Looks like phoenix wants to take a dirt nap. Let see what will happen here. The bios will be used to lock out other OSes (see xbox) and that will stifle competition. So will it be lawsuit or death by market forces?
Here is the big point, When you are working in production you want to use something the most flexible. MPEG4 and and divx are platform neutral. Leaving your production houses to use basically any tools they seem fit. As I recall several movies have already been made using quicktime for instant screen replay by the directors. I also recall it being used to film wallace and gromit animations.
Remember DRM is intended for consumer consumption 9 regardless of how foul it tastes). I think the discussion needs to be broken in half.
HI THERE! This is eddie your shipboard computer just alerting you to the fact that the nutri-matic machine how now tapped into my logic circuits to ask me *why* the human prefers boiled leaves to everything we have to offer him, and *WOW* its a biggie. Gonna take a little time to work out. SHARE AND ENJOY.
Ahh the brilliance of Doug Adams is timelessness itself.
actually the consequences are much worse than hypermarketing. Imagine if you will an itemized list of everything you have bought. And a list of everything your friends have bought. Thomas jefferson himself couldn't help you if some overzealous DA gets it in his head that you and 6 people you know may have bought thing that 'could' be used to make a domestic terrorism device.
I know there are some of the readers that will think I'm paranoid or a conspiracy nut. I want you to keep in mind the abuses of information that have occurred in the govt. in the past, and the laws that were made to curtail those abuses (J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, etc). Also keep in mind that a number of those laws have been stripped away in tha past 2 years by the USA Patriot act under teh auspices of anti-terrorism. Recall the (hopefully) dead TIA (Total information awareness) program. Where do you think they would get this from? I strongly suggest to think about using more cash. (cash without rfid tags)
OH BTW if you really believe that a corporation has right because its made of individuals with rights why dont you go ask your employer have your right to send their money, or to wander about the office aimlessly, or to wear a bathrobe to the office. Or maybe exercise your 'free speech' rights in the office and swear at a few people.
*ahem* there is certainly a big difference. Let s us consider your proposition for the moment?
You as an employee may have different preference on which politician your money goes to. UNless you are making the assumption that you are going to make the same political decisions your employer is. If so then i guess in that case there is no difference.
*HOWEVER* If were were to assume that even if *every* employee were gong to donate their 'fat' paycheck to a politician, you are assuming that the employing corporation either doesn't have, or wont give more money then the combined total of all employee paychecks. So riddle me this? Should a corporation be able to spend more money than you can to gain political favor?
indeed sir indeed. However i recall seeing about a book a while back that claims that that was not the actual decision.
There is a book called "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann about this topic. I haven't yet had a chance to read it.
However your insight is valuable, so as of 1886 corporations had no rights.. what a terrible police state disaster that must have been.. Govt censoring the press and all sorts of bad stuff like that. I mean if you look at some of the other comments in this thread. That how people assume it must have been. Right? (add sarcasm liberally)
Jerf if i could mod you up id do it. You have constructed a well thought out and well reasoned opinion.
Let me add this. I do believe corporations are 'rightless' per se. We as a society of individuals (who have *real rights*) have the power to grant and deny *privileges* to a legal entity. We also have the power to designate which responsibilities are granted in return for those privileges, and the punishments if they dont live up to the responsibilities. We can decide to model those privileges such they have similar ability as 'rights'. However they are not rights. Only actual people have rights. And even then people do not have *license*, only rights. Even rights have boundaries and restrictions. By the mere structure alone privileges are less than rights, are less than license.
I really think you ned to not only read the constitution , but also take a class in constitutional history.
The concept of 'press' in and of itself is not inherently tied to a corporation. Besides that to use your example 'newspapers' are indeed censored in the law. Both Libel and slander are illegal, and carry civil penalties.
so lets ask the counter question, so you have no problem with newspaper printing what ever they want regardless of the facts or the truth?
If any of those individuals repeatedly call my house trying to sell me stuff they personally own out of a garage thats called harassment. But please MR joe why dont you post your number up here on slashdot if you think people have the right to call you up?
Ok lets analyze this *thing* for a second. If you are acting on the behalf of a corporation you arent acting as an individual anymore. All the problems are caused by the fallacy of 'corporate personhood' Corporations are not people. They cannot vote they dont breathe air. they arent born and they dont die. In short they do not have the right a person does. They have no place donating money to politics period. A corporation is a fictional entity we as *PEOPLE* have decided to bestow upon it privileges. In exchange for these privileges it has responsibilities. There are no inherent rights a corporation has.
Well perhaps this will get it thru people heads once and for all that a corporation having rights is a *fallacy*, Only living breathing people have rights. And in this case a judge doesn't want your right to privacy and the right to not be harassed protected.
I want everyone to think that Corps have right to take a strong hard look at the issue and *think* about all the implications there of.
I wonder what, if any, effect the draining of the fresh water lake into the sea will have on "the global conveyer. There was some speculation that the melting ice caps will release so much fresh water into the system the salinity and temperature difference that dries this engine will break down, and the CO2 that it deposits in the deep water will also stop. Is anyone an oceanologist?
shall we extend this for a second to the nth degree and see if your analogy holds up. Lets say the person that sells these weapons to people and he knows (because of all the market studies ) that more than 50% of the people buying this 'box of weapons' leave it out for kids in the neighborhood to play with and do illegal things. Who is liable now?
I really a while back about the army doing automate image analysis feeding a computer pictures in order to identify hidden tanks. It worked great. Sorta.. it turned out that the army, in order to teach it, fed in pictures of tanks hiding in trees. Well the program started to mark as a 'hit' anything with trees in it. As i recall it was abandoned.
Slashdot Mirror
if !known_domain
then redirectositefinder;
Oh my god i just stole verisigns innovation!
But we do know that no one *wants* to use windows ;)
Looks like phoenix wants to take a dirt nap. Let see what will happen here. The bios will be used to lock out other OSes (see xbox) and that will stifle competition. So will it be lawsuit or death by market forces?
Here is the big point, When you are working in production you want to use something the most flexible. MPEG4 and and divx are platform neutral. Leaving your production houses to use basically any tools they seem fit. As I recall several movies have already been made using quicktime for instant screen replay by the directors. I also recall it being used to film wallace and gromit animations.
Remember DRM is intended for consumer consumption 9 regardless of how foul it tastes). I think the discussion needs to be broken in half.
Circuit city lost so much money on that albatross, would it be really worth their time and money to remind the public about their dumbass idea?
HI THERE! This is eddie your shipboard computer just alerting you to the fact that the nutri-matic machine how now tapped into my logic circuits to ask me *why* the human prefers boiled leaves to everything we have to offer him, and *WOW* its a biggie. Gonna take a little time to work out. SHARE AND ENJOY.
Ahh the brilliance of Doug Adams is timelessness itself.
actually the consequences are much worse than hypermarketing. Imagine if you will an itemized list of everything you have bought. And a list of everything your friends have bought. Thomas jefferson himself couldn't help you if some overzealous DA gets it in his head that you and 6 people you know may have bought thing that 'could' be used to make a domestic terrorism device.
I know there are some of the readers that will think I'm paranoid or a conspiracy nut. I want you to keep in mind the abuses of information that have occurred in the govt. in the past, and the laws that were made to curtail those abuses (J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, etc). Also keep in mind that a number of those laws have been stripped away in tha past 2 years by the USA Patriot act under teh auspices of anti-terrorism. Recall the (hopefully) dead TIA (Total information awareness) program. Where do you think they would get this from? I strongly suggest to think about using more cash. (cash without rfid tags)
Well as i hear the story he was so upset he joined the Commodore marketing department and, from the inside, destroyed the future of the amiga:)
Now i can finally achieve my greatest work! A carrier pigeon to bongo drum router!
Reminds me of the AOL for broadband commercial "Blocks unwanted spam"
I was unaware that were was 'wanted' spam. Perhaps just wanted spammers, Dead or alive.
OH BTW if you really believe that a corporation has right because its made of individuals with rights why dont you go ask your employer have your right to send their money, or to wander about the office aimlessly, or to wear a bathrobe to the office. Or maybe exercise your 'free speech' rights in the office and swear at a few people.
*ahem* there is certainly a big difference. Let s us consider your proposition for the moment?
You as an employee may have different preference on which politician your money goes to. UNless you are making the assumption that you are going to make the same political decisions your employer is. If so then i guess in that case there is no difference.
*HOWEVER* If were were to assume that even if *every* employee were gong to donate their 'fat' paycheck to a politician, you are assuming that the employing corporation either doesn't have, or wont give more money then the combined total of all employee paychecks. So riddle me this? Should a corporation be able to spend more money than you can to gain political favor?
INdeed the constitution doenst grant you the right to have a job.
If you will look elsewhere in this thread until 1886 corporations didnt have rights. and yet newspapers still published.
indeed sir indeed. However i recall seeing about a book a while back that claims that that was not the actual decision.
There is a book called "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann about this topic. I haven't yet had a chance to read it.
However your insight is valuable, so as of 1886 corporations had no rights.. what a terrible police state disaster that must have been.. Govt censoring the press and all sorts of bad stuff like that. I mean if you look at some of the other comments in this thread. That how people assume it must have been. Right? (add sarcasm liberally)
Jerf if i could mod you up id do it. You have constructed a well thought out and well reasoned opinion.
Let me add this. I do believe corporations are 'rightless' per se. We as a society of individuals (who have *real rights*) have the power to grant and deny *privileges* to a legal entity. We also have the power to designate which responsibilities are granted in return for those privileges, and the punishments if they dont live up to the responsibilities. We can decide to model those privileges such they have similar ability as 'rights'. However they are not rights. Only actual people have rights. And even then people do not have *license*, only rights. Even rights have boundaries and restrictions. By the mere structure alone privileges are less than rights, are less than license.
Yeah lets all yell FIRE! in s a crowded theater! we have free speech! (sarcasm)
I really think you ned to not only read the constitution , but also take a class in constitutional history.
The concept of 'press' in and of itself is not inherently tied to a corporation. Besides that to use your example 'newspapers' are indeed censored in the law. Both Libel and slander are illegal, and carry civil penalties.
so lets ask the counter question, so you have no problem with newspaper printing what ever they want regardless of the facts or the truth?
If any of those individuals repeatedly call my house trying to sell me stuff they personally own out of a garage thats called harassment. But please MR joe why dont you post your number up here on slashdot if you think people have the right to call you up?
Ok lets analyze this *thing* for a second. If you are acting on the behalf of a corporation you arent acting as an individual anymore. All the problems are caused by the fallacy of 'corporate personhood' Corporations are not people. They cannot vote they dont breathe air. they arent born and they dont die. In short they do not have the right a person does. They have no place donating money to politics period. A corporation is a fictional entity we as *PEOPLE* have decided to bestow upon it privileges. In exchange for these privileges it has responsibilities. There are no inherent rights a corporation has.
Well perhaps this will get it thru people heads once and for all that a corporation having rights is a *fallacy*, Only living breathing people have rights. And in this case a judge doesn't want your right to privacy and the right to not be harassed protected.
I want everyone to think that Corps have right to take a strong hard look at the issue and *think* about all the implications there of.
I dare say that telemarketers 'inconvenience' more than a 'few' per shift. I also hazard that those 500 people annoy about 10x that many a day.
Shouldn't he reflexively vote for anything that increases individual privacy instead?
I wonder what, if any, effect the draining of the fresh water lake into the sea will have on "the global conveyer. There was some speculation that the melting ice caps will release so much fresh water into the system the salinity and temperature difference that dries this engine will break down, and the CO2 that it deposits in the deep water will also stop. Is anyone an oceanologist?
shall we extend this for a second to the nth degree and see if your analogy holds up. Lets say the person that sells these weapons to people and he knows (because of all the market studies ) that more than 50% of the people buying this 'box of weapons' leave it out for kids in the neighborhood to play with and do illegal things. Who is liable now?
I really a while back about the army doing automate image analysis feeding a computer pictures in order to identify hidden tanks. It worked great. Sorta.. it turned out that the army, in order to teach it, fed in pictures of tanks hiding in trees. Well the program started to mark as a 'hit' anything with trees in it. As i recall it was abandoned.