I did a bit more research, but I couldn't come up with any real regulation of language, nudity, suitability, or anything else for SciFi, Spike and the rest.
Then, it hit me: advertisers. They're able to gather a wider base of advertising support, and less worried about pissing somebody like Pepsi off, if they keep to similar standards as regular "broadcast" television. Since they're cable-based, they can get away with things that broadcasters can't. For example, Comedy Central recently played "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" late at night without any censoring.
So, it appears that the FCC "owns" the airwaves and leases them on the condition that they are not used in certain ways.
I suppose you could look at it in that way, but it's kind of off. We, the People, "own" the airwaves. What is broadcast over those airwaves is regulated by a set of rules, which the FCC governs. For example, the 10-meter and 11-meter radio bands are governed by a set of laws that are completely different. The 10-meter band requires a license (HAM radio), while the 11-meter band (CB, or citizen's band) is open for public use. The power limits and such on the 10-meter band are different from those of the 11-meter band.
When you talk about "public" broadcasting (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.), their purpose is chartered differently than the HAM radio bands. In order to broadcast television via the airwaves, you have to have specific things in your charter, one of them being that you will serve the public's interest. The FCC is the group that enforces the rules and charters.
Still strange with basic cable though. I didnt think that was broadcast through the airwaves. Unless the FCC owns cable bandwith as well?
I have to wonder what your definition of "basic cable" is. If it is the major networks, then they are governed just like their "broadcast" equivelants. For example, CBS in my area is exactly the same if I use a VHF reciever or a cable box. If, however, you're talking about MTV, the situation is different. It's not possible to recieve MTV without some specialized equipment (cable box or dish), where it is possible to recieve the standard "broadcast" television without the equipment.
As a general rule, figure that anything that you pay for, and that you couldn't get without some sort of cable or sattellite coverter, is governed by the FCC more strictly. Cable is still regulated, but in a different matter. The standards, being a subscription service, are far more lenient as to what's allowable.
From what I understand about the issue, it doesn't have to do as much with free speech as it does with the use of the public airwaves.
All broadcast media licenses are granted with an understanding that the airwaves will be used "for the common good", whatever that means. That's why radio and television stations still play those Public Service Announcements. It's also why there was such flack over the Superbowl Nipple Flash(tm).
In accordance with the "common good" standards, there are certain decency standards that all broadcasters must uphold. Subscribers are the reason that the cable channels can show whatever they want; FCC public broadcasting is supported, in a roundabout way, by the people of the US.
Well, sure. But I wonder how long it will be before a law is necessary to state that companies must make products to the best of their ability.
We already do, actually. Product defect liability laws take exactly this into account. I hope that when you say: companies must make products to the best of their ability, you aren't speaking of the engineering of the product, but rather the manufacturing. Heaven forbid we get into legislating differing versions of "best of their ability."
Take the old Beta/VHS format wars. The deciding factor there was market forces. Was VHS superior to VHS? Nope. Was VHS a product "made to the best of their ability?" Arguably, no. Yet VHS was good enough for the market segment that both Beta and VHS were primarily trying to grab: the average consumer. If we legislate that nebulous "best of their ability", I could concievably sue the manufacturer of VHS tapes because some other format is "better" in terms of resolution, but perhaps not storage space or price.
The reality of the market is that nowadays it is fast becoming more and more beneficial for companies to sell worse goods, which is the very opposite of what they should be encouraged to do. Competition doesn't level this out because the viability of competing at all is steadily going down across the entire spectrum of business, and if there is any competition the same ulterior motive usually applies to them too.
Examples of either (or both) of these?
The knee-jerk reaction is "Microsoft", of course. I'd have to disagree there. Yes, competition hasn't leveled out the playing field for operating systems (yet) because there is not a product that is as good as, or better than, Windows for the novice user with the same price point. If Apple had a product comparable to, say, Gateway's $400 computers, with operating system, monitor, printer and a bundle of software included, I think we'd start to see more of a shift in the desktop market.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't really don't see the issue. Cannon manufactures, markets, and sells the product; it's their choice. If enough people don't like what they're doing, they'll eventually bow to market pressure and change their practices or go out of business.
We're not talking about a product that has software that disables it after 6 weeks of use, or that overdrives the motors to limit the product life. Cannon made a choice to disable certain features of the software in their cheaper camera. This could, possibly, be driven by the Rebel's market. There's pleanty of "consumer" level software out there that is feature limited because most of the target market either wouldn't understand the cut features, or wouldn't use them.
My reason for responding to the post was because of the flawed logic; the original poster was stating that the cameras were identical hardware, but the Rebel was feature-limited in software. This is just not true.
I get nervous when posters start spouting "there outta be a law" regarding issues like this.
Uhh... this is completely incorrect. When taking the picture, there's nothing "directing the image to the CCD" - the mirror just flips out of the way. You must be thinking how the image from the ground glass is directed into the viewfinder - pentamirror vs. pentaprism.
Yep. My bad... It makes perfect sense, now, the way it was explained to me.
I sell you a plow... you buy my plow. I rig the plow to not function from 5-9. You however, enjoy plowing in the moonlight and this is a problem to you.
I also sell the same identical plow, but without rigging it, for $500 more.
But you're comparing apples to oranges here. As a bunch of posters have pointed out, the Rebel is not the same as the 10D. The firmware is similar, the hardware is similar, but they are different machines.
The 10D uses a prism system to direct the image to the CCD, while the Rebel uses a rotating mirror. This results in a "slap-back" effect on the Rebel that shows up in your pictures at higher magnifications.
The 10D has a hefty magnesium case, where the Rebel uses a less durable, plastic or composite case.
The 10D also can take pictures at a faster rate (burst of 9 at 3 fps vs. burst of 4 at 2.5 fps, I believe). I think this is due to the fact that the Rebel doesn't use the prism.
In order to have a fair comparison, your example should read:
I sell you a plow... You buy my plow. Your plow's software won't allow the plow to function from 5-9. You, however, enjoy plowing in the moonlight and this is a problem for you.
I also sell another plow for $500 more, based on the same hardware and software. This plow has upgraded shears that will cut the ground more effeciently, and is immune to rust.
Since you don't mind taking 4 hours to do your plowing, upgrading the software is possible, but will void your warranty. If, however, you'd like to plow your field in 3.5 hours and store the plow in your swimming pool, you must upgrade your plow
due to mechanical improvements in my more expensive model.
I know that I developed something to store data structures in Cookies prior to the filing date of January 31, 2000.
In the course of one of my contracts, I needed a nice way to impliment a next/previous page functionality without the use of a session table (long story as to why). I ended up using a cookie as a stack for that functionality.
The problem is that this code was written for a private, in-house data warehousing system, and I don't have the code.
Could I file a "friend of the court" or some other such brief on this matter describing how I implimented (for profit!) this technology before the patent date?
Using "kill the Hatians" in the game was probably over the top, but I can't help but look at this and think that if the phrase used was "kill the whites", we'd not have even noticed.
Before you mod me off for trying to troll, I'll just ask you what is more offensive: not paying attention to a "racial slur" because you think people are above the touchiness, or constantly spending your life looking at a certain race as your oppressors without first looking for motivations, or even correct word definitions?
...but the idea of an organization in which Iran and China sit on the Human Rights committee "govern" the somewhat-open forum that is the Internet just gives me the shivers.
Say what you will regarding the lack of free speech in the US at the moment, but it's still defensible via the Supreme Court. The thought of an international incident coming from using the word "Nazi" in a Slashdot post is truly scary.
Political correctness can, for now, be somewhat trumped by rational individuals, but an international trial for "crimes" not even applicable to the country of the origin of the offense is way over the line.
Seems as true as ever in this case. This puts the Fundamentalist Christians, the Libertarians and the Techno-Liberal-Anti-Ashcrofters squarely on the same side.
Heh. I hadn't thought of it in that way. Once you look at it, though, it makes perfect sense. It works like Ockham's Razor for the non-scientist.
To paraphrase:
If most groups with diametrically opposing views agree, then their view is most likely correct.
...then why do Christians have a problem with it? If Revelation is coming to pass as written, then wouldn't they welcome it? Sure, the time of the Beast is supposed to be pretty grim, but they don't have to worry about that, they'll get the Rapture and be gone, right?
I've actually spent a bunch of time arguing points like this with the members of my wife's church, so I think I'm qualified to address this without going off the deep end to fundamentalism. I'll just say that at this time, I'm totally undecided on the whole "God" thing, but not being one to debate without doing some research, at least, I've read quite a bit of the Bible. I've even started to wearing a T-shirt to church dinners and such that one of the members gave me; emblazoned across the chest is the phrase "Token Heathen."
The main problem comes in with what's left "undone" in the views of most Christians. One of the requirements of being a Christian is to spread the word of God and deliver the masses from the bonds of a non-Christian life. Since not everybody on the planet is Christian, it's a source of sadness or sympathy that these souls will be "unsaved" when Revelations comes to pass.
Another component to this outrage over "Revelations-like" actions is the fact that Christians are human, just like you and me. When faced with the persecution described in Revelations, you can't help but dread it.
This is what has always puzzled me: Christians believe in an end-times myth which ends in good things for them, and they always try to forestall it. The point of a prophecy isn't "these things will happen unless you guys can somehow stop it," it's "these things will happen." Anything else isn't much of a prophecy. So for Christians, when the bad shit in the Bible starts going down, they should just sit back and relax, right?
Think of it this way, if it helps. Imagine that you were promised $1 billion, tax free cash, but the only catch was that you had to live through 6 months of being a social outcast, persecuted and possibly tortured for your beliefs. The situation is similar to what Revelations promises: you'll have to put up with some horrible crap in order to get your reward of living in Heaven. When present with a sufficient reward, people will endure amazing hardships; that doesn't mean they can't dread and fear the tribulation.
It's kind of strange, but situations like the proposed RFID system give me pause. Revelations describes a time where those without the "Mark of the Beast" can't get even the basic services required for life. It sounds to me a lot like implanted RFID replacing money. But, then again, the same type of hysteria was when barcodes started appearing on products, so this probably won't be the last time the dreaded "Mark of the Beast" enters the technology spotlight.
Where are the public Google News newsfeeds provided by Google? I found
several feeds provided by other people using various methods to parse the generated HTML pages, but I couldn't find anything on the Google News site itself.
The 74d.com site seems to be pretty cool; a link to the perl source for the generation tool is located at the bottom of the page.
And how many stories have you heard about this in the mainstream press?
I've seen several in Newsweek recently, actually. My local news in Phoenix also ran a few stories recently. That's exactly my point, though. There actually were stories, though far too few for the magnitude of the problem, reported on this recently in the mainstream press.
By my count, CNN has run one story on it, and the New York Times has run another single story on it. The AP also ran a story, which was picked up by some outlets.
Yep. There were others, mostly local. I believe Fox also ran one, but I'm not entirely sure.
But doing a search of news.google.com does not turn up all that much, certainly not as much as you'd think this would warrant.
At this point it's largely (and badly) treated as a "techie" issue.
Look at this. Summarized here for your pleasure: Total donations, 1990-2004 for Enron: 29% to Democrats, 71% to Republicans. Enron heavily favored Republicans in their political contributions, both on the state and national level. Enron obviously favored the Republican party.
I don't know anything about opensecrets.org , but it's yet another source I wasn't familiar with; thanks for another site to look at. And that, I believe, illustrates my frustration a little better. Looking back on the mainstream stories I've read about how Enron was totally a "Republican" company, there was never a mention of any donations to the Democrats; even a statement of "largely donates to the Republicans" would have been nice.
It comes down to this for me: I'm having a hard time finding any news sources that don't present a glaringly biased point of view for either conservative or liberal views. CNN is extremely liberal, Fox is extremely conservative. Even my local news stations are leaning towards the conservative side, as I live in a largely conservative state. Finding out the truth is becoming more and more confusing as more and more sources dilute actual news with political leanings towards one side or the other. I'm watching CNN and Fox together to try find out what the real truth is, but I suspect that a lot is left out on both sides. I want facts, not political interpretations of some of the facts that support a position.
Slashdot Mirror
At least according to all of the electrical engineers I've ever worked with...
I did a bit more research, but I couldn't come up with any real regulation of language, nudity, suitability, or anything else for SciFi, Spike and the rest.
Then, it hit me: advertisers. They're able to gather a wider base of advertising support, and less worried about pissing somebody like Pepsi off, if they keep to similar standards as regular "broadcast" television. Since they're cable-based, they can get away with things that broadcasters can't. For example, Comedy Central recently played "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" late at night without any censoring.
I suppose you could look at it in that way, but it's kind of off. We, the People, "own" the airwaves. What is broadcast over those airwaves is regulated by a set of rules, which the FCC governs. For example, the 10-meter and 11-meter radio bands are governed by a set of laws that are completely different. The 10-meter band requires a license (HAM radio), while the 11-meter band (CB, or citizen's band) is open for public use. The power limits and such on the 10-meter band are different from those of the 11-meter band.
When you talk about "public" broadcasting (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.), their purpose is chartered differently than the HAM radio bands. In order to broadcast television via the airwaves, you have to have specific things in your charter, one of them being that you will serve the public's interest. The FCC is the group that enforces the rules and charters.
I have to wonder what your definition of "basic cable" is. If it is the major networks, then they are governed just like their "broadcast" equivelants. For example, CBS in my area is exactly the same if I use a VHF reciever or a cable box. If, however, you're talking about MTV, the situation is different. It's not possible to recieve MTV without some specialized equipment (cable box or dish), where it is possible to recieve the standard "broadcast" television without the equipment.
As a general rule, figure that anything that you pay for, and that you couldn't get without some sort of cable or sattellite coverter, is governed by the FCC more strictly. Cable is still regulated, but in a different matter. The standards, being a subscription service, are far more lenient as to what's allowable.
From what I understand about the issue, it doesn't have to do as much with free speech as it does with the use of the public airwaves.
All broadcast media licenses are granted with an understanding that the airwaves will be used "for the common good", whatever that means. That's why radio and television stations still play those Public Service Announcements. It's also why there was such flack over the Superbowl Nipple Flash(tm).
In accordance with the "common good" standards, there are certain decency standards that all broadcasters must uphold. Subscribers are the reason that the cable channels can show whatever they want; FCC public broadcasting is supported, in a roundabout way, by the people of the US.
Don't bother putting a computer up. Get a decent, cheap 802.11g wireless router, and perhaps hook up a couple of jacks for hardwire LAN access.
If somebody wants a computer on their vacation, let them bring their own.
We already do, actually. Product defect liability laws take exactly this into account. I hope that when you say: companies must make products to the best of their ability, you aren't speaking of the engineering of the product, but rather the manufacturing. Heaven forbid we get into legislating differing versions of "best of their ability."
Take the old Beta/VHS format wars. The deciding factor there was market forces. Was VHS superior to VHS? Nope. Was VHS a product "made to the best of their ability?" Arguably, no. Yet VHS was good enough for the market segment that both Beta and VHS were primarily trying to grab: the average consumer. If we legislate that nebulous "best of their ability", I could concievably sue the manufacturer of VHS tapes because some other format is "better" in terms of resolution, but perhaps not storage space or price.
Examples of either (or both) of these?
The knee-jerk reaction is "Microsoft", of course. I'd have to disagree there. Yes, competition hasn't leveled out the playing field for operating systems (yet) because there is not a product that is as good as, or better than, Windows for the novice user with the same price point. If Apple had a product comparable to, say, Gateway's $400 computers, with operating system, monitor, printer and a bundle of software included, I think we'd start to see more of a shift in the desktop market.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't really don't see the issue. Cannon manufactures, markets, and sells the product; it's their choice. If enough people don't like what they're doing, they'll eventually bow to market pressure and change their practices or go out of business.
We're not talking about a product that has software that disables it after 6 weeks of use, or that overdrives the motors to limit the product life. Cannon made a choice to disable certain features of the software in their cheaper camera. This could, possibly, be driven by the Rebel's market. There's pleanty of "consumer" level software out there that is feature limited because most of the target market either wouldn't understand the cut features, or wouldn't use them.
My reason for responding to the post was because of the flawed logic; the original poster was stating that the cameras were identical hardware, but the Rebel was feature-limited in software. This is just not true.
I get nervous when posters start spouting "there outta be a law" regarding issues like this.
Yep. My bad... It makes perfect sense, now, the way it was explained to me.
Thanks for clarifying.But you're comparing apples to oranges here. As a bunch of posters have pointed out, the Rebel is not the same as the 10D. The firmware is similar, the hardware is similar, but they are different machines.
In order to have a fair comparison, your example should read:
In the course of one of my contracts, I needed a nice way to impliment a next/previous page functionality without the use of a session table (long story as to why). I ended up using a cookie as a stack for that functionality.
The problem is that this code was written for a private, in-house data warehousing system, and I don't have the code.
Could I file a "friend of the court" or some other such brief on this matter describing how I implimented (for profit!) this technology before the patent date?
Give your boss a copy of The One Minute Manager on your way out the door.
Apache::MP3.
Offtopic my ass... Had I not already posted, +1 Insightful.
Must... Patiently... Wait for... PJ.
Then there's the case of a Washington staffer forced to resign for saying "niggardly", because it sounded like a racial slur, but actually meant "miserly".
Using "kill the Hatians" in the game was probably over the top, but I can't help but look at this and think that if the phrase used was "kill the whites", we'd not have even noticed.
Before you mod me off for trying to troll, I'll just ask you what is more offensive: not paying attention to a "racial slur" because you think people are above the touchiness, or constantly spending your life looking at a certain race as your oppressors without first looking for motivations, or even correct word definitions?
Say what you will regarding the lack of free speech in the US at the moment, but it's still defensible via the Supreme Court. The thought of an international incident coming from using the word "Nazi" in a Slashdot post is truly scary.
Political correctness can, for now, be somewhat trumped by rational individuals, but an international trial for "crimes" not even applicable to the country of the origin of the offense is way over the line.
Heh. I hadn't thought of it in that way. Once you look at it, though, it makes perfect sense. It works like Ockham's Razor for the non-scientist.
To paraphrase:
I like it!
I've actually spent a bunch of time arguing points like this with the members of my wife's church, so I think I'm qualified to address this without going off the deep end to fundamentalism. I'll just say that at this time, I'm totally undecided on the whole "God" thing, but not being one to debate without doing some research, at least, I've read quite a bit of the Bible. I've even started to wearing a T-shirt to church dinners and such that one of the members gave me; emblazoned across the chest is the phrase "Token Heathen."
The main problem comes in with what's left "undone" in the views of most Christians. One of the requirements of being a Christian is to spread the word of God and deliver the masses from the bonds of a non-Christian life. Since not everybody on the planet is Christian, it's a source of sadness or sympathy that these souls will be "unsaved" when Revelations comes to pass.
Another component to this outrage over "Revelations-like" actions is the fact that Christians are human, just like you and me. When faced with the persecution described in Revelations, you can't help but dread it.
Think of it this way, if it helps. Imagine that you were promised $1 billion, tax free cash, but the only catch was that you had to live through 6 months of being a social outcast, persecuted and possibly tortured for your beliefs. The situation is similar to what Revelations promises: you'll have to put up with some horrible crap in order to get your reward of living in Heaven. When present with a sufficient reward, people will endure amazing hardships; that doesn't mean they can't dread and fear the tribulation.
It's kind of strange, but situations like the proposed RFID system give me pause. Revelations describes a time where those without the "Mark of the Beast" can't get even the basic services required for life. It sounds to me a lot like implanted RFID replacing money. But, then again, the same type of hysteria was when barcodes started appearing on products, so this probably won't be the last time the dreaded "Mark of the Beast" enters the technology spotlight.
Like going to Church on a Thursday or getting laid on a Monday...
Hmmm... Do you subscribe to the "Vote Early, Vote Often" theory? :)
I vote on Tuesday, personally...
Probably something to do with the flash plugins or some such nonesense.
I really don't like the idea of screen scraping because it breaks so easily. But, when there's no other choice...
The 74d.com site seems to be pretty cool; a link to the perl source for the generation tool is located at the bottom of the page.
But, I suppose it had to be said.
But, at least it was said where it could be appreciated...
And how many stories have you heard about this in the mainstream press? I've seen several in Newsweek recently, actually. My local news in Phoenix also ran a few stories recently. That's exactly my point, though. There actually were stories, though far too few for the magnitude of the problem, reported on this recently in the mainstream press.
By my count, CNN has run one story on it, and the New York Times has run another single story on it. The AP also ran a story, which was picked up by some outlets.
Yep. There were others, mostly local. I believe Fox also ran one, but I'm not entirely sure.
But doing a search of news.google.com does not turn up all that much, certainly not as much as you'd think this would warrant.
At this point it's largely (and badly) treated as a "techie" issue.
Look at this. Summarized here for your pleasure: Total donations, 1990-2004 for Enron: 29% to Democrats, 71% to Republicans. Enron heavily favored Republicans in their political contributions, both on the state and national level. Enron obviously favored the Republican party.
I don't know anything about opensecrets.org , but it's yet another source I wasn't familiar with; thanks for another site to look at. And that, I believe, illustrates my frustration a little better. Looking back on the mainstream stories I've read about how Enron was totally a "Republican" company, there was never a mention of any donations to the Democrats; even a statement of "largely donates to the Republicans" would have been nice.
It comes down to this for me: I'm having a hard time finding any news sources that don't present a glaringly biased point of view for either conservative or liberal views. CNN is extremely liberal, Fox is extremely conservative. Even my local news stations are leaning towards the conservative side, as I live in a largely conservative state. Finding out the truth is becoming more and more confusing as more and more sources dilute actual news with political leanings towards one side or the other. I'm watching CNN and Fox together to try find out what the real truth is, but I suspect that a lot is left out on both sides. I want facts, not political interpretations of some of the facts that support a position.