In my opinion this would be a toss up. I don't know the law well enough to know when the shield law does not apply. It is not a universal right even for brick-and-mortar journalists. Reporters have gone to jail on the priciple of protecting a source.
Isn't the concept of something being Left, Right or Center biased completly subjective? Do you have a link to the study? I'd be interested to see how they came to their conclusion. Obviously groups like Media Matters and the like would disagree.
I'd imagine that the majority of Cable News viewers are concervative, based on the viewership numbers, just like AM talk radio listeners tend to be.
But I as the blogger don't have any responsability to protect your NDA. Assuming I didn't do anything illegal to get the information. The punishment would be for the source, not for the paper, most likely. Since as I understand it they are only being forced to reveal a confidenial source or get punished for refusing to do so.
Newspapers do decide to publish information that is in violation of contracts and laws and that type of thing. Think about whistleblowers. Many of them would probably have a contractual obligation not to reveal information to the media, yet newspapers are able to treat them as confidential sources.
I don't think the ethics of a particular publisher distinguishes it as a journalist. Censorship starts when you try to split hairs over what is good journalism and what is bad, and therefore unprotected.
That's a little extreme. Corporations are not obligated to commit ethical violations just because it might net them more money. Most shareholders would probably not put up with unethical behaviour just for increased value of the stock.
The people pushing patents believe in their black, black hearts that this is ethical. That Intellectual Property is just that. I've been in a patent discussion with our lawyers and it's amazing that they actually believe the IP argument. They just don't understand how software works, they like thinking of it as a CD or a web page, since those are concepts that they understand.
Just to play devil's advocate, what happens when the government cedes these powers to a 3rd party. Such as outsourcing detention of prisioners, hiring mercenaries (security contractors) and the like. Aren't these companies by definition mini-goverments then?
I don't think corporations are quasi-governments, since they are goverened by a higher level (US government can pass laws controlling corporations etc) where as national governments are soverign.
Non-commercial isn't the same as Open Source. Almost every linux vendor could be considered commercial. And would the license issued be transferrable and all that? I'd want to see a better definition of the license terms rather than someones word before getting too excited about their kindness...
I think the big difference is that cable is a for-pay service, meaning you opt-ed in to the content that was being provided. If you have Showtime and are offended by "Queer as Folk" then you cancel your membership and move along your merry way.
I haven't noticed a lot of objectional programming on my DirecTV during family hours, maybe I'm not looking hard enough I guess. It would seem the market forces keep offensive programming late at night anyway.
I always find it interesting that Republicans who are so opposed to regulation when it comes to environment and the like don't seem to mind regulating TV/Video Games and all sorts of other industries.
The real broadcast is coming from a land station somewhere, there aren't people loading DVDs in the satallite.
I imagine there are treaties and the like restricting spectrum use, or US companies would have already jammed all foreign contries with "American Idol" marathons... So the whole idea is probably illegal.
It has more to do with lack of choice than Apathy. No candidate is probably running on the no broadcast flag platform. I also doubt that either party has a direction I would agree with.
It really ends up being the courts are the only mechanism for less politically relavent issues to be resolved.
To be honest, as long as my Tivo still works I'm not really all that concerned about the Broadcast flag. If they make it so I can't zap commercials, than I'll be up in arms.
I'd think most online games would work ok with just a mouse. I play City of Heroes and I can pretty much play with just a mouse. All it requires is to remap some of the mouse controls for movement.
Chatting and stuff like that might be a little challenging, unless there is some kind of virtual keyboard you use. But then chatting isn't a huge part of the game, you can macro messages to a button for standard stuff like team selection.
According to the article the son walked away from a group home for addition. AA only works if people are making it work, maybe a judge can order you to go to rehab and the like, but there would need to be some crime involved. I'm sure people with alcoholic spouses/children etc struggle with getting them to seek help.
Also, the mother could simply create a support group without hiring a lawyer. She is trying to find something to blame (though untreated depression is the highest cause of suicide).
I don't think most defence attorneys are defending clients simply because it's their job. As a just society everyone accused of a crime desrves a strong , zealous defence.
I think it would be unethical to send people to jail because we are "postive" they are guilty. If the state can't convince 12 people that someone is guilty then maybe they aren't.
So, Law & Order is ok, but The Shield is out? Trying writing a legal statute that bans one and allows the other, I doubt you could come up with one that would be constitutional. Maybe a law saying that the criminal justice system can only be depicted as being corruption free and flawless would be good... only show the police in a positive role etc. Sounds a bit like censorship to me.
Also, with games you are talking about purchased content, not broadcast. It would be more fair to compare regulations on buying DVDs for home use... there aren't a lot of laws there banning adult content.
Re:liar, liar, pants on fire
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My biggest concern with "fixing" SS is the potential for corruption that comes in when you start having fund managers. Right now SS only buys treasury bonds, no conflicts of interest or anything to worry about there. Once it becomes more like a 401k manager there are going to be companies lobbying to have their stock make it into one of the funds (talk billions of dollars invested into companies).
Also think of the impact on the stock market. The goverment would be capable of swing stocks instantly higher or lower. Insider information on their transactions would be invaluble to private sector investors.
The government hasn't traditionally been good about controlling corruption. I'd imagine this would be a massive pork fest until some scandal broke out.
Got any examples of this? I looked on the AP site at 3 political articles and all mentioned party affiliation with regards to elected officals. Appointees might be another matter since they wouldn't need to declare their party on the ballot.
In most news articles refering to politians it would be very rare not to see the party mentioned (like D-NY or R-WI).
Hardly a monopoly, there are more than enough MMORPGs out there. Sure they aren't WoW, but that's a brand of service. Competition is already out there, in different titles such as Everquest and Lineage and a ton of others. Don't like how one is run? Try a different brand, just like you do when you choose which soda to buy at the market, sure Coke is the only Coke distributer, but you can always buy a differnt brand.
The main reason for them running all their own servers is economic, they are getting almost $150-$200/yr/subscriber, lots of money in running your own servers. Otherwise they get $50 per sale, and never again do they get money coming in. Now you see why everyone is trying to make their own, it's big bucks.
Personal servers would probably be too small to host a significant part of the persistant world too. Need lots of memory and hard disk to support all of the content required I imagine.
I'm not sure the defence is that shaky, the suit marvel launched was to the effect that a player "could" model an avatar after one of their heros, not that there were specific instances of unchecked copyright infringement.
It would seem Marvel would need to identify cases in which NCsoft was aware of infringment and made no effort to correct it, which from the sounds of things they have made significant efforts already.
Depends what you call a conservative game. There are all kinds of conservatives out there, and there might be some untapped market just waiting.
But the safest bet is probably turn out games the way the industry does now, by just making the next shooter or football game. It would be interesting to see if someone could come up with some unique gameplay ideas, but I'm not sure political philosophy will make for big sales.
Even saying America's Army is conservative is probably debatable, since that made the top ten list of worst games for X-mas I think. I doubt people on the far-right and far-left are big gamers to begin with.
Actually, when there are only two choices, and one is invalid, then the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one.
That really isn't true. If both options are incomplete or inaccurate than what? If the question had been it it a partical or "magic stuff", would magic stuff had been correct answer?
It basically boils down to a private-key security issue. How can you manage a private-key on a device that your attacker can have unlimited access to.
I wonder if they would make the keys more specific for the players, so that each device had a unique key. This would make it much easier to disable only the offending device and make code non-transferrable between players. Would probably be a manufacturing nightmare to generate and manage millions of keys though.
Could they really every revoke a key for an entire model of players? If someone revoked my $300 player and it was no longer good for new releases I doubt I'd ever buy a new player... I'd probably look to other options for getting movies.
Maybe they will let me download a patch for my player, then I need to make sure I patch my DVD player every movie night while the popcorn is cooking... Think I'll stick with my old DVD player until they manage to kill off the format. Since you can still buy video tape I figure I got 10-15 years before I need to worry about it.
Real word governments can't track every item traded and look at a database full of who is doing what. They know about the trade, it's just a question of them identifying which are the illegal trades. But if you profile people who make something great for nothing trades, than you can probably look closer at them...
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion this would be a toss up. I don't know the law well enough to know when the shield law does not apply. It is not a universal right even for brick-and-mortar journalists. Reporters have gone to jail on the priciple of protecting a source.
Isn't the concept of something being Left, Right or Center biased completly subjective? Do you have a link to the study? I'd be interested to see how they came to their conclusion. Obviously groups like Media Matters and the like would disagree.
I'd imagine that the majority of Cable News viewers are concervative, based on the viewership numbers, just like AM talk radio listeners tend to be.
But I as the blogger don't have any responsability to protect your NDA. Assuming I didn't do anything illegal to get the information. The punishment would be for the source, not for the paper, most likely. Since as I understand it they are only being forced to reveal a confidenial source or get punished for refusing to do so.
Newspapers do decide to publish information that is in violation of contracts and laws and that type of thing. Think about whistleblowers. Many of them would probably have a contractual obligation not to reveal information to the media, yet newspapers are able to treat them as confidential sources.
I don't think the ethics of a particular publisher distinguishes it as a journalist. Censorship starts when you try to split hairs over what is good journalism and what is bad, and therefore unprotected.
That's a little extreme. Corporations are not obligated to commit ethical violations just because it might net them more money. Most shareholders would probably not put up with unethical behaviour just for increased value of the stock.
The people pushing patents believe in their black, black hearts that this is ethical. That Intellectual Property is just that. I've been in a patent discussion with our lawyers and it's amazing that they actually believe the IP argument. They just don't understand how software works, they like thinking of it as a CD or a web page, since those are concepts that they understand.
Just to play devil's advocate, what happens when the government cedes these powers to a 3rd party. Such as outsourcing detention of prisioners, hiring mercenaries (security contractors) and the like. Aren't these companies by definition mini-goverments then?
I don't think corporations are quasi-governments, since they are goverened by a higher level (US government can pass laws controlling corporations etc) where as national governments are soverign.
Non-commercial isn't the same as Open Source. Almost every linux vendor could be considered commercial. And would the license issued be transferrable and all that? I'd want to see a better definition of the license terms rather than someones word before getting too excited about their kindness...
I think the big difference is that cable is a for-pay service, meaning you opt-ed in to the content that was being provided. If you have Showtime and are offended by "Queer as Folk" then you cancel your membership and move along your merry way.
I haven't noticed a lot of objectional programming on my DirecTV during family hours, maybe I'm not looking hard enough I guess. It would seem the market forces keep offensive programming late at night anyway.
I always find it interesting that Republicans who are so opposed to regulation when it comes to environment and the like don't seem to mind regulating TV/Video Games and all sorts of other industries.
The real broadcast is coming from a land station somewhere, there aren't people loading DVDs in the satallite.
I imagine there are treaties and the like restricting spectrum use, or US companies would have already jammed all foreign contries with "American Idol" marathons... So the whole idea is probably illegal.
Were you snowed in or something? Car trouble?
It has more to do with lack of choice than Apathy. No candidate is probably running on the no broadcast flag platform. I also doubt that either party has a direction I would agree with.
It really ends up being the courts are the only mechanism for less politically relavent issues to be resolved.
To be honest, as long as my Tivo still works I'm not really all that concerned about the Broadcast flag. If they make it so I can't zap commercials, than I'll be up in arms.
I'd think most online games would work ok with just a mouse. I play City of Heroes and I can pretty much play with just a mouse. All it requires is to remap some of the mouse controls for movement.
Chatting and stuff like that might be a little challenging, unless there is some kind of virtual keyboard you use. But then chatting isn't a huge part of the game, you can macro messages to a button for standard stuff like team selection.
According to the article the son walked away from a group home for addition. AA only works if people are making it work, maybe a judge can order you to go to rehab and the like, but there would need to be some crime involved. I'm sure people with alcoholic spouses/children etc struggle with getting them to seek help.
Also, the mother could simply create a support group without hiring a lawyer. She is trying to find something to blame (though untreated depression is the highest cause of suicide).
I don't think most defence attorneys are defending clients simply because it's their job. As a just society everyone accused of a crime desrves a strong , zealous defence.
I think it would be unethical to send people to jail because we are "postive" they are guilty. If the state can't convince 12 people that someone is guilty then maybe they aren't.
So, Law & Order is ok, but The Shield is out? Trying writing a legal statute that bans one and allows the other, I doubt you could come up with one that would be constitutional. Maybe a law saying that the criminal justice system can only be depicted as being corruption free and flawless would be good... only show the police in a positive role etc. Sounds a bit like censorship to me.
Also, with games you are talking about purchased content, not broadcast. It would be more fair to compare regulations on buying DVDs for home use... there aren't a lot of laws there banning adult content.
My biggest concern with "fixing" SS is the potential for corruption that comes in when you start having fund managers. Right now SS only buys treasury bonds, no conflicts of interest or anything to worry about there. Once it becomes more like a 401k manager there are going to be companies lobbying to have their stock make it into one of the funds (talk billions of dollars invested into companies).
Also think of the impact on the stock market. The goverment would be capable of swing stocks instantly higher or lower. Insider information on their transactions would be invaluble to private sector investors.
The government hasn't traditionally been good about controlling corruption. I'd imagine this would be a massive pork fest until some scandal broke out.
Got any examples of this? I looked on the AP site at 3 political articles and all mentioned party affiliation with regards to elected officals.
Appointees might be another matter since they wouldn't need to declare their party on the ballot.
In most news articles refering to politians it would be very rare not to see the party mentioned (like D-NY or R-WI).
Hardly a monopoly, there are more than enough MMORPGs out there. Sure they aren't WoW, but that's a brand of service. Competition is already out there, in different titles such as Everquest and Lineage and a ton of others. Don't like how one is run? Try a different brand, just like you do when you choose which soda to buy at the market, sure Coke is the only Coke distributer, but you can always buy a differnt brand.
The main reason for them running all their own servers is economic, they are getting almost $150-$200/yr/subscriber, lots of money in running your own servers. Otherwise they get $50 per sale, and never again do they get money coming in. Now you see why everyone is trying to make their own, it's big bucks.
Personal servers would probably be too small to host a significant part of the persistant world too. Need lots of memory and hard disk to support all of the content required I imagine.
I'm not sure the defence is that shaky, the suit marvel launched was to the effect that a player "could" model an avatar after one of their heros, not that there were specific instances of unchecked copyright infringement.
It would seem Marvel would need to identify cases in which NCsoft was aware of infringment and made no effort to correct it, which from the sounds of things they have made significant efforts already.
News Corp itself is worth about $53B.
Depends what you call a conservative game. There are all kinds of conservatives out there, and there might be some untapped market just waiting.
But the safest bet is probably turn out games the way the industry does now, by just making the next shooter or football game. It would be interesting to see if someone could come up with some unique gameplay ideas, but I'm not sure political philosophy will make for big sales.
Even saying America's Army is conservative is probably debatable, since that made the top ten list of worst games for X-mas I think. I doubt people on the far-right and far-left are big gamers to begin with.
That really isn't true. If both options are incomplete or inaccurate than what? If the question had been it it a partical or "magic stuff", would magic stuff had been correct answer?
It basically boils down to a private-key security issue. How can you manage a private-key on a device that your attacker can have unlimited access to.
I wonder if they would make the keys more specific for the players, so that each device had a unique key. This would make it much easier to disable only the offending device and make code non-transferrable between players. Would probably be a manufacturing nightmare to generate and manage millions of keys though.
Could they really every revoke a key for an entire model of players? If someone revoked my $300 player and it was no longer good for new releases I doubt I'd ever buy a new player... I'd probably look to other options for getting movies.
Maybe they will let me download a patch for my player, then I need to make sure I patch my DVD player every movie night while the popcorn is cooking... Think I'll stick with my old DVD player until they manage to kill off the format. Since you can still buy video tape I figure I got 10-15 years before I need to worry about it.
Real word governments can't track every item traded and look at a database full of who is doing what. They know about the trade, it's just a question of them identifying which are the illegal trades. But if you profile people who make something great for nothing trades, than you can probably look closer at them...