The broadcast flag is a sequence of digital bits embedded in a television program that signals that the program must be protected from unauthorized redistribution. It does not distort the viewed picture in any way. Implementation of this broadcast flag will permit digital TV stations to obtain high value content and assure consumers a continued source of attractive, free, over-the-air programming without limiting the consumer's ability to make personal copies.
Why is it so wrong for Apple to protect their own products from being leaked before Apple gets a chance to release them? Apple is just looking out for their best interests in this case.
IDG's doing this anyway, not Apple. They are probably doing this because of some fear that Apple could bring some sort of legal action against them for what other publications invited to IDG's expo might publish.
Is this the right answer? No. Do I agree with this answer? No. This will probably be repealed next year anyway. But doesn't Apple have a right to protect their products?
I'll probably get modded down for this because I'm sure it's already been said but here it is:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
"Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A little history on the pledge:
The pledge was first written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. He was a baptist minister and a christian socialist. Orginally it wasn't a law, just a tradition, the first pledge didn't include the words "under god". Those words were added in 1954 by the U.S. Congress after protests to add "under god" by a christian group called Knights of Columbus. At this point it became not only a prayer but also a patriotic oath.
Up until 1954 when Congress got involved the pledge wasn't supported by the government at all, it was a tradition spread by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. But when Congress got involved then it became a constitutional issue but was passed with out conflict.
Although it did "pass" the Congress as in they did vote on it, it became a "public oath" not a law therefore excluding it from the constitutional question because the First Amendment specifies making a "law" for official state religion.
It was passed in an effort to stop communism because as per marxist doctrine communist states are officially atheist, as in, any religion is outlawed.
But the key questions, does it support christian beliefs? Yes, of couse, it is a christian prayer written by a christian and passed by a government largely made up of people who claim to be christians elected by a christian majority of citizens. Is is unconstitutional? It depends. The supreme court will probably say no when it is appealed to them just as to not create controversy and divide within the people.
It's really a matter of choice though, I personally see nothing wrong with it because it isn't a law and no one is making you say it. But's it's always going to be straight down the middle, atheists will say one thing christians will say another, jews another, buddists another. Doesn't matter which group you pick everyone will say something different.
No matter what you do you won't make everyone happy, and someone will just say that taking "under god" out of the pledge is also unconstitutional because the First amendment also says that the government can make no law "prohibiting the free exercise of a religion".
So it all comes down to what a individual chooses but this is true to nearly every issue I can think of.
For note, I am a christian although I can't stand organized religion, it disgusts me. Mainly because of the division between catholics and protestants etc... Each group trys to say that your way or christianity is wrong becaus it's not their way.
I think everyone should have the right to chose to have a religion or not have a religion and then chose to practice their religion any way they see fit. Also they shouldn't pressure their belief's on anyone else who doesn't want it. Have I always followed this guidelines? No. Should I have? Yes.
That's what I think at the moment, if you disagree that's your right and I hope you will post in this forum with your side of the issue.
Re:Why doesn't it have a native OSX version?
on
MacPerl 5.6.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
From EFF:
What is a broadcast flag?
The broadcast flag is a sequence of digital bits embedded in a television program that signals that the program must be protected from unauthorized redistribution. It does not distort the viewed picture in any way. Implementation of this broadcast flag will permit digital TV stations to obtain high value content and assure consumers a continued source of attractive, free, over-the-air programming without limiting the consumer's ability to make personal copies.
Why is it so wrong for Apple to protect their own products from being leaked before Apple gets a chance to release them? Apple is just looking out for their best interests in this case.
IDG's doing this anyway, not Apple. They are probably doing this because of some fear that Apple could bring some sort of legal action against them for what other publications invited to IDG's expo might publish.
Is this the right answer? No. Do I agree with this answer? No. This will probably be repealed next year anyway. But doesn't Apple have a right to protect their products?
I'll probably get modded down for this because I'm sure it's already been said but here it is:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Article [I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." A little history on the pledge:The pledge was first written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. He was a baptist minister and a christian socialist. Orginally it wasn't a law, just a tradition, the first pledge didn't include the words "under god". Those words were added in 1954 by the U.S. Congress after protests to add "under god" by a christian group called Knights of Columbus. At this point it became not only a prayer but also a patriotic oath.
Up until 1954 when Congress got involved the pledge wasn't supported by the government at all, it was a tradition spread by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. But when Congress got involved then it became a constitutional issue but was passed with out conflict.
Although it did "pass" the Congress as in they did vote on it, it became a "public oath" not a law therefore excluding it from the constitutional question because the First Amendment specifies making a "law" for official state religion.
It was passed in an effort to stop communism because as per marxist doctrine communist states are officially atheist, as in, any religion is outlawed.
But the key questions, does it support christian beliefs? Yes, of couse, it is a christian prayer written by a christian and passed by a government largely made up of people who claim to be christians elected by a christian majority of citizens. Is is unconstitutional? It depends. The supreme court will probably say no when it is appealed to them just as to not create controversy and divide within the people.
It's really a matter of choice though, I personally see nothing wrong with it because it isn't a law and no one is making you say it. But's it's always going to be straight down the middle, atheists will say one thing christians will say another, jews another, buddists another. Doesn't matter which group you pick everyone will say something different.
No matter what you do you won't make everyone happy, and someone will just say that taking "under god" out of the pledge is also unconstitutional because the First amendment also says that the government can make no law "prohibiting the free exercise of a religion".
So it all comes down to what a individual chooses but this is true to nearly every issue I can think of.
For note, I am a christian although I can't stand organized religion, it disgusts me. Mainly because of the division between catholics and protestants etc... Each group trys to say that your way or christianity is wrong becaus it's not their way.
I think everyone should have the right to chose to have a religion or not have a religion and then chose to practice their religion any way they see fit. Also they shouldn't pressure their belief's on anyone else who doesn't want it. Have I always followed this guidelines? No. Should I have? Yes.
That's what I think at the moment, if you disagree that's your right and I hope you will post in this forum with your side of the issue.
Perl 5.6 is included with OS X. You can run scripts from the terminal. Go here for more info from the apple website