Well, TiVo is based on a PowerPC cpu so it's not that huge of a stretch. Linux and BSD are more alike than they are different (while they're different, they're a hell of a lot more alike than say Linux vs. Windows).
I think this is a great idea and I hope it works out. Then again, as someone who loves TiVo, I applaud anything which might keep TiVo alive.
By the way. Would you pay $999 for a TiVo in silver aluminum? That's how much you'd have to pay for the 250gb HDTV DirecTiVo box. $699 for an HDTV Apple TiVo sounds like a great deal to me, regardless of the color of the plastic.
Friends / family etc only run Firefox & Thunderbird. I've told them they are free to run IE and outlook express, but I won't touch their computer if they do.
Very good. I do that too, and I'm glad I'm not the only one. I only wish others would take that stand as well.
Instead of saying "Please don't open that door" you simply lock the door and make sure they never have access to the key.
Fair enough... but then why do you insist on giving them access to Internet Explorer and Outlook or Outlook Express? Those programs are basically master keys to the system, as is evident by the flood of viruses, trojans and spyware that gets installed without the user's consent. If you're really looking to minimize your workload, and keep them happy at the same time, why not use Firefox and Thunderbird instead? Seems logical to me.
Yes, it is. But it's so much better than 7-Zip, I'm willing to accept that. Like I said. I prefer WinRAR. It's not a matter of saving a buck. If it was, I'd be using the built in XP Zip support, which I dislike very much.
Actually, I've done support for an ISP, and I got my share of stupid questions (hint, I don't anymore, as I simply cannot stand stupid questions), the single dumbest question being "hi, do you have the latest version of the Internet?" the day after AOL launched a media blitz for the latest version of their software. Of course, I said yes, and signed up a new customer.
I understand people do stupid things. But why waste tons of cash on fixing the issue when you can just spend a little bit of cash up front to educate the employees on what not to do... and then fire them if they don't listen. Just imagine how many lost manhours could be recovered in the corporate world that way.
Personally I prefer WinRAR to any compression program currently available. Unfortunately, WinZip sucks beyond words. XP's Native handling of Zip files is annoying at best, and is usually one of the first things I disable whenever I install XP.
I guess I just don't understand what the "nightmare" part is about WinRAR.
How easy does it have to be, really? Select files, right click, select "add to archive" or "add to filename.rar" and let it run. You're done. Extracting is even easier. Right click, select "Extract files" to get a path choice, "Extract Here" to uhm, extract in the current folder or "Extract to filename" which creates a folder with the same name as the file.
Not to mention the bonus features you get if you bother to open the program, such as file recovery and repair, authentication checking, and the ability to extract from a partial set and even extract broken files if you really, really need them.
However, this should not be an issue at all, since most people don't have any support for RAR files and therefore can't open them to run the executable inside it (which is monumentally stupid anyway and whoever does, deserves whatever crap they get installed as a result of that action).
As for the "yet" part of blocking... When are we going to put the responsibility in the hands of the user and stop dumbing down the internet? There are those of us who actually know what we're doing, don't open unknown attachments, never get viruses or trojans and always get pissed off when email servers filter out valid files. I can't even send a bloody Word document because of the "risk of macros".
Gimme a freakin' break already.
Listen up people, if you're too dumb to use email without infecting your computer with the latest malware, maybe you should reconsider email as your communications method of choice.
need the power for MPEG-4 decoding so they can be a good home theater PC Since most people don't really need a second computer dedicated to TV watching, this could be a great for a WIFI/Ethernet box that reads videos from the main computer in the house, or even from a firewire drive. Small enough to put in the living room, and since it has no fan, is completely silent (provided it's diskless as well).
Having wasted my money on the 933Mhz Mini-ITX that could barely decode mpeg2, this sounds infinitely better. Granted, HDTV support would be great, but I think it's only a matter of time before AMD goes in that direction. A fanless multimedia front end capable of processing WM9,MPEG4,MPEG2 decoding at full 1920x1080 resolutions would go straight to the top of my list of must haves.
Actually, I saw an interesting piece on The Discovery Channel where they wondered if this was in fact an ancient photograph using camera obscura, and they actually did tests which provided results strikingly similar, including the fact that the subject has a lower torso and forearms of a length monstrously disproportionate to the rest of the body, due to the cloth not hanging straight, and the fact that if it was in fact a shroud, it would show more three dimensional distortion in the "imprint". To see what I mean, put flower or something on your face, take a wet cloth and lay it on your face, and look at the imprint on the cloth. You'll see a much wider imprint of your face than if you were just looking straight on, like in a photo...
Some came up with the idea, based on the then believed to be accurate carbon dating, that the shroud might be a practical joke, a self portrait photo made by Leonardo Da Vinci... (the shroud actually looks remarkably like his self portrait if you overlap them).
Anyway... If their reasoning for going ahead with this was trying to get an answer that fits their religious beliefs, then that's absolutely the wrong reason. If it was indeed that they detected flaws in the original testing, then it's the right reason.
What makes you US people generally think that your constitution is somehow a law of the nature, granted from above or something? What if something in it is _wrong_? You mean like the original version in which only white, male property owners were allowed to vote? The rest of the people were only given the right to vote through updates to the Constitution, known as Amendments, long after the nation was founded. The last group to be included, women, only got the right to vote in 1920. That's 14 years after my grandfather was born. That's uncomfortably recent, if you ask me.
As for your China example, while I agree with what you're saying, just because we think it's wrong doesn't mean the people of China think it's wrong. Right and wrong are not black and white. There is no absolute right and there is no absolute wrong. Everything is subjective. I think it's wrong that three small states with a total of 13 million voters have the same electoral votes as California which has 35 million voters, giving each of their votes 3 times as much weight as mine, but those who support the Electoral College system apparently think it's a good idea...
There's no reason for the airwaves to be publicly owned. Do you happen to live in a red state, by any chance?:P
The airwaves cannot be owned by anyone, and are therefore considered everyone's - or public. We as a society decide that to minimize the likelyhood of two broadcasters using the same frequency in the same market, or using a frequency that interferes with police or airline communication, that it be wise to regulate who can use what, where, when and how. Remember, the government is an extension of us, and as such, can regulate things we collectively own as a society. That includes the airwaves, and the public roads, and public land. Why can I walk/drive freely around the California desert without buying a permit? Because as a taxpayer, I'm part owner. Even if I were to wander into the Nevada desert, I'd still be on MY land, not private property.
If the airwaves are privatized, how do we (the people/government) decide who gets to control the airwaves? Would we sell them to the highest bidder? Wouldn't that unfairly benefit the wealthiest corporations at the expense of the poor (like so many other things)?
If the group that wants censorship has more votes than the group that doesn't want censorship, then there'll be censorship. Not in the US there won't be. There's something called the Bill of Rights, which limits the governments powers. It include the 1st Amendment, which strictly forbids government censorship (private entities can censor anything they want, including radio, tv and yes, online bulletin boards, provided they own it.) While the American FCC needs to be restructured, privatizing the airwaves is a horrible idea.
When a private entity owns something, decisions are made based on the ideals of the private entity. If you don't like the decisions made about the resource, you can buy your own. That's fine and dandy, as long as what we're talking about can be sectioned off. Radiowaves have the pesky habit of overstepping their bounds. You can't tell a radiowave to stop at 31st Street. If you want to provide adequate service between 1st Street and 30th Street, you need to have enough juice for the whole area. But by its nature, the signal fades out and doens't stop at a certain point, and therefore it can probably be received quite well around 44th street or beyond. So, if I have a service that provides service to that area and needs to cover 31st Street through 60th Street, our signals would overlap quite badly.
As you said, it works for land, as land can be sectioned off, and it is. However, it won't work for the airwaves. Anyone who has driven through Los Angeles trying to listen to FM 97.1 can tell you that the Mexican music that bleeds in from the tiny neighborhood stations is way beyond annoying... imagine that on a bigger scale? I don't even want to think about it. Microsoft could buy the exclusive rights for all the frequencies used for all wireless digital communication and still have money in the bank. Verizon could monopolize the cell phone market by buying up all usable cell phone frequencies (except of course digital, as Microsoft would own that). NBC could put the other TV networks out of business by buying up all the TV frequencies and charging outrageous fees to let their competitors get back their channels... First come, first serve, right?
If the airwaves are left up to corporations, they will abuse their situation... let there be no doubt. Where there is profit to be made, there will be abuses. Period.
If the film is being shown in class, as part of the class (meaning, it's not just entertainment, but actually pertains to the subject of the class) it's very much legal. It's called Fair Use. See this copy/paste from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Now, I'm sure overzealous legal eagles may try to weasel out of this one, and in fact, at least one part of this clause has already been made practically impossible legally by the DMCA, the "including multiple copies for classroom use" part. If a film school teacher wanted to copy a scene from a copyrighted film, and ask each student to re-edit the scene, they would have two choices. Either request the material from the copyright owner, which is hit or miss at best and can cost the school a fortune, as the copyright owner pretty much sets the price; or make a copy of the finished material. Prior to the DMCA that wasn't a big problem. Bypassing Macrovision was as simple as copying from VHS or DVD to a 3/4" tape and then making copies. Copying DVDs digitally for each student wasn't possible as decss hadn't been created yet. Today, if it wasn't for the DMCA, a teacher would be able to legally make copies of scenes from films, in the best quality available, directly from DVD. Thus, rights guaranteed a teacher before 1996 no longer apply, thanks to the DMCA.
not 51% of the population... 51% of votes cast, assuming Diebold had nothing to do with it.
The vast majority of the population still believes in liberal issues, they just don't get an opportunity to support them because the voters are being scared half to death by both sides, with negative ads and images of 9/11 being used for partisan politics.
I think that those who say what he said, are themselves fundamentalist christians, and cannot stand that government officials uphold the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment. Remember that idiot judge who wanted to put the 10 commandments in the court house? If only he had wanted to put up another list of 10... the Bill of Rights, which IS what the courts are supposed to uphold.
Holy cow... could you get any further from my point?
No real liberal approves of pre-emptive strikes, as they are an act of aggression.
So, you're putting words in my mouth (fingers) when you claim that my assumptions would require the US to attack itself.
I never claimed there only existed two kinds of people. There are leftist liberals, and there are right wing liberals... there are leftist conservatives and there are right wing conservatives... there are fascists and there are communists... there are anarchists and there are non-conformers. There are many, many types of political views out there, but for the purpose of this discussion, we're talking about liberals vs. conservatives and left vs. right, which are the most basic classification we use in the USA... or did you forget about the original topic?
The US history of pre-emptive strikes, is short. It's only happened once... in 2003. I don't approve of pre-emptive strikes, and I don't approve of the war in Iraq.
Thus, your entire post about my "assumptions" is entirely worthless.
No word yet if it will record straight from your television That's easy. Since it already has S-Video and Composite Inputs, you just hook it up to your cable box, or through your VCR. It doesn't need to have a TV Tuner to record TV... it's enough that whatever provides the video/audio signal does.
I'm not saying there aren't extremists on both sides, there certainly are looney people of every creed. But I'm saying real liberals by definition are peaceful. Anyone who claims to be liberal, but is not peaceful, is not really a liberal regardless of their politics.
Also, there's no reason to use foul language. Using expletives cheapens your argument and makes you look ignorant (just my opinion).
Oh, and what is "more non-violent"? Did you mean less violent?
A video of a rape would be protected by the first amendment, if the woman agreed to its release. While I would fully expect the person committing the rape to be arrested, tried and punished, the release of the video would be free speech, if both the woman and the rapist would sign release forms. Videos of crimes cannot be made illegal just because they depict illegal acts. If they were, you'd never see security camera footage on the news.
Can a woman be a little bit pregnant? No. Can speech be a little bit free? No.
Speech MUST be free in all cases, or else it is not free. Conditioned speech is not free speech. If you say something which gets you into trouble, then that's your right. If you say something which gets someone else into trouble, then that's also your right. However, if that person wants to blame you for it, that's also their right, and they can hold you responsible. So, you can say whatever you want, but you should be prepared to face the consequences of what you say. The government can go after you if what you say causes an illegal act to be committed, but it cannot under any circumstances make it illegal for you to say it, on the off chance it might cause an illegal act to be committed. That's the distinction I'm making here, which you and so many others seem to have missed.
I'll say it again. Conditioned speech is not free speech.
It appears you and many others are completely missing my point.
My point being that these are not "liberals" no matter how "liberal" their ideology is (which, if it includes violence, is not liberal). Because the ideology of liberalism, does not approve of their methods, and therefore they disqualify themselves from any association with liberalism.
"In fact, the liberals are only non-militant when it comes to defending *this* country"
OK, first of all.. when you preface something with "In fact", please make sure what follows actually is fact. This is a neocon distortion of the truth, and you're very likely to hear that diatribe from Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Liberals, (a word and a definition which is not synonymous with leftists) are peaceful, but will use violence in self defense. Violence and militarization is and shall always be the last possible option when settling a dispute of any kind. Leaders are more effective when they lead by example and by being respected, than if they use force and/or fear. The first option may take a little longer in some cases, but it's better for everyone in the long run. Ruling by might is a silly and naive idea.
It's apparent from your post that you don't see a difference between leftist and liberal, which is really a shame, because those two ideals are so different, and it wouldn't make you look so ignorant.
For the record, I'm a liberal, not a leftist. Just like there are conservatives who are not right-wing. John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and many other Republicans are not right-wing, but are actually conservatives. If you don't know that there is a difference between those ideals (liberal vs leftist, right-wing vs conservative), then you simply have no place participating in this discussion.
All the groups you mentioned are not liberal groups, altough I'm sure Hannity or Limbaugh would call them that (a further display of their complete ignorance about these groups, liberalism and the left).
So... in short... your answer is not really an argument, it's just a rehashing of old and tired diatribe.
"So, when Leftist organizations start posting names, locations, and other personal information of people who oppose them, the first and only logical conclusion is that the poster expects the people on the list to be at least harassed and potentially physically attacked."
I think you're projecting quite a bit here. To you it might be the first and only conclusion, but that tells me more about you than it does about the people who posted the information. As you can see from my original post, my first assumption is that they're trying to put political pressure on them, not incite violence.
Now, seeing as you seem to be on the right-wing side of things, do you consider Freedom of Speech to be a right or a privilege afforded to us by the State? Think about it for a moment.
A right is something which the government cannot take away. A privilege is something the government, as an extension of society, can limit and reduce or even revoke.
So, since freedom of speech is a right, the government cannot limit its usage in any way, shape or form, without violating the 1st Amendment.
Ponder for a moment what the words 'unalienable Rights' mean.
Ponder also the notion that the Constitution gives powers to the government, and not vice versa. The government is an extension of us, not our owner. We tell the government what it can and cannot do on our behalf, not the other way around. Remember: "Of the People, By the People and For the People"?
We're all members of the same club, called The United States of America. We have basic club rules which we use as the basis for other rules we come up with to make the membership more enjoyable. Those basic club rules are what we call the Constitution and its amendments (the Bill of Rights). Those rules are what we must always go back to whenever there's a dispute or confusion about what other rules can and cannot dictate. They are also what we use to control how much power those we've chosed to enforce the rules, get to use in their efforts to enforce them. The laws of the games being played, cannot violate the basic rules of the club, nor can the enforcement of the laws of the games.
This is very clear and simple to me. Either you believe
First of all, did I ever claim I believed I was the definition of anything?
Second, you're completely wrong. There were many people in the Clinton administration that are not true liberals. They may be more liberal than many other politicians, but they're not "liberals". A liberal knows that in some cases war is inevitable, but only as the absolute last resort and in self defense or in defense of others.
Third, I would not erupt at the thought of a conservative definition that didn't include right wing crazies, because most right wing crazies are not true conservatives either. John McCain is a true conservative. He's for smaller government, while at the same time protecting the weakest if only to make sure they don't become a burdeon on society. He's not a right wing crazy by any stretch of the imagination.
Fourth. Intolerant and ignorant? Care to elaborate on that or are you just slinging mud? I'm a liberal, and I try to live up to that word, which means being tolerant and open to changes and new ideas. (the radical right has really done a great disservice to us all by hijacking the word liberal and turning it into a negative, but that's something we can argue in a different topic).
So... basically... stick your attitude where we can't see it.
Nor can you devine the intention of the folks who posted that info as entirely militant. Which of course would be why it is protected by the 1st Amendment.
By definition, liberals are peaceful. No true liberal believes in using violence or the threat of violence to further their cause. Your attempt to list the Black Panthers as a liberal activist group is laughable at best.
When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different? Hmmm... I'm gonna go out on a limb here. Perhaps it has something to do with the reasoning behind the publication, and the history of those who publish this information.
Let's look at the history first.
Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican), and are more often than not pigeonholed as hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and even cowards by the more militant right wing.
Anti-abortion groups on the other hand have a long history of stalking the doctors who perform abortions, which very often leads to physical violence. Many abortion doctors have been murdered for doing their jobs. I don't think a delegate has ever been given so much as a black eye.
Next, let's consider what the reasoning is for the publication in each instance?
When an anti-abortion group publishes the names and addresses of private citizens (doctors), they usually follow it up with "make sure they get the message" or "do what you have to to help save another fetus". For the most radical of those groups, that can be a very dangerous proposition.
When activists publish the names of delegates which are pledged to their opponent, who are constitutionally not supposed to be secret anyway, they're doing so in order to make sure their supporters use letters and phonecalls to put pressure on them to do what the activists consider to be the right thing, whatever it is.
Now, if you keep these two things in mind: 1) the identities of delegates are not secrets and in an open government that information must remain in the public domain. 2) the intent of the activists is not violence, but peaceful communication.
Compare that with: 1) the identities of doctors are private, although they can be found if you take the time to look for them. 2) the intent of the activists is not peaceful communication, but prevention at all costs.
With those things in mind, I see plenty of reasons as to why publishing the names of delegates should NOT be considered a threat of any kind. In fact, I believe it is protected by the first amendment.
OK, first of all... The electoral system was not chosen because it ensured a balance between the populous states and the rural states. It was in fact originally created to benefit slaveowners. A slave, while not allowed to vote, counted as 3/5th a person, and thus that state got more electoral votes, which of course meant that the vote of a slaveowner carried more weight than the vote of the average person. Which is why there were so many Presidents from Southern states back in the day.
Second. It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority. In fact, it's surprisingly easy. The president is the head of the Union. He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, TiVo is based on a PowerPC cpu so it's not that huge of a stretch.
Linux and BSD are more alike than they are different (while they're different, they're a hell of a lot more alike than say Linux vs. Windows).
I think this is a great idea and I hope it works out.
Then again, as someone who loves TiVo, I applaud anything which might keep TiVo alive.
By the way. Would you pay $999 for a TiVo in silver aluminum? That's how much you'd have to pay for the 250gb HDTV DirecTiVo box. $699 for an HDTV Apple TiVo sounds like a great deal to me, regardless of the color of the plastic.
Friends / family etc only run Firefox & Thunderbird. I've told them they are free to run IE and outlook express, but I won't touch their computer if they do.
Very good. I do that too, and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I only wish others would take that stand as well.
Instead of saying "Please don't open that door" you simply lock the door and make sure they never have access to the key.
Fair enough... but then why do you insist on giving them access to Internet Explorer and Outlook or Outlook Express? Those programs are basically master keys to the system, as is evident by the flood of viruses, trojans and spyware that gets installed without the user's consent.
If you're really looking to minimize your workload, and keep them happy at the same time, why not use Firefox and Thunderbird instead? Seems logical to me.
Yes, it is. But it's so much better than 7-Zip, I'm willing to accept that.
Like I said. I prefer WinRAR. It's not a matter of saving a buck. If it was, I'd be using the built in XP Zip support, which I dislike very much.
Actually, I've done support for an ISP, and I got my share of stupid questions (hint, I don't anymore, as I simply cannot stand stupid questions), the single dumbest question being "hi, do you have the latest version of the Internet?" the day after AOL launched a media blitz for the latest version of their software. Of course, I said yes, and signed up a new customer.
I understand people do stupid things. But why waste tons of cash on fixing the issue when you can just spend a little bit of cash up front to educate the employees on what not to do... and then fire them if they don't listen.
Just imagine how many lost manhours could be recovered in the corporate world that way.
Personally I prefer WinRAR to any compression program currently available.
Unfortunately, WinZip sucks beyond words.
XP's Native handling of Zip files is annoying at best, and is usually one of the first things I disable whenever I install XP.
I guess I just don't understand what the "nightmare" part is about WinRAR.
How easy does it have to be, really? Select files, right click, select "add to archive" or "add to filename.rar" and let it run. You're done.
Extracting is even easier. Right click, select "Extract files" to get a path choice, "Extract Here" to uhm, extract in the current folder or "Extract to filename" which creates a folder with the same name as the file.
Not to mention the bonus features you get if you bother to open the program, such as file recovery and repair, authentication checking, and the ability to extract from a partial set and even extract broken files if you really, really need them.
However, this should not be an issue at all, since most people don't have any support for RAR files and therefore can't open them to run the executable inside it (which is monumentally stupid anyway and whoever does, deserves whatever crap they get installed as a result of that action).
As for the "yet" part of blocking...
When are we going to put the responsibility in the hands of the user and stop dumbing down the internet? There are those of us who actually know what we're doing, don't open unknown attachments, never get viruses or trojans and always get pissed off when email servers filter out valid files.
I can't even send a bloody Word document because of the "risk of macros".
Gimme a freakin' break already.
Listen up people, if you're too dumb to use email without infecting your computer with the latest malware, maybe you should reconsider email as your communications method of choice.
need the power for MPEG-4 decoding so they can be a good home theater PC
Since most people don't really need a second computer dedicated to TV watching, this could be a great for a WIFI/Ethernet box that reads videos from the main computer in the house, or even from a firewire drive.
Small enough to put in the living room, and since it has no fan, is completely silent (provided it's diskless as well).
Having wasted my money on the 933Mhz Mini-ITX that could barely decode mpeg2, this sounds infinitely better.
Granted, HDTV support would be great, but I think it's only a matter of time before AMD goes in that direction.
A fanless multimedia front end capable of processing WM9,MPEG4,MPEG2 decoding at full 1920x1080 resolutions would go straight to the top of my list of must haves.
Actually, I saw an interesting piece on The Discovery Channel where they wondered if this was in fact an ancient photograph using camera obscura, and they actually did tests which provided results strikingly similar, including the fact that the subject has a lower torso and forearms of a length monstrously disproportionate to the rest of the body, due to the cloth not hanging straight, and the fact that if it was in fact a shroud, it would show more three dimensional distortion in the "imprint".
To see what I mean, put flower or something on your face, take a wet cloth and lay it on your face, and look at the imprint on the cloth. You'll see a much wider imprint of your face than if you were just looking straight on, like in a photo...
Some came up with the idea, based on the then believed to be accurate carbon dating, that the shroud might be a practical joke, a self portrait photo made by Leonardo Da Vinci... (the shroud actually looks remarkably like his self portrait if you overlap them).
Anyway...
If their reasoning for going ahead with this was trying to get an answer that fits their religious beliefs, then that's absolutely the wrong reason.
If it was indeed that they detected flaws in the original testing, then it's the right reason.
What makes you US people generally think that your constitution is somehow a law of the nature, granted from above or something? What if something in it is _wrong_?
You mean like the original version in which only white, male property owners were allowed to vote?
The rest of the people were only given the right to vote through updates to the Constitution, known as Amendments, long after the nation was founded. The last group to be included, women, only got the right to vote in 1920. That's 14 years after my grandfather was born. That's uncomfortably recent, if you ask me.
As for your China example, while I agree with what you're saying, just because we think it's wrong doesn't mean the people of China think it's wrong.
Right and wrong are not black and white. There is no absolute right and there is no absolute wrong. Everything is subjective. I think it's wrong that three small states with a total of 13 million voters have the same electoral votes as California which has 35 million voters, giving each of their votes 3 times as much weight as mine, but those who support the Electoral College system apparently think it's a good idea...
There's no reason for the airwaves to be publicly owned. :P
Do you happen to live in a red state, by any chance?
The airwaves cannot be owned by anyone, and are therefore considered everyone's - or public. We as a society decide that to minimize the likelyhood of two broadcasters using the same frequency in the same market, or using a frequency that interferes with police or airline communication, that it be wise to regulate who can use what, where, when and how. Remember, the government is an extension of us, and as such, can regulate things we collectively own as a society. That includes the airwaves, and the public roads, and public land. Why can I walk/drive freely around the California desert without buying a permit? Because as a taxpayer, I'm part owner. Even if I were to wander into the Nevada desert, I'd still be on MY land, not private property.
If the airwaves are privatized, how do we (the people/government) decide who gets to control the airwaves? Would we sell them to the highest bidder? Wouldn't that unfairly benefit the wealthiest corporations at the expense of the poor (like so many other things)?
If the group that wants censorship has more votes than the group that doesn't want censorship, then there'll be censorship.
Not in the US there won't be. There's something called the Bill of Rights, which limits the governments powers. It include the 1st Amendment, which strictly forbids government censorship (private entities can censor anything they want, including radio, tv and yes, online bulletin boards, provided they own it.)
While the American FCC needs to be restructured, privatizing the airwaves is a horrible idea.
When a private entity owns something, decisions are made based on the ideals of the private entity. If you don't like the decisions made about the resource, you can buy your own.
That's fine and dandy, as long as what we're talking about can be sectioned off. Radiowaves have the pesky habit of overstepping their bounds. You can't tell a radiowave to stop at 31st Street. If you want to provide adequate service between 1st Street and 30th Street, you need to have enough juice for the whole area. But by its nature, the signal fades out and doens't stop at a certain point, and therefore it can probably be received quite well around 44th street or beyond. So, if I have a service that provides service to that area and needs to cover 31st Street through 60th Street, our signals would overlap quite badly.
As you said, it works for land, as land can be sectioned off, and it is. However, it won't work for the airwaves. Anyone who has driven through Los Angeles trying to listen to FM 97.1 can tell you that the Mexican music that bleeds in from the tiny neighborhood stations is way beyond annoying... imagine that on a bigger scale? I don't even want to think about it. Microsoft could buy the exclusive rights for all the frequencies used for all wireless digital communication and still have money in the bank. Verizon could monopolize the cell phone market by buying up all usable cell phone frequencies (except of course digital, as Microsoft would own that). NBC could put the other TV networks out of business by buying up all the TV frequencies and charging outrageous fees to let their competitors get back their channels... First come, first serve, right?
If the airwaves are left up to corporations, they will abuse their situation... let there be no doubt. Where there is profit to be made, there will be abuses. Period.
PS. sorry for being long winded...
If the film is being shown in class, as part of the class (meaning, it's not just entertainment, but actually pertains to the subject of the class) it's very much legal. It's called Fair Use.: ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
See this copy/paste from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
Now, I'm sure overzealous legal eagles may try to weasel out of this one, and in fact, at least one part of this clause has already been made practically impossible legally by the DMCA, the "including multiple copies for classroom use" part.
If a film school teacher wanted to copy a scene from a copyrighted film, and ask each student to re-edit the scene, they would have two choices.
Either request the material from the copyright owner, which is hit or miss at best and can cost the school a fortune, as the copyright owner pretty much sets the price; or make a copy of the finished material.
Prior to the DMCA that wasn't a big problem.
Bypassing Macrovision was as simple as copying from VHS or DVD to a 3/4" tape and then making copies.
Copying DVDs digitally for each student wasn't possible as decss hadn't been created yet.
Today, if it wasn't for the DMCA, a teacher would be able to legally make copies of scenes from films, in the best quality available, directly from DVD. Thus, rights guaranteed a teacher before 1996 no longer apply, thanks to the DMCA.
not 51% of the population... 51% of votes cast, assuming Diebold had nothing to do with it.
The vast majority of the population still believes in liberal issues, they just don't get an opportunity to support them because the voters are being scared half to death by both sides, with negative ads and images of 9/11 being used for partisan politics.
The whole thing is sickening.
I think that those who say what he said, are themselves fundamentalist christians, and cannot stand that government officials uphold the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment.
Remember that idiot judge who wanted to put the 10 commandments in the court house? If only he had wanted to put up another list of 10... the Bill of Rights, which IS what the courts are supposed to uphold.
MS is known for continuing to work on projects until they work.
Is that why they're charging us for Windows every two years? Are they hoping it will work some day?
Holy cow... could you get any further from my point?
No real liberal approves of pre-emptive strikes, as they are an act of aggression.
So, you're putting words in my mouth (fingers) when you claim that my assumptions would require the US to attack itself.
I never claimed there only existed two kinds of people. There are leftist liberals, and there are right wing liberals... there are leftist conservatives and there are right wing conservatives... there are fascists and there are communists... there are anarchists and there are non-conformers. There are many, many types of political views out there, but for the purpose of this discussion, we're talking about liberals vs. conservatives and left vs. right, which are the most basic classification we use in the USA... or did you forget about the original topic?
The US history of pre-emptive strikes, is short. It's only happened once... in 2003.
I don't approve of pre-emptive strikes, and I don't approve of the war in Iraq.
Thus, your entire post about my "assumptions" is entirely worthless.
No word yet if it will record straight from your television
That's easy.
Since it already has S-Video and Composite Inputs, you just hook it up to your cable box, or through your VCR.
It doesn't need to have a TV Tuner to record TV... it's enough that whatever provides the video/audio signal does.
"Conservatives tend to be right wing and liberals tend to be left wing. To the point that it's fair to generalize."
No, it's not fair to generalize like that.
The ideals of liberalism vs. conservatism have nothing to do with left-wing vs. right-wing.
This kind of generalization and over simplification is why we're stuck with the stupid two party system.
Yet another slashdotter missing the point.
I'm not saying there aren't extremists on both sides, there certainly are looney people of every creed.
But I'm saying real liberals by definition are peaceful. Anyone who claims to be liberal, but is not peaceful, is not really a liberal regardless of their politics.
Also, there's no reason to use foul language. Using expletives cheapens your argument and makes you look ignorant (just my opinion).
Oh, and what is "more non-violent"? Did you mean less violent?
A video of a rape would be protected by the first amendment, if the woman agreed to its release.
While I would fully expect the person committing the rape to be arrested, tried and punished, the release of the video would be free speech, if both the woman and the rapist would sign release forms.
Videos of crimes cannot be made illegal just because they depict illegal acts. If they were, you'd never see security camera footage on the news.
Can a woman be a little bit pregnant?
No.
Can speech be a little bit free?
No.
Speech MUST be free in all cases, or else it is not free. Conditioned speech is not free speech.
If you say something which gets you into trouble, then that's your right.
If you say something which gets someone else into trouble, then that's also your right.
However, if that person wants to blame you for it, that's also their right, and they can hold you responsible.
So, you can say whatever you want, but you should be prepared to face the consequences of what you say.
The government can go after you if what you say causes an illegal act to be committed, but it cannot under any circumstances make it illegal for you to say it, on the off chance it might cause an illegal act to be committed. That's the distinction I'm making here, which you and so many others seem to have missed.
I'll say it again.
Conditioned speech is not free speech.
It appears you and many others are completely missing my point.
My point being that these are not "liberals" no matter how "liberal" their ideology is (which, if it includes violence, is not liberal). Because the ideology of liberalism, does not approve of their methods, and therefore they disqualify themselves from any association with liberalism.
"In fact, the liberals are only non-militant when it comes to defending *this* country"
OK, first of all.. when you preface something with "In fact", please make sure what follows actually is fact.
This is a neocon distortion of the truth, and you're very likely to hear that diatribe from Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
Liberals, (a word and a definition which is not synonymous with leftists) are peaceful, but will use violence in self defense. Violence and militarization is and shall always be the last possible option when settling a dispute of any kind.
Leaders are more effective when they lead by example and by being respected, than if they use force and/or fear. The first option may take a little longer in some cases, but it's better for everyone in the long run. Ruling by might is a silly and naive idea.
It's apparent from your post that you don't see a difference between leftist and liberal, which is really a shame, because those two ideals are so different, and it wouldn't make you look so ignorant.
For the record, I'm a liberal, not a leftist.
Just like there are conservatives who are not right-wing.
John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and many other Republicans are not right-wing, but are actually conservatives.
If you don't know that there is a difference between those ideals (liberal vs leftist, right-wing vs conservative), then you simply have no place participating in this discussion.
All the groups you mentioned are not liberal groups, altough I'm sure Hannity or Limbaugh would call them that (a further display of their complete ignorance about these groups, liberalism and the left).
So... in short... your answer is not really an argument, it's just a rehashing of old and tired diatribe.
"So, when Leftist organizations start posting names, locations, and other personal information of people who oppose them, the first and only logical conclusion is that the poster expects the people on the list to be at least harassed and potentially physically attacked."
I think you're projecting quite a bit here. To you it might be the first and only conclusion, but that tells me more about you than it does about the people who posted the information.
As you can see from my original post, my first assumption is that they're trying to put political pressure on them, not incite violence.
Now, seeing as you seem to be on the right-wing side of things, do you consider Freedom of Speech to be a right or a privilege afforded to us by the State?
Think about it for a moment.
A right is something which the government cannot take away. A privilege is something the government, as an extension of society, can limit and reduce or even revoke.
So, since freedom of speech is a right, the government cannot limit its usage in any way, shape or form, without violating the 1st Amendment.
Ponder for a moment what the words 'unalienable Rights' mean.
Ponder also the notion that the Constitution gives powers to the government, and not vice versa. The government is an extension of us, not our owner. We tell the government what it can and cannot do on our behalf, not the other way around. Remember: "Of the People, By the People and For the People"?
We're all members of the same club, called The United States of America. We have basic club rules which we use as the basis for other rules we come up with to make the membership more enjoyable. Those basic club rules are what we call the Constitution and its amendments (the Bill of Rights). Those rules are what we must always go back to whenever there's a dispute or confusion about what other rules can and cannot dictate. They are also what we use to control how much power those we've chosed to enforce the rules, get to use in their efforts to enforce them.
The laws of the games being played, cannot violate the basic rules of the club, nor can the enforcement of the laws of the games.
This is very clear and simple to me. Either you believe
First of all, did I ever claim I believed I was the definition of anything?
Second, you're completely wrong. There were many people in the Clinton administration that are not true liberals. They may be more liberal than many other politicians, but they're not "liberals". A liberal knows that in some cases war is inevitable, but only as the absolute last resort and in self defense or in defense of others.
Third, I would not erupt at the thought of a conservative definition that didn't include right wing crazies, because most right wing crazies are not true conservatives either. John McCain is a true conservative. He's for smaller government, while at the same time protecting the weakest if only to make sure they don't become a burdeon on society. He's not a right wing crazy by any stretch of the imagination.
Fourth. Intolerant and ignorant? Care to elaborate on that or are you just slinging mud? I'm a liberal, and I try to live up to that word, which means being tolerant and open to changes and new ideas. (the radical right has really done a great disservice to us all by hijacking the word liberal and turning it into a negative, but that's something we can argue in a different topic).
So... basically... stick your attitude where we can't see it.
Nor can you devine the intention of the folks who posted that info as entirely militant.
Which of course would be why it is protected by the 1st Amendment.
By definition, liberals are peaceful. No true liberal believes in using violence or the threat of violence to further their cause. Your attempt to list the Black Panthers as a liberal activist group is laughable at best.
When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
Hmmm... I'm gonna go out on a limb here.
Perhaps it has something to do with the reasoning behind the publication, and the history of those who publish this information.
Let's look at the history first.
Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican), and are more often than not pigeonholed as hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and even cowards by the more militant right wing.
Anti-abortion groups on the other hand have a long history of stalking the doctors who perform abortions, which very often leads to physical violence. Many abortion doctors have been murdered for doing their jobs. I don't think a delegate has ever been given so much as a black eye.
Next, let's consider what the reasoning is for the publication in each instance?
When an anti-abortion group publishes the names and addresses of private citizens (doctors), they usually follow it up with "make sure they get the message" or "do what you have to to help save another fetus".
For the most radical of those groups, that can be a very dangerous proposition.
When activists publish the names of delegates which are pledged to their opponent, who are constitutionally not supposed to be secret anyway, they're doing so in order to make sure their supporters use letters and phonecalls to put pressure on them to do what the activists consider to be the right thing, whatever it is.
Now, if you keep these two things in mind:
1) the identities of delegates are not secrets and in an open government that information must remain in the public domain.
2) the intent of the activists is not violence, but peaceful communication.
Compare that with:
1) the identities of doctors are private, although they can be found if you take the time to look for them.
2) the intent of the activists is not peaceful communication, but prevention at all costs.
With those things in mind, I see plenty of reasons as to why publishing the names of delegates should NOT be considered a threat of any kind. In fact, I believe it is protected by the first amendment.
OK, first of all...
The electoral system was not chosen because it ensured a balance between the populous states and the rural states. It was in fact originally created to benefit slaveowners. A slave, while not allowed to vote, counted as 3/5th a person, and thus that state got more electoral votes, which of course meant that the vote of a slaveowner carried more weight than the vote of the average person. Which is why there were so many Presidents from Southern states back in the day.
Second. It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority. In fact, it's surprisingly easy.
The president is the head of the Union. He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.