"If some smart application of physical processes were developed instead - something based on a large and almost limitless power supply"
You may be onto something. The most limitless energy supply I can think of is found in my spam box right now. The Space Elevator can be made a reality, perhaps, with the propery application of zillions of doses of "lengthening enhancer"? Could the "energy boost" of the illicit HGH herb be applied to rocket thrust? Not only that, I think I can fund my own NASA if I answer every single one of the thousands of Nigerian princes who have been begging me to let them give me millions.
"Something tells me he should focus on adding a few more medics first."
How about the medics of the Star Trek kind who can perform brain surgery and replace severed limbs with a few waves of a whistling chrome salt shaker?
"The fewer components you have, the less likely you are to encounter a failure."
Which is why the good old fashioned meteor, with one REALLY BIG moving part, is one of the most successful space vehicles ever. Ol' T-Rex can attest to its effectiveness.
If nerds could really manipulate TV listings, we'd have new episodes of "Star Trek" every night (including those "T'Pol's Bath" shows aired only after midnight).
My favorite scene is when Tom Hanks says to the President over the radio to Houston: "I gotta pee", at which point his 55 IQ-lets him open the airlock to step outside. He had that horrid urine problem at least until John Coffee cured it.
"in the case of Quebec, these regulations include the restriction that all advertisements must be in French, but they do not prohibit other languages like English, they just can't be the only language"
According to the sources from Quebec who chimed in, this is not true. The law as written and implemented for many years actually prohibits other languages such as English. The law and its history is detailed at Wikipedia. "English only and bilingual English and French exterior signs were taken down and replaced by French only signs". This part was ruled unconstutitional by the Canadian supreme court, after which the Quebec government said that the Constitution did not apply to them. The outright banning provision apparently ended in 1993, after being in force for 16 years. What remains is still a major government intervention in private matters, and the law can have fines of up to $7,000 for using the wrong language in private non-government affairs.
"Most countries don't need to restrict things like advertising as far as languages go"
Most? Why not ALL countries don't need to punish people for using the wrong language in private affairs. Quebec certainly does not "need" to violate its citizens' rights.
"And other than that, as I pointed out, Quebec is very left-wing"
Yes, an in accordance with policies of far-left governments, workers are denied basic rights they enjoy in other countries which have more respect for the workers.
However, typically, policies like those in Quebec which are designed specifically to deny rights to people of the "wrong" national origin/ethnic group, and to openly enforce by law a "national culture" are typically viewed as "right-wing". Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were strong examples of this. The "left wing" typically does not admit doing this, even though their laws to crush "alien" cultures are at least as oppressive. Russian was made the official language by force in many of the USSR's colonies. They just tended to deny it. The main difference between left-wing fascism and right-wing fascism is one of mere window dressing. The left-wing fascists say they are doing it "for the people".
Exceptions include 1990s Serbia, which was very strongly left wing and at the same time very strongly into the racial-ethnic superiority of "Serbs Uber Alles".....and Quebec, which is less left-wing and less ethnically oppressive than Serbia.
"Quebec doesn't have any laws banning personal communications"
Yes it does. Advertising signs, which are censored, count as personal, non-government communications.
"it certainly doesn't ban other languages"
It certainly does. The law includes a prohibition on English advertising signs.
"and, might I point out, other than that Quebec is very left-wing."
In this, it is "left wing" the way the USSR was left-wing. The USSR also crushed other cultures. Fascistic pro-nationalist oppression....
"...acceptence of homosexual unions..."
Don't gay workers have a right to organize too?
"the Netherlands, it's usually more the decision to stop treatment/support, not actual execution; other than that it's generally consentual"
It is now forced.
"Feel free to bring up more concrete examples"
Those are the main examples I could think of about how "national socialism" is strong in some places in Western Europe. I could also mention Switzerland, a secret part of the Axis during WW2, which was happy to go along having profited from stolen property of Holocaust victims until a very recent outcry.
"How come in your world nobody but the license holder gets first amendment rights with regard to a particular broadcast TV channel allocation?"
It's not "my world": it's the law of the land. I may not like what Sinclair, Pacifica, CBS News and any other partisan broadcaster airs, but I defend the right for them to do it.
"Cable ain't broadcast. The Fairness Doctrine was only applied to over the air stations without regard to whether or not they were also re-transmitted over a cable system."
Cable is to be considered when trying to make the argument that helped lead to the Fairness Doctrine: scarcity of channels.
"So each geographical area should have 3 or 4 channel 7s or 13s? Spectrum is like land, they ain't making anymore of it."
They easily could. There is a lot of unused bandwidth, and through packet and other technologies, many channels could share one Channel 13. This is the kind of change that would be more worthwhile, instead of pointless V chips, "you must use HDTV" and broadcast flags.
Yet, this is not being done. Still, you have more than 80 VHF and UHF channels. In any one market, only a few of these are being used.
"Those "some individuals" are also part of the public...."
Absolutely, and as Americans they should respect the first amendment rights of others, instead of screaming "claptrap!" and making false claims of "abusing the airwaves".
"If the government passed a law saying that newspapers had freedom of the press but that each town or city could only have one newspaper, would you still consider that freedom of the press?"
How is this comparable? In the "major markets" where Sinclair has many of its small number of stations, they are one station among 40 or so on the cable list.
Overall, Sinclair controls 3% of America's TV stations.
"Hah! Never thought I'd hear Marillion mentioned on Slashdot. Anoraknaphobia has actually been getting a lot of play"
I'm actually rather out of date on Marillion: "Season's End" is the last one I heard! On your recommendation, I downloaded Anaroknophobia off Napster II. South Park Kenny's all over the cover! Am listening now.
Just revisiting this with some of the actual facts of Sinclair's small voice.
The marketshare claim is irrelevant. Even if it were true, since when do you lose freedom of speech because you are popular? A little more relevant is the fact that Sinclair owns a tiny minority of the total TV stations out there.
Let's look at the facts. As of the end of 2003, there were 1,733 full-power TV stations in the United States (a href = "http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting _fcc_fullpower_tv/">source). Sinclair owns 49 stations (from Sinclair's own site). Do the math.
Sinclair controls less than 3% of the TV stations in the country.. It is a baldfaced lie to claim that they control a significant part of broadcast bandwidth.
"This is not a "free speech" issue"
It is nothing but a free speech issue. Sinclair said something. You do not like it, and want them censored. You even think that free speech is a "privilege". Surprisingly, refuting this is similar to the censorship war against "Clear Channel". I'd never heard them or heard of them until the fight to deny their first amendment rights a year or two ago. One of the frequent claims was that they were a monopoly. The station ownership facts for them shows that they control less than 8% of radio stations.
It used to be that the term monopoly meant anything. Now it means "anything I do not like, no matter how small". 8% and 3% are rather small. No amount of "I hate Sinclair so I want them censored, Constitution and facts be damned" lies can get around that.
Slashdot Mirror
One word: Skynet.
Starbuck? Is that you? I bet those Vipers are much nicer to fly than those Cylon Raiders which are filled with wet corned beef.
How long did you work for Dr. Parsons? Did he complain when he caught you humping the "laser" ?
You may be onto something. The most limitless energy supply I can think of is found in my spam box right now. The Space Elevator can be made a reality, perhaps, with the propery application of zillions of doses of "lengthening enhancer"? Could the "energy boost" of the illicit HGH herb be applied to rocket thrust? Not only that, I think I can fund my own NASA if I answer every single one of the thousands of Nigerian princes who have been begging me to let them give me millions.
"Something tells me he should focus on adding a few more medics first." How about the medics of the Star Trek kind who can perform brain surgery and replace severed limbs with a few waves of a whistling chrome salt shaker?
Which is why the good old fashioned meteor, with one REALLY BIG moving part, is one of the most successful space vehicles ever. Ol' T-Rex can attest to its effectiveness.
Nuff said (but there's something to be said for the butlerian jihad, and Cmdr Adama filling his battlestar with rotary phones and manual typewriters!)
It shows as one of the top listings "Hockey", which, last time I checked, was one of EA's videogames only.
If nerds could really manipulate TV listings, we'd have new episodes of "Star Trek" every night (including those "T'Pol's Bath" shows aired only after midnight).
My favorite scene is when Tom Hanks says to the President over the radio to Houston: "I gotta pee", at which point his 55 IQ-lets him open the airlock to step outside. He had that horrid urine problem at least until John Coffee cured it.
According to the sources from Quebec who chimed in, this is not true. The law as written and implemented for many years actually prohibits other languages such as English. The law and its history is detailed at Wikipedia. "English only and bilingual English and French exterior signs were taken down and replaced by French only signs". This part was ruled unconstutitional by the Canadian supreme court, after which the Quebec government said that the Constitution did not apply to them. The outright banning provision apparently ended in 1993, after being in force for 16 years. What remains is still a major government intervention in private matters, and the law can have fines of up to $7,000 for using the wrong language in private non-government affairs.
"Most countries don't need to restrict things like advertising as far as languages go"
Most? Why not ALL countries don't need to punish people for using the wrong language in private affairs. Quebec certainly does not "need" to violate its citizens' rights.
"And other than that, as I pointed out, Quebec is very left-wing"
Yes, an in accordance with policies of far-left governments, workers are denied basic rights they enjoy in other countries which have more respect for the workers.
However, typically, policies like those in Quebec which are designed specifically to deny rights to people of the "wrong" national origin/ethnic group, and to openly enforce by law a "national culture" are typically viewed as "right-wing". Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were strong examples of this. The "left wing" typically does not admit doing this, even though their laws to crush "alien" cultures are at least as oppressive. Russian was made the official language by force in many of the USSR's colonies. They just tended to deny it. The main difference between left-wing fascism and right-wing fascism is one of mere window dressing. The left-wing fascists say they are doing it "for the people".
Exceptions include 1990s Serbia, which was very strongly left wing and at the same time very strongly into the racial-ethnic superiority of "Serbs Uber Alles".....and Quebec, which is less left-wing and less ethnically oppressive than Serbia.
Turns out that this was merely a grail-shaped beacon at the Egyptian rubbish dump.
Yes it does. Advertising signs, which are censored, count as personal, non-government communications.
"it certainly doesn't ban other languages"
It certainly does. The law includes a prohibition on English advertising signs.
"and, might I point out, other than that Quebec is very left-wing."
In this, it is "left wing" the way the USSR was left-wing. The USSR also crushed other cultures. Fascistic pro-nationalist oppression....
"...acceptence of homosexual unions..."
Don't gay workers have a right to organize too?
"the Netherlands, it's usually more the decision to stop treatment/support, not actual execution; other than that it's generally consentual"
It is now forced.
"Feel free to bring up more concrete examples"
Those are the main examples I could think of about how "national socialism" is strong in some places in Western Europe. I could also mention Switzerland, a secret part of the Axis during WW2, which was happy to go along having profited from stolen property of Holocaust victims until a very recent outcry.
If they can survive being linked when they had Morgan Webb photos, they can survive anything.
Moviefone? Don't tell me. Every article is written by Kramer, right?
It's not "my world": it's the law of the land. I may not like what Sinclair, Pacifica, CBS News and any other partisan broadcaster airs, but I defend the right for them to do it.
"Cable ain't broadcast. The Fairness Doctrine was only applied to over the air stations without regard to whether or not they were also re-transmitted over a cable system."
Cable is to be considered when trying to make the argument that helped lead to the Fairness Doctrine: scarcity of channels.
Henny Youngman: "Take my wifi. Please!"
Rodney Dangerfield: "I get no respect. I turned on my computer, and the virus checker said STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD!"
They easily could. There is a lot of unused bandwidth, and through packet and other technologies, many channels could share one Channel 13. This is the kind of change that would be more worthwhile, instead of pointless V chips, "you must use HDTV" and broadcast flags.
Yet, this is not being done. Still, you have more than 80 VHF and UHF channels. In any one market, only a few of these are being used.
Absolutely, and as Americans they should respect the first amendment rights of others, instead of screaming "claptrap!" and making false claims of "abusing the airwaves".
"If the government passed a law saying that newspapers had freedom of the press but that each town or city could only have one newspaper, would you still consider that freedom of the press?"
How is this comparable? In the "major markets" where Sinclair has many of its small number of stations, they are one station among 40 or so on the cable list.
Overall, Sinclair controls 3% of America's TV stations.
I'm actually rather out of date on Marillion: "Season's End" is the last one I heard! On your recommendation, I downloaded Anaroknophobia off Napster II. South Park Kenny's all over the cover! Am listening now.
Getting way off topic: is Dream Theatre any good?
Hopefully, there are some new recipes in it. I mean, Master Chef is great and all, but souffle's only go so far.
The marketshare claim is irrelevant. Even if it were true, since when do you lose freedom of speech because you are popular? A little more relevant is the fact that Sinclair owns a tiny minority of the total TV stations out there.
Let's look at the facts. As of the end of 2003, there were 1,733 full-power TV stations in the United States (a href = "http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting _fcc_fullpower_tv/">source). Sinclair owns 49 stations (from Sinclair's own site). Do the math.
Sinclair controls less than 3% of the TV stations in the country.. It is a baldfaced lie to claim that they control a significant part of broadcast bandwidth.
"This is not a "free speech" issue"
It is nothing but a free speech issue. Sinclair said something. You do not like it, and want them censored. You even think that free speech is a "privilege". Surprisingly, refuting this is similar to the censorship war against "Clear Channel". I'd never heard them or heard of them until the fight to deny their first amendment rights a year or two ago. One of the frequent claims was that they were a monopoly. The station ownership facts for them shows that they control less than 8% of radio stations.
It used to be that the term monopoly meant anything. Now it means "anything I do not like, no matter how small". 8% and 3% are rather small. No amount of "I hate Sinclair so I want them censored, Constitution and facts be damned" lies can get around that.
Make that into "have you ever taken tax money to say something" and it looks a lot less meaningless.
Can't say I'd ever heard of that radio station before. Does it play a lot of Marillion? (I did google it, but it only mentioned Linux stuff).