You make a good point, they are more expensive, in the year 2003. However, the price will come down.
The price will never be as low as the price of NTSC -- you just don't get something for nothing.
For the majority that uses plain old cable or satellite, this will be a non-issue. It's only for those people who use the airwaves for reception of local channels that this is a problem.
Your own statement reveals the absurdity of the government's universal mandate. Let the people who want and need it buy it without bothering the rest of us.
The bottom line is that most people find television as it exists to be good enough and are not willing to pay the extra cost of digital. That ought to settle the matter.
(Assumes audio format is 128kbps MP3 encoding with average song length of 4 min.)
I dont know about the rest of you, but most, if not all of my music is in 192kbps.
What kind of space available are we talking about with that bitrate?
Enough to store all the textbooks on basic arithmetic in the Library of Congress.
The injunction also forbids Willis and Griffin from owning or managing any business that advertises over the internet for 10 years.
I would like to see this become a routine penalty, and to survive as such into an era when it has the effect of relegating the target to menial scrub labor.
Let me make a somewhat controversial statement: airport security is ineffective. Its purpose is to make people feel safe.
This statement is "controversial" in the same sense that the theory of evolution is "controversial" -- the facts are beyond reasonable dispute, but some people simply can't handle the truth.
I can create a completely random pin and store it on the card (with an MD5 hash), so long as a input your SSN I can then input MY biometric identifications.
Which will be rejected unless they bear a valid digital signature. The key used for that signature can be checked externally (the public key used for the signature will be, duh, public).
There are some valid objections to the concept, but this isn't one of them.
How does my "credit history" indicate my propensity to be a criminal or terrorist?
What it indicates to me is that a big campaign donor saw an opportunity to get lots of free marketing information under the guise of National Security[tm].
The battle on spam must be fought on all available fronts
A legal front that ought to be opened is the application of existing computer-crime laws to certain spamming techniques. The deployment of trojans to create open relays and even outright spamboxes is an obvious example.
Additionally, the use of forged headers, munged words, etc to evade spam filters is arguably a form of cracking in and of itself -- what is it, if not a deliberate attempt to use someone else's computer without the owner's permission, and indeed against the owner's express prohibition?
Spamming is both a social (some people are sociopaths who are willing to live by theft) and a technical (it is difficult to reliably screen e-mail sent under the incumbent protocol) problem.
In this, it is similar to the problem of burglary -- both better locks and better law enforcement have their place.
In addition to all the other objections that have already been raised, dumping something into the sun from the earth requires a delta v of about 30 km/s (i.e. you have to cancel out the earth's orbital velocity and bring the payload to rest with respect to the sun so that it will fall in).
any spammer that adds random characters, hides words in images or any other techniques to get through my blocking software is then intentionally circumventing my security software
That's not a DMCA violation, because the security system isn't being circumvented for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to copyrighted material.
However, it is a form of computer cracking, because the security system is being circumvented for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to a computer system. If the existing cracking laws were applied and enforced against spammers when they circumvent spam-block filters, the problem would pretty well disappear -- spammers would either be easily filtered out at the ISP level (if they quit using these tricks) or would be in jail (if they didn't).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only way a technical solution will work is if attempting to circumvent it is prosecuted and punished as energetically as any other form of computer cracking.
It like suing somebody for, well, hmm, I just cant think of anything even remotely close to this.
The ending of the modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes" -- the Emperor sues the kid who pointed out his nudity (thereby causing him to suffer emotional distress and loss of prestige).
Give him some webmail account that he can access over dialup from prison. Publish that email far and wide so it'll end up on every spam list in the world.
Then, tell him that once a year he'll get an email with a password that if he gives the prison guard, he can leave at any time.
This email can come in any form, with any subject heading, very likely disguised as spam. His webmail account will also have a 5Mb limit, and if the email bounces because it just happens to come when the mailbox is full, he'll have to wait for the next year.
Better yet, send e-mail announcements during the day with the passwords required to obtain meals, excersize breaks, potty breaks, etc. If he can't find the legitimate mail in the flood of spam, then he'll just have to live with being hungry, flabby, and unsanitary.
If I send 22.9 million people to your house, one a day, to ring your doorbell, do you have to tell each one of them individually to stop? Yes. Deal with it.
***BBBBBZZZZZTTTTT!!!*** The correct answer is "No -- one NO SOLICITORS notice is sufficient."
Now, there is a NO SOLICITORS notice for the phone. Deal with it.
What penalty do you think should be meted out to telespammers who call a TeleZapper-equipped phone?
You don't need to cite specific numbers -- a less-more-or-equal comparison to the physical-world equivalent (picking a door lock in order to enter somebody's house without permission) will do.
Slashdot Mirror
The price will never be as low as the price of NTSC -- you just don't get something for nothing.
For the majority that uses plain old cable or satellite, this will be a non-issue. It's only for those people who use the airwaves for reception of local channels that this is a problem.
Your own statement reveals the absurdity of the government's universal mandate. Let the people who want and need it buy it without bothering the rest of us.
The bottom line is that most people find television as it exists to be good enough and are not willing to pay the extra cost of digital. That ought to settle the matter.
Cite three examples of HDTV 1920x1080 with Dolby Digital 5.1 sound receivers that are cheaper than otherwise identical NTSC receivers.
Yep, just ask the ghost of Emperor Diocletian about the effectiveness of decreeing that things shall henceforth be less expensive.
I dont know about the rest of you, but most, if not all of my music is in 192kbps.
What kind of space available are we talking about with that bitrate?
Enough to store all the textbooks on basic arithmetic in the Library of Congress.
I would like to see this become a routine penalty, and to survive as such into an era when it has the effect of relegating the target to menial scrub labor.
This statement is "controversial" in the same sense that the theory of evolution is "controversial" -- the facts are beyond reasonable dispute, but some people simply can't handle the truth.
Which will be rejected unless they bear a valid digital signature. The key used for that signature can be checked externally (the public key used for the signature will be, duh, public).
There are some valid objections to the concept, but this isn't one of them.
What it indicates to me is that a big campaign donor saw an opportunity to get lots of free marketing information under the guise of National Security[tm].
A legal front that ought to be opened is the application of existing computer-crime laws to certain spamming techniques. The deployment of trojans to create open relays and even outright spamboxes is an obvious example.
Additionally, the use of forged headers, munged words, etc to evade spam filters is arguably a form of cracking in and of itself -- what is it, if not a deliberate attempt to use someone else's computer without the owner's permission, and indeed against the owner's express prohibition?
In this, it is similar to the problem of burglary -- both better locks and better law enforcement have their place.
That could be a problem -- after Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not sure if we still have 20 Predator-mounted Hellfires in stock.
Except in Lake Wobegon.
In addition to all the other objections that have already been raised, dumping something into the sun from the earth requires a delta v of about 30 km/s (i.e. you have to cancel out the earth's orbital velocity and bring the payload to rest with respect to the sun so that it will fall in).
That's not a DMCA violation, because the security system isn't being circumvented for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to copyrighted material.
However, it is a form of computer cracking, because the security system is being circumvented for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to a computer system. If the existing cracking laws were applied and enforced against spammers when they circumvent spam-block filters, the problem would pretty well disappear -- spammers would either be easily filtered out at the ISP level (if they quit using these tricks) or would be in jail (if they didn't).
Nope, just knowing at the time whether you're listening to the system with $10,000 wires or the system with $10 wires.
"I don't want to be the guy that gets blamed for getting the DMCA either thrown out in court or repealed."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only way a technical solution will work is if attempting to circumvent it is prosecuted and punished as energetically as any other form of computer cracking.
The ending of the modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes" -- the Emperor sues the kid who pointed out his nudity (thereby causing him to suffer emotional distress and loss of prestige).
Then, tell him that once a year he'll get an email with a password that if he gives the prison guard, he can leave at any time.
This email can come in any form, with any subject heading, very likely disguised as spam. His webmail account will also have a 5Mb limit, and if the email bounces because it just happens to come when the mailbox is full, he'll have to wait for the next year.
Better yet, send e-mail announcements during the day with the passwords required to obtain meals, excersize breaks, potty breaks, etc. If he can't find the legitimate mail in the flood of spam, then he'll just have to live with being hungry, flabby, and unsanitary.
Darn -- I'd just sort of assuming that somebody caught spamming in Texas would get the death penalty....
Your statement is indeed ridiculous, but correcting it to "...the equivalent of a NO SOLICITORS sign..." fixes it right up.
Relevant Evidence? Yep, this phone is my property, all right; I even have the receipt in the kitchen drawer somewhere.
Just Cause? Just 'cause it's my phone, you don't get to use it if I choose not to allow it.
A law telling telespammers that they cannot speak on my property without my permission is just fine.
***BBBBBZZZZZTTTTT!!!*** The correct answer is "No -- one NO SOLICITORS notice is sufficient."
Now, there is a NO SOLICITORS notice for the phone. Deal with it.
What penalty do you think should be meted out to telespammers who call a TeleZapper-equipped phone?
You don't need to cite specific numbers -- a less-more-or-equal comparison to the physical-world equivalent (picking a door lock in order to enter somebody's house without permission) will do.