Besides, the breathalyzer is usually only used to prove your drunk after its obvious by your mannerisms. Its a bit rare to test sober people ya know.
Let's say you're driving a bit over the speed limit on a Saturday night, or maybe one of your brake lights is out. You see the red and blue and pull over. The police officer says he smells alcohol on you and asks you to submit to a breathalyzer.
In the state of Colorado, even if you are stone-cold sober, you can have your driver's license suspended for up to six months for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court.
So how important do you think it is for a breathalyzer to record a 99.9-plus-percent accurate result every time? And tangentially, is anyone else in the slightest bit annoyed that the system can do an end-run around the Fifth Amendment so easily?
The real question is "Does it work repeatedly, reliably, and accurately?"
It doesn't matter how complex and/or ugly the code is if the code works beautifully.
Actually, the question is, "Can an expert prove that the code worked reliably and accurately in one particular case?" The uglier and more complex the code is, the harder a time a prosecutor will have establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Used games don't make Publishers any money.
Pirated games don't make Publishers any money.
Solution: Games should use the Software-As-A-Service Model.
I have a better solution: Publishers should make games that are good enough that people want to buy them, in order to support further development of good games.
Computing is a commodity, like electricity. People should get used to paying as they use it.
You can have my gaming box when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Because the answer most slashdotters have is for the newspapers to get online and use online advertising and deliver content for free. Oops, AdBlock defeats that.
That model's not working anyway because the advertising dollars have dried up. It wasn't AdBlock that defeated the model, it was the recession.
If you won't pay to read NYT stories (bugmenot or reprints elsewhere), do not want to see ads, why should you get any content?
The better question is, is the content worth enough that I'm willing to pay for it? As you pointed out, these services all started free, so if they're going to raise their prices, I would expect to see a commensurate increase in quality. Would I pay money to use Google? Yes -- I can't imagine an Internet without it at this point. But as far as news content goes, only a handful of publications are of high enough quality that I would even consider a subscription, online or otherwise.
The problem there, however, is that you're paying one company for access but expecting a different company to supply you content. The only way your argument makes sense is if your ISP is providing your content, too.
Except that nowhere have I said I expect a different company to supply me with content. If they want to, that's great; if not, I'll find someplace else to get the content I'm looking for. But if their business model is "We'll figure out how to pay for it later," they're not entitled to anything from me when they discover that model doesn't work.
The press release gives no hint as to how the UDD was produced.
Of course not -- they'll want to patent that method before they release the details. And why not? If it turns out to be exactly what we needed all along to make fusion commercially viable, they'll be set for life.
If it's too easy to bypass for the gimme-gimme crowd, it's a "bad business model".
If they make it harder to bypass for freeloaders by actually employing a semi-functional gate, they're "denying [your] rights to do as [you] please!"
Would you base your business model on being the top search result in Google? People have done that, and when Google changed its search algorithm, those people cried foul, much like you're doing now. But Google doesn't owe them a living, much as I don't owe Web sites a living.
Devalue the advertising, devalue the content. The patronage system never worked for the common people, but go ahead, push it back that direction. Privatize everything! Then you can whine about being denied the option to see a film, because its financiers won't show it publicly for fear of devaluing their investments.
The difference is that the movie distribution system still works. As for "privatize everything," exactly what are you talking about? Because most Web sites are already privately owned and are free to swim or sink, as they should be. But the businesses who think I "owe" them something for visiting their site are sadly mistaken.
In an 'unprecedented joint statement,' the alliance predicted a 'lawless free-for-all' unless the government ensured the 'safe and secure delivery of legal content.'
Isn't the Internet a "lawless free-for-all" anyway? On one hand, you have commerce sites like Amazon and Newegg, news sites like the New York Times et al, government sites, and so on. On the other, though, you have plenty of sites out there -- and plenty of people -- who are basically outlaws. But for all that, the Internet works. If this "alliance of creative industries" doesn't want to play ball, they should yank out their LAN cables and go home.
But what about all of the sites which currently fail to support themselves through advertising, but are promising the investors that they will be able to do so real soon now? If they were to disappear tomorrow, the web would suddenly be a very empty place.
Where's the guarantee that they won't disappear tomorrow anyway, taking their investors' money with them?
If they've gotten enough complaints from legitimate companies/websites with legitimate ads saying essentially "hey, your product is costing me a substantial amount of revenue loss", then its understandable that AdBlock would consider this.
Okay, but here's the thing: No one has the right to make money using a bad business model. We're seeing that with newspapers, so why should other Web sites be immune?
... basically AdBlock (and NoScript) are allowing users to get something for nothing... for free! We are cheating the system in a way.
I don't know about you, but I pay for my Internet access, and I rather like the idea of controlling what gets downloaded onto my computer and what doesn't.
I don't use ad blockers because I realize that the free web exists as it is because of ads.
Having been on the Internet before all the businesses realized they could make a buck with it, I realize that the "free Web" was actually better for not having ads on it. Most of the sites that support themselves through advertising could disappear tomorrow, and no one would miss them; the only exception that comes to mind is Google, whose ads are non-intrusive enough that even people who don't like ads can tolerate them.
What I have to wonder is, are the AdBlock Plus folks getting kickbacks in return for this new "functionality"?
This will probably be used primarily against conservatives who oppose gay marriage, since homosexuals are currently attempting to control information sources to sway the voters who've rejected gay marriage in about 30 states. While most outspoken celebrities and MSM is on their side, they can't force their opponents off the internet unless they infringe upon their free speech rights, so that's what they're trying to do here.
This argument is about as tasteless, as illogical and as full of shit as saying the Jews are responsible for the economic downturn because they control the banks. Seriously, who the fuck modded this "insightful"?
... I write to you regarding two concerns with legislation recently reintroduced in the House Judiciary Committee: HR 1966, known as the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.
The act, sponsored primarily by Congressman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), seeks to protect children who use the Internet and are active on social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook. It is named for Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide in October 2006 after an adult female allegedly posed as a 16-year-old male and harassed Meier online. The full text of the bill is available via the THOMAS search engine at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1966, and information on Megan Meier is available via Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier.
Sir, HR 1966 would unreasonably and unnecessarily expand the power of the federal government. Harassment is already a crime at the state level, and state legislatures can easily amend their laws to include online behavior if they feel it necessary. Online harassment that crosses state or national boundaries is not, in my opinion, an issue that the federal government needs to address at this time.
But more serious is the bill's potential chilling effects on First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. Under the bill, "cyberbullying" is defined as "any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior..." But what constitutes "substantial emotional distress," and is it really something we want federal prosecutors and federal judges trying to hammer out? Worse yet, what if a judge finds, e.g., that a political party's Web site contains content that "causes substantial emotional distress" to members of the opposite party?
The federal government's time and money are best spent on securing our nation's borders, economy, and energy supply -- not determining whether someone is a "cyber bully." Moreover, Americans have a fundamental right to express themselves freely as long as that expression does not endanger others; we do not, and should not, have the right to be sheltered to ideas and beliefs that may offend us. I hope that you will vote "No" on HR 1966 if it should be submitted to the House of Representatives for a full vote.
Instead of making new laws, why can't they just enforce the ones already on the books? Yes, this is nothing but an extra power grab designed to keep you in your place.
Passing, or at least advancing, meaningless and unconstitutional garbage is how Congresscritters keep their jobs. When it comes time for re-election, they have to show that they did something to a bunch of people who, generally, don't know squat about the Constitution. Better still is if they can show that (a) they supported Popular Measure X and (b) the evil Opposite-of-Them Party opposed it, because that polarizes their election and gets all the members of their "base" out to the polls.
It's kind of sad, actually, but it reflects back on a population that either doesn't know or doesn't care about the scope of its rights under the Constitution.
So why would I pay for something that is readily available for free? The internet already provides me with an insurmountable amount of information on a daily basis... more information than I can ever recall reading in a week's worth of newspapers!
The question is, how much of the information you get from the Internet is produced by journalists? And when they're making minimum wage to flip burgers, where else will you get that information?
I'm not saying you have to pay for news on the Internet -- but sooner or later, you will find that you're getting what you're paying for. It'll be unfortunate, but there it is.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like these?
Let's say you're driving a bit over the speed limit on a Saturday night, or maybe one of your brake lights is out. You see the red and blue and pull over. The police officer says he smells alcohol on you and asks you to submit to a breathalyzer.
In the state of Colorado, even if you are stone-cold sober, you can have your driver's license suspended for up to six months for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court.
So how important do you think it is for a breathalyzer to record a 99.9-plus-percent accurate result every time? And tangentially, is anyone else in the slightest bit annoyed that the system can do an end-run around the Fifth Amendment so easily?
Actually, the question is, "Can an expert prove that the code worked reliably and accurately in one particular case?" The uglier and more complex the code is, the harder a time a prosecutor will have establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt.
This might actually work if ThePirateBay didn't have a decent built-in search engine.
I can't ... all my contacts' phone numbers are stored in GMail!
I have a better solution: Publishers should make games that are good enough that people want to buy them, in order to support further development of good games.
You can have my gaming box when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
That model's not working anyway because the advertising dollars have dried up. It wasn't AdBlock that defeated the model, it was the recession.
The better question is, is the content worth enough that I'm willing to pay for it? As you pointed out, these services all started free, so if they're going to raise their prices, I would expect to see a commensurate increase in quality. Would I pay money to use Google? Yes -- I can't imagine an Internet without it at this point. But as far as news content goes, only a handful of publications are of high enough quality that I would even consider a subscription, online or otherwise.
Wait, you're thankful for MySpace and FaceBook ..?
Except that nowhere have I said I expect a different company to supply me with content. If they want to, that's great; if not, I'll find someplace else to get the content I'm looking for. But if their business model is "We'll figure out how to pay for it later," they're not entitled to anything from me when they discover that model doesn't work.
Patent != copyright. Reading comprehension fail.
Of course not -- they'll want to patent that method before they release the details. And why not? If it turns out to be exactly what we needed all along to make fusion commercially viable, they'll be set for life.
Would you base your business model on being the top search result in Google? People have done that, and when Google changed its search algorithm, those people cried foul, much like you're doing now. But Google doesn't owe them a living, much as I don't owe Web sites a living.
The difference is that the movie distribution system still works. As for "privatize everything," exactly what are you talking about? Because most Web sites are already privately owned and are free to swim or sink, as they should be. But the businesses who think I "owe" them something for visiting their site are sadly mistaken.
Isn't the Internet a "lawless free-for-all" anyway? On one hand, you have commerce sites like Amazon and Newegg, news sites like the New York Times et al, government sites, and so on. On the other, though, you have plenty of sites out there -- and plenty of people -- who are basically outlaws. But for all that, the Internet works. If this "alliance of creative industries" doesn't want to play ball, they should yank out their LAN cables and go home.
Damn straight. It should be people setting the rules for the government, not the other way around.
Where's the guarantee that they won't disappear tomorrow anyway, taking their investors' money with them?
No one had to. If you wanted social networking, you hopped on IRC or Usenet.
*Shrug* I dunno, one of my favorites was the Witches' Voice, and that's still around.
Sure I can. All I have to do is pull out this little cable right here an
Okay, but here's the thing: No one has the right to make money using a bad business model. We're seeing that with newspapers, so why should other Web sites be immune?
I don't know about you, but I pay for my Internet access, and I rather like the idea of controlling what gets downloaded onto my computer and what doesn't.
Having been on the Internet before all the businesses realized they could make a buck with it, I realize that the "free Web" was actually better for not having ads on it. Most of the sites that support themselves through advertising could disappear tomorrow, and no one would miss them; the only exception that comes to mind is Google, whose ads are non-intrusive enough that even people who don't like ads can tolerate them.
What I have to wonder is, are the AdBlock Plus folks getting kickbacks in return for this new "functionality"?
This argument is about as tasteless, as illogical and as full of shit as saying the Jews are responsible for the economic downturn because they control the banks. Seriously, who the fuck modded this "insightful"?
You're right. So I did:
I think it's a city in North Dakota ... actually, no, that's Fargo.
Oh, goes too far! Well, that's something altogether different ...
Passing, or at least advancing, meaningless and unconstitutional garbage is how Congresscritters keep their jobs. When it comes time for re-election, they have to show that they did something to a bunch of people who, generally, don't know squat about the Constitution. Better still is if they can show that (a) they supported Popular Measure X and (b) the evil Opposite-of-Them Party opposed it, because that polarizes their election and gets all the members of their "base" out to the polls.
It's kind of sad, actually, but it reflects back on a population that either doesn't know or doesn't care about the scope of its rights under the Constitution.
Cue reply from person with three-digit Slashdot ID in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
The question is, how much of the information you get from the Internet is produced by journalists? And when they're making minimum wage to flip burgers, where else will you get that information?
I'm not saying you have to pay for news on the Internet -- but sooner or later, you will find that you're getting what you're paying for. It'll be unfortunate, but there it is.