monopoly.
The actual production and distribution costs of a DVD are negligable. You can buy DVDs of movies that have gone into the public domain at dollar stores...
Because there is the possibility of competition. No doubt even at that price there is a fair profit margin involved.
The article mentions the videos will have security features added to them so they can't be copied. Without more details, it's impossible to say how much of a hassle this will be. What if I have two computers and want to watch the video on the other one?
Or it's tied to a specific OS even a specific install of a specific OS. So you might be stuffed even if you have a backup or separate OS and data partitions/drives.
Interestingly for some of us P2P nutters we find this method of getting movies easier and less painful.
I don't have to get up go out and buy the movie, I just read a review and click a link.
The P2P setup which currently exists means you don't have to wait months/years if you live in the wrong place. The current business model involves highly geographic release criteria. As well as marketing by reviews from reviewers able to watch special "pre-release" showings. Who if they give "too many" bad reviews are likely to find themselves back to being "regular plebs". A review on an independent website is rather more likely to be honest.
I don't necessarily agree. I think iTunes shows that people are willing to pay (for a reasonable price),
It does have to be a reasonable price though. It's a market where people are more sensitive to execessive markups.
The producers sort of get this, but they don't modify their business model to match. It just doesn't seem to occur to them that an electronic copy doesn't have as much intrinsic value as a physical reproduction that you can hold in your hand.
The other way in which they "don't get it" is that geography ceases to become relevent when it comes to downloading from a central server or a peer-peer system. Yet they still want to try and cling to regional distribution models. Or even rip people off by trying to pretend that one USD equates to one GBP or one EUR.
The execs think "peer to peer" is a buzzword they need on their products but people, NORMAL people, aren't interested in the "peer to peer" part of P2P they're interested in the "free stuff I don't have to pay for" part of P2P
There is also the factor of someone being able to get it at their convenience...
did you even read the summary? they will be charging "similar to DVD prices" for something that is of lower quality, lacking the DVD extras and you pay for the bandwidth.
Yeah, people will jump all over that.
The only way in which there would be a demand is if DVDs were not available.
it simply reinforces the fact that the movie industry is ran by a large number of retarted people that have zero clue about business let alone how to sell a product.
They are also not understanding that their market is global. Indeed what they are doing here is on rather questionable legal grounds, unless they can get Germany to leave the EU before March.
For example a person's alibi for a criminal offence was that he stayed at home watching T.V. Instead of asking if he committed the offence, the questioner could ask what show did he watch? What was the plot of a particular show, what was the actor wearing, how many times did the suspect go to the bathroom, did he eat a snack, if so, what was it?
You can ask questions about an alibi without needing a fancy machine. A much lower tech method might be to have someone observing the interview.
You raise an important point, but note that I said for those that are able to LIVE the lie, then it will be less effective. The ability to trap someone in a current lie is part of the interview process and in that case, it *might* be possible. However, to someone who has rehearsed the lie and is able to live it by recalling the lie from memory as if it had actually happened, then regionality of blood flow or glucose utilization in the brain becomes a much less useful measure.
This sounds like False Memory Syndrome. Except that it may involve only one person...
So what would happen if an airline started a cash-only, anonymous service, where no IDs would be checked and no baggage searched? No one would fly with them. It's not in the best interests of airlines to let terrorists on their planes, just as it is not in their best interest to allow the engines to fall off mid flight.
In practice terrorism less of a risk to the public than incorrectly maintained planes and incompetent people handling them.
It's a self-correcting system--I don't understand where the government fits in here.
Random spot checks on aircraft and pilots, maybe. As well as investigation and publication of incidents, so that mistakes can be learned from.
Now the terrorists will move on to a different attack vector. They know that the moment they use a particular vector (airplanes) we will throw a bunch of money at securing that vector. So they move on, and use something else (like bombs in a subway and on buses).
Which are difficult to "secure" without rendering them utterly useless...
You airport security freaks need to get over yourselves: perhaps making air travel needlessly complicated makes you feel warm and comfortable,
IIRC it has lead to more people in the US taking long car journeys, something which is far more likely to result in death or serious injury.
Here's the question, what if a certain transportation is the only way to get your destination? I know here in california, there are some places along the 101 highway that you can only get to by car.
What prevents you using a motorbike, truck or helicopter?
Now a drivers license is a priveledge and if its revoked, you in theory could argue that you freedom to travel has been removed.
You do not have to drive to be transported in a motor vehicle along a public road. Depending on the circumstances it may be more difficult/expensive to do so.
Could also argue this for planes, boats and etc.
Are people on the "no fly list" forbidden from chartering planes or being pilots?
This is what SCOTUS gets wrong too, ever since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. The purpose of the commerce clause is not to give the Feds carte blanche to control everything, but to regulate, meaning "make regular", interstate commerce, meaning the prevention of states from enacting trade barriers against each other (for example).
The problem is that whilst the meaning of the term "regulate" has not changed that much, according to the dictionary definition, the most common usage has. A similar issue applies to the Second Amendment. With the intended meaning of "well regulated militia" probably having more to do with people having the skills of "regular soldiers" than outside control.
I am of the opinion that *if* we are willing (which I am) to give up liberties in exchange for security, that both sides in that bargain must be fulfilled.
This is the difficult part. Giving up liberties does not automatically create more security. It's perfectly possible for it to have the net effect of reducing security. It's also perfectly possible that effective methods of increasing security may require no loss (even gains) of liberty.
Checking IDs doesn't make us safer; it only restricts our liberties.
All the work and money involved in checking IDs (including issuing the documents in the first place) might well be spent of something else.
Can the constitution be construed to limit the powers of the Federal Government to ask for IDs and restrict and inspect the contents of our baggage in exchange for the privilige of being allowed to step onto a commercial airliner with 200 other souls on board?
Isn't it the airline's job to ensure that they operate their aircraft in ways which are as safe as possible.
I have always thought of the right to travel as one of the Big Three, along with bearing arms and speaking.
A right to travel means just that. It dosn't mean a right to travel in a specific way or using a specific type of vehicle. e.g. it isn't the same as having the right to drive a car. Nor does having the right to travel mean that anyone is obliged to carry you as a passenger in their vehicle.
The judiciary is a third branch of government. It does not exist to cater to the whims of Congress. It exists to hold the Executive and Congress to the Constitution.
IIRC the original intention behind the US Supreme court would be that it's primary role would be this. Rather than hearing appeals from other courts.
According to the authoritarians the 9th and 10th Amendments were obviously written only to assuage those whom they can ridicule as "conspiracy theorists".
Especially ironic given that the whole "War on Terror" is based on (government backed) conspiracy theories. Some, such as the Al Quada/Iraq alliance, where just daft.
The point IS that your privacy being overtly invaded could be used as a tool against you. I'm not saying that it is being done or has been done (though it wouldn't suprise me in the least if it had) I'm saying that it COULD easily be done and IMHO is not beyond this administration.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one basic faulty premise in these sorts of argument (not one you necessarily proclaim); which is the idea that one mother and one father is the "prime" example or "optimal" condition of a parenthood.
BR>There are quite a few other assumptions here. One is that these people must optimally be the biological parents. Even though it has long been recognised that the "legal father" and "biological father" need not be the same people. Or that with the modern fashion of babies being born in maternity hospitals it's prefectly possible for them to end up with the "wrong" parents.
The other assumption here is making a big fuss about "couples" raising the children. The "nuclear family" stereotype is just that.
...at least in France, where you can choose several marriages type, one being "communal" where all money and belongings gained during the duration of the marriage do belong equally to both
What about property which predates the marriage? In some places marriage law appears redefine anything which predates the marriage "communal" which as well as being very "golddigger friendly" can result in great injustices.
I agree with you that sports are valued too much, but you're pretty silly to assert that the United States had anything much to do with this ridiculous invention.
/ 20060131/SPORTS0106/601310310/1126/SPORTS0101
Dosn't look quite that way if you read this article http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
Like someone else said, DNA doesn't glow green, so they either used tagged nucleotides or just spiked their DNA-containing ink with a green fluorescent dye. The dye, I suspect, is just so they know where they put the DNA without having to actually discolor the ball.
Or they simply went and bought a marking kit from somewhere like Smart Water http://www.smartwater.com/
Who cares about the probability of replicating the exact sequence?
If you can get hold of the DNA replicating it becomes rather easier.
This kind of tagging was originally designed for detecting stolen items.
Yeah, at least some Germans don't like to watch dubbed movies, and prefer to see them in English with German subtitles.
Or even without the subtitles, since plenty of Germans understand spoken English perfectly well.
Their new model is: "We create content. You pay for this content online at the same inflated prices as physical media, except that we don't have to pay for printing any physical media,
Or the distribution of the media and associated infrastructure.
and this is a peer-to-peer system which means the customers are paying for bandwidth costs as well! We don't allow them to alter or burn this content in any way because of the restrictive DRM we place on it. Basically, you only get to watch it when, where, and how we say so, because of our precious IP.
In some ways even more so than the physical media. DVD's are generally portable between different DVD players and usually include multiple language and subtitle options (including "no subtitles with original actors' voices").
The market doesn't work that way... it's not the costs that determine price, it's what people are willing to pay... if that wasn't the case Windows would sell for ten bucks.
You first need to actually have a market, copyright means that you are more likely to have a monopoly.
The actual production and distribution costs of a DVD are negligable. You can buy DVDs of movies that have gone into the public domain at dollar stores...
Because there is the possibility of competition. No doubt even at that price there is a fair profit margin involved.
The article mentions the videos will have security features added to them so they can't be copied. Without more details, it's impossible to say how much of a hassle this will be. What if I have two computers and want to watch the video on the other one?
Or it's tied to a specific OS even a specific install of a specific OS. So you might be stuffed even if you have a backup or separate OS and data partitions/drives.
Interestingly for some of us P2P nutters we find this method of getting movies easier and less painful.
I don't have to get up go out and buy the movie, I just read a review and click a link.
The P2P setup which currently exists means you don't have to wait months/years if you live in the wrong place. The current business model involves highly geographic release criteria. As well as marketing by reviews from reviewers able to watch special "pre-release" showings. Who if they give "too many" bad reviews are likely to find themselves back to being "regular plebs". A review on an independent website is rather more likely to be honest.
I don't necessarily agree. I think iTunes shows that people are willing to pay (for a reasonable price),
It does have to be a reasonable price though. It's a market where people are more sensitive to execessive markups.
The producers sort of get this, but they don't modify their business model to match. It just doesn't seem to occur to them that an electronic copy doesn't have as much intrinsic value as a physical reproduction that you can hold in your hand.
The other way in which they "don't get it" is that geography ceases to become relevent when it comes to downloading from a central server or a peer-peer system. Yet they still want to try and cling to regional distribution models. Or even rip people off by trying to pretend that one USD equates to one GBP or one EUR.
The execs think "peer to peer" is a buzzword they need on their products but people, NORMAL people, aren't interested in the "peer to peer" part of P2P they're interested in the "free stuff I don't have to pay for" part of P2P
There is also the factor of someone being able to get it at their convenience...
did you even read the summary? they will be charging "similar to DVD prices" for something that is of lower quality, lacking the DVD extras and you pay for the bandwidth.
Yeah, people will jump all over that.
The only way in which there would be a demand is if DVDs were not available.
it simply reinforces the fact that the movie industry is ran by a large number of retarted people that have zero clue about business let alone how to sell a product.
They are also not understanding that their market is global. Indeed what they are doing here is on rather questionable legal grounds, unless they can get Germany to leave the EU before March.
For example a person's alibi for a criminal offence was that he stayed at home watching T.V. Instead of asking if he committed the offence, the questioner could ask what show did he watch? What was the plot of a particular show, what was the actor wearing, how many times did the suspect go to the bathroom, did he eat a snack, if so, what was it?
You can ask questions about an alibi without needing a fancy machine. A much lower tech method might be to have someone observing the interview.
You raise an important point, but note that I said for those that are able to LIVE the lie, then it will be less effective. The ability to trap someone in a current lie is part of the interview process and in that case, it *might* be possible. However, to someone who has rehearsed the lie and is able to live it by recalling the lie from memory as if it had actually happened, then regionality of blood flow or glucose utilization in the brain becomes a much less useful measure.
This sounds like False Memory Syndrome. Except that it may involve only one person...
So what would happen if an airline started a cash-only, anonymous service, where no IDs would be checked and no baggage searched? No one would fly with them. It's not in the best interests of airlines to let terrorists on their planes, just as it is not in their best interest to allow the engines to fall off mid flight.
In practice terrorism less of a risk to the public than incorrectly maintained planes and incompetent people handling them.
It's a self-correcting system--I don't understand where the government fits in here.
Random spot checks on aircraft and pilots, maybe. As well as investigation and publication of incidents, so that mistakes can be learned from.
Now the terrorists will move on to a different attack vector. They know that the moment they use a particular vector (airplanes) we will throw a bunch of money at securing that vector. So they move on, and use something else (like bombs in a subway and on buses).
Which are difficult to "secure" without rendering them utterly useless...
You airport security freaks need to get over yourselves: perhaps making air travel needlessly complicated makes you feel warm and comfortable,
IIRC it has lead to more people in the US taking long car journeys, something which is far more likely to result in death or serious injury.
Here's the question, what if a certain transportation is the only way to get your destination? I know here in california, there are some places along the 101 highway that you can only get to by car.
What prevents you using a motorbike, truck or helicopter?
Now a drivers license is a priveledge and if its revoked, you in theory could argue that you freedom to travel has been removed.
You do not have to drive to be transported in a motor vehicle along a public road. Depending on the circumstances it may be more difficult/expensive to do so.
Could also argue this for planes, boats and etc.
Are people on the "no fly list" forbidden from chartering planes or being pilots?
This is what SCOTUS gets wrong too, ever since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. The purpose of the commerce clause is not to give the Feds carte blanche to control everything, but to regulate, meaning "make regular", interstate commerce, meaning the prevention of states from enacting trade barriers against each other (for example).
The problem is that whilst the meaning of the term "regulate" has not changed that much, according to the dictionary definition, the most common usage has. A similar issue applies to the Second Amendment. With the intended meaning of "well regulated militia" probably having more to do with people having the skills of "regular soldiers" than outside control.
I am of the opinion that *if* we are willing (which I am) to give up liberties in exchange for security, that both sides in that bargain must be fulfilled.
This is the difficult part. Giving up liberties does not automatically create more security. It's perfectly possible for it to have the net effect of reducing security. It's also perfectly possible that effective methods of increasing security may require no loss (even gains) of liberty.
Checking IDs doesn't make us safer; it only restricts our liberties.
All the work and money involved in checking IDs (including issuing the documents in the first place) might well be spent of something else.
Can the constitution be construed to limit the powers of the Federal Government to ask for IDs and restrict and inspect the contents of our baggage in exchange for the privilige of being allowed to step onto a commercial airliner with 200 other souls on board?
Isn't it the airline's job to ensure that they operate their aircraft in ways which are as safe as possible.
I have always thought of the right to travel as one of the Big Three, along with bearing arms and speaking.
A right to travel means just that. It dosn't mean a right to travel in a specific way or using a specific type of vehicle. e.g. it isn't the same as having the right to drive a car. Nor does having the right to travel mean that anyone is obliged to carry you as a passenger in their vehicle.
The judiciary is a third branch of government. It does not exist to cater to the whims of Congress. It exists to hold the Executive and Congress to the Constitution.
IIRC the original intention behind the US Supreme court would be that it's primary role would be this. Rather than hearing appeals from other courts.
According to the authoritarians the 9th and 10th Amendments were obviously written only to assuage those whom they can ridicule as "conspiracy theorists".
Especially ironic given that the whole "War on Terror" is based on (government backed) conspiracy theories. Some, such as the Al Quada/Iraq alliance, where just daft.
The point IS that your privacy being overtly invaded could be used as a tool against you. I'm not saying that it is being done or has been done (though it wouldn't suprise me in the least if it had) I'm saying that it COULD easily be done and IMHO is not beyond this administration.
Effective blackmail tends to be rather invisible.