A lot of the changes seem to be the type that he and his collaborators (he did have them) could have argued about during the original filming. Now that he has complete control over the property, he can "re-win" all of these.
I used to work for one of the major providers of digital editions for the magazine industry, and given what I've seen in the past 5 years, I think the answer is no. At least, not replicas of existing consumer-oriented magazines in a digital format for the same or slightly lower price. Existing subscribers are also extremely reluctant to sign up for free digital editions even if all it requires is giving someone their email address. No privacy policy will convince them that it won't be sold. Adoption rates are better for B2B or trade magazines, but the readership for those is very small and targeted in the first place, so it often doesn't make sense to try to sell those subscribers on unrelated magazines. "We see you are a subscriber to a journal on the bulk cargo shipping industry. Would you like to sign up for this mass-marketed exercise magazine aimed at women 30-45?"
Same thing here. I live in Southern NH and most of the business addresses along the NH routes in my town are misplaced on Google Maps et al. Most are placed several miles north into a residential area in the next town because the maps cannot handle addresses like '123 NH Route 10 S' and the ones on the east-west are often marked on the wrong side of a junction. This is even after Google Streetview made its way out here and includes easy landmarks like the Post Office. My house has the same street address as one in a town across the state line and we've had very confused travelers, sales calls and even a prom-night limousine show up here because a car GPS unit picked the wrong one, even after putting in town & state - Google Maps always makes me select the correct *county* before giving me directions.
I can't help but think that given previous actions to "protect consumers" or "offer consumers choices" that this will mean greater penalties for circumventing DRM, more restrictive schemes, or limitations on online boycotts or protests, like the Amazon reviews for Spore.
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."
Any wonder why they have such low approval numbers, even lower than Bush? Do you think stuff like this just might be why? Do they ever think this might be why?
I see this as the future, implemented as just a simple tax based on income. Not a tax on media or individual sales, but on income. Because according to their research, someone making $X a year will on average buy, rip, download, transfer, backup, overhear, hum, whistle, perform, remember, and/or other infringe Y albums a year. They'd still reserve the right to sue you or sic the authorities on you if you actually did any of those things, though.
Penalties like these have been levied against corporate officers or otherwise arranged by the SEC several times. For example, lifetime bans for Al Dunlap of Sunbeam and Sam Waksal of ImClone. Frank Quattrone had a lifetime securities industry ban but that was overturned when his conviction was overturned.
On the plus side, when the courts throw out the law as unconstitutional, the politicians get to blame "activist judges" for thwarting the "will of the people." Win-win!
Is his harsh sentence for changing/using/leaking/stealing information or just because he embarrassed the Government in the 'post-911' world?
*ding ding ding* We have a winner!
Leaking information is seen to be a valuable tool to "counter critics" (if not a critical job function and patriotic act) unless said leak exposes embarrassing details about illegal/unethical programs, incompetence or other unsavory details. Then it's full steam ahead for the prosecution of the leakers and not the target of the leak, unless the embarrassment is at the Katrina level, of course.
On the one hand, the administration and Congress want to record every email/IM I send, every site I visit and every file I download, forever. On the other, they want to prevent me from recording or copying anything anytime.
And as usual, the policy makers conveniently forget that the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is commited by immediate family members or other close acquaintances. Uncle Charley didn't need the Internet to "read bedtime stories" to little Chip, but apart from pedophile priests (who also didn't use the Internet), the common, garden-variety child molestor doesn't make the papers.
Unless he's killed by a vigilante, of course. (as an off-topic aside, one of the men killed was forced to register because he had been convicted of misdemeanor statuatory rape 40 years ago after sleeping with his girlfriend 2 weeks before her 16th birthday. For that he was killed. See what can happen with bad data retention policies?)
I'm reminded of Frank Herbert's stories about the Department of Sabotage - created to thwart the rest of the government so that rights and just plain common sense isn't trampled by the process.
Most of the space in a mammalian genome is "junk" DNA, that is, regions that do not code a specific protein. Some of the non-coding DNA is regulatory, either promoting, demoting or turning off the expression of the gene. A lot of the non-coding DNA truly are junk or artifacts of lost, disabled or obsolete genes or past duplications & transpositions that are slowly collecting mutations - since changes to these regions do not affect viability or reproduction, they collect mutations more quickly. Plant genomes are generally much larger than animal genomes and have massive amounts of duplication and redundancy, but more DNA doesn't necessarily mean less damage is done.
Besides redundancy, there are DNA repair mechanisms and a large number of genes expressed only during stress and shock situations that would help creatures survive in higher radiation environments. Larger doses of radiation cause too much damage for the cell to repair so cell death is triggered. In fact, early genetic researchers used radiation to determine gene function. They'd take a simple organism (a fungus, for instance) and expose it to radiation or other mutagenic compounds. Then they'd look at all the mutants created, categorizing them into different phenotypes and then trying to assemble a basic genetic map. But it was entirely by chance which genes were knocked out or altered and how many of each.
Nowadays, they create restriction enzymes based on the sequenced genome and cut out a single unknown gene, then look for any changes in appearance, growth, viability, etc. My previous job was putting together a web site to track all of these characteristics for 10,000+ knockouts in a single fungus.
The local police department (Keene, NH) has an officer who focuses almost exclusively on child predators. No data retention, no warrantless eavesdropping, no sneak&peek searches. He just logs into a chat room with a teenage-sounding screenname and waits. It doesn't take him that long before someone is offering to meet, send bus tickets to him, or sending pornographic materials to him. They arrange a meeting place near Keene and pick up the predator when he arrives. Simple, straightforward sting work that's netted nearly 400 arrests in the last few years. Occasionally they get search warrants for the guy's computers if he sent a large amount of porn to the cops and add that to the charges, but they have more than probable cause for that search warrant.
It seems that certain politicians want to automate this basic police work by casting a wide net and filtering for certain phrases or activities and eliminate the pesky payroll obligations. Same thing with cameras on street corners and traffic lights - why pay some cop what an image-matching algorithm, face-recognition system, or radar gun will do for free?
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the changes seem to be the type that he and his collaborators (he did have them) could have argued about during the original filming. Now that he has complete control over the property, he can "re-win" all of these.
I used to work for one of the major providers of digital editions for the magazine industry, and given what I've seen in the past 5 years, I think the answer is no. At least, not replicas of existing consumer-oriented magazines in a digital format for the same or slightly lower price. Existing subscribers are also extremely reluctant to sign up for free digital editions even if all it requires is giving someone their email address. No privacy policy will convince them that it won't be sold. Adoption rates are better for B2B or trade magazines, but the readership for those is very small and targeted in the first place, so it often doesn't make sense to try to sell those subscribers on unrelated magazines. "We see you are a subscriber to a journal on the bulk cargo shipping industry. Would you like to sign up for this mass-marketed exercise magazine aimed at women 30-45?"
Same thing here. I live in Southern NH and most of the business addresses along the NH routes in my town are misplaced on Google Maps et al. Most are placed several miles north into a residential area in the next town because the maps cannot handle addresses like '123 NH Route 10 S' and the ones on the east-west are often marked on the wrong side of a junction. This is even after Google Streetview made its way out here and includes easy landmarks like the Post Office. My house has the same street address as one in a town across the state line and we've had very confused travelers, sales calls and even a prom-night limousine show up here because a car GPS unit picked the wrong one, even after putting in town & state - Google Maps always makes me select the correct *county* before giving me directions.
I use Sprint Mobile Broadband at home and the last time I checked (several months ago), they were still intercepting and redirecting port 53 traffic.
I can't help but think that given previous actions to "protect consumers" or "offer consumers choices" that this will mean greater penalties for circumventing DRM, more restrictive schemes, or limitations on online boycotts or protests, like the Amazon reviews for Spore.
Not anymore when copyright or intellectual property is concerned, if certain organizations get their wishes.
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."
-- 1984 by George Orwell
Any wonder why they have such low approval numbers, even lower than Bush? Do you think stuff like this just might be why? Do they ever think this might be why?
Free speech is all we have left.
Only as long as it only occurs in designated free speech zones.
I see this as the future, implemented as just a simple tax based on income. Not a tax on media or individual sales, but on income. Because according to their research, someone making $X a year will on average buy, rip, download, transfer, backup, overhear, hum, whistle, perform, remember, and/or other infringe Y albums a year. They'd still reserve the right to sue you or sic the authorities on you if you actually did any of those things, though.
Here am I working like a sucker, when I could have been running a protection racket!
The current state of affairs in the US is a paranoid's wet dream.
Newbies can be on the internet for a couple of years without even hearing about usenet.
This is a bad thing?
I, for one, welcome our freakin' huge fabrication robotic overlords!
Penalties like these have been levied against corporate officers or otherwise arranged by the SEC several times. For example, lifetime bans for Al Dunlap of Sunbeam and Sam Waksal of ImClone. Frank Quattrone had a lifetime securities industry ban but that was overturned when his conviction was overturned.
On the plus side, when the courts throw out the law as unconstitutional, the politicians get to blame "activist judges" for thwarting the "will of the people." Win-win!
Is his harsh sentence for changing/using/leaking/stealing information or just because he embarrassed the Government in the 'post-911' world?
*ding ding ding* We have a winner!
Leaking information is seen to be a valuable tool to "counter critics" (if not a critical job function and patriotic act) unless said leak exposes embarrassing details about illegal/unethical programs, incompetence or other unsavory details. Then it's full steam ahead for the prosecution of the leakers and not the target of the leak, unless the embarrassment is at the Katrina level, of course.
On the one hand, the administration and Congress want to record every email/IM I send, every site I visit and every file I download, forever. On the other, they want to prevent me from recording or copying anything anytime.
And as usual, the policy makers conveniently forget that the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is commited by immediate family members or other close acquaintances. Uncle Charley didn't need the Internet to "read bedtime stories" to little Chip, but apart from pedophile priests (who also didn't use the Internet), the common, garden-variety child molestor doesn't make the papers.
Unless he's killed by a vigilante, of course. (as an off-topic aside, one of the men killed was forced to register because he had been convicted of misdemeanor statuatory rape 40 years ago after sleeping with his girlfriend 2 weeks before her 16th birthday. For that he was killed. See what can happen with bad data retention policies?)
I'm reminded of Frank Herbert's stories about the Department of Sabotage - created to thwart the rest of the government so that rights and just plain common sense isn't trampled by the process.
Most of the space in a mammalian genome is "junk" DNA, that is, regions that do not code a specific protein. Some of the non-coding DNA is regulatory, either promoting, demoting or turning off the expression of the gene. A lot of the non-coding DNA truly are junk or artifacts of lost, disabled or obsolete genes or past duplications & transpositions that are slowly collecting mutations - since changes to these regions do not affect viability or reproduction, they collect mutations more quickly. Plant genomes are generally much larger than animal genomes and have massive amounts of duplication and redundancy, but more DNA doesn't necessarily mean less damage is done.
Besides redundancy, there are DNA repair mechanisms and a large number of genes expressed only during stress and shock situations that would help creatures survive in higher radiation environments. Larger doses of radiation cause too much damage for the cell to repair so cell death is triggered. In fact, early genetic researchers used radiation to determine gene function. They'd take a simple organism (a fungus, for instance) and expose it to radiation or other mutagenic compounds. Then they'd look at all the mutants created, categorizing them into different phenotypes and then trying to assemble a basic genetic map. But it was entirely by chance which genes were knocked out or altered and how many of each.
Nowadays, they create restriction enzymes based on the sequenced genome and cut out a single unknown gene, then look for any changes in appearance, growth, viability, etc. My previous job was putting together a web site to track all of these characteristics for 10,000+ knockouts in a single fungus.
Dvorak's hosted Silicon Spin on TechTV and appears regularly on TV, radio and podcasts.
The local police department (Keene, NH) has an officer who focuses almost exclusively on child predators. No data retention, no warrantless eavesdropping, no sneak&peek searches. He just logs into a chat room with a teenage-sounding screenname and waits. It doesn't take him that long before someone is offering to meet, send bus tickets to him, or sending pornographic materials to him. They arrange a meeting place near Keene and pick up the predator when he arrives. Simple, straightforward sting work that's netted nearly 400 arrests in the last few years. Occasionally they get search warrants for the guy's computers if he sent a large amount of porn to the cops and add that to the charges, but they have more than probable cause for that search warrant.
It seems that certain politicians want to automate this basic police work by casting a wide net and filtering for certain phrases or activities and eliminate the pesky payroll obligations. Same thing with cameras on street corners and traffic lights - why pay some cop what an image-matching algorithm, face-recognition system, or radar gun will do for free?
If they could only connect video games to pedophilia, they'd have the trifecta.