Of course then you run the risk of creating too many stupid laws (which the states are known for). Don't just assume that the legislators are all that smart.
In this particular case, nothing about watching DVDs is inherently bad; surely, you can have the DVD player running and not watching it. What was illegal was careless driving.
This is what case law is for. All that needs to be done is for one court to deem that behavior illegal. There's no need for "special" laws like that, as others have pointed out.
So, what you're saying is that PBS should've somehow been off-limits to FCC regulations (which were not created under Bush)? "Shit", "Fuck" and "Blowjob" have been off-limits to boradcast TV-stations for a long time.
This case is pretty clear: they bleeped out the words "shit", "fuck" and "blowjob". These words have been off-limits forever. So PBS wisely chose not to run the show uncensored.
Only, in this case, the quotes are inapplicable. You see, the reason the shows are being censored is not the content, but the means of broadcast. The airwaves belong to the public, and as such are subject to public decency standards. They could've chosen to broadcast the show on cable, but they aimed for a larger target audience (which, ironically, is doubtful, since this is PBS we're talking about); therefore the producers have to suffer the consequences of broadcasting over the air.
A show that's broadcast over the air is being censored by its corporate distributor (in this case PBS) in order to avoid the imminent fines by the FCC (either that or to maintain its wholesome image), and somehow it's the fault of the big bad Bush administration?
This has "publicity stunt" written all over it.
The people who are constantly getting hit with viruses, spyware, IE holes, etc. are exactly the kind of people who would have a hard time getting used to and accepting Linux. Most of the potential switchers (like me, for instance) already have their Windows boxes well-protected. There needs to be a better reason than just "it's not Windows" to entice me to convert.
Is Microsoft sticking a gun to your head requiring you to purchase their AV software? If not, then your post is just another anti-MS rant without a real point and full of buzzwords.
For what it's worth, I would switch providers in a hurry if they limited my ability to use Vonage. So, it may not matter to all customers, but some care.
Though, I agree with your overall point: as long as the providers stand to make more money than they would lose, they'll do it. But they DO have to be careful about their choices.
Yes, because the regulation is so effective when it comes to cell-phones, cable TV, etc. Let the providers make their decisions (however dumb they may be), but leave the choice as to which provider I choose, won't you?
Well it's not like The Guardian has the best track record as far as numbers are concerned. Read this article, and be amazed with the new Fahrenheit-Celsius conversion rules. (And yes, they corrected one error, but the other one is still there!)
So if the licence fee is worth it, why are you avoiding to pay it?
Regardless of BBC's "best-in-the-world" quality (which is a dubious claim to begin with), the point is that it's ridiculous that the government makes you pay for it, when OTHER viable options are available.
My mistake - BBC's site wasn't too clear on the topic. Still, it's completely ridiculous - what if I don't WANT to watch BBC? Why should I still pay for it? As for commercial-free stations - I get 2 or 3 of those with my service, though I completely satisfied with around 50 other channels that run ads, for a price that is still less than what BBC asks.
I suppose that means it is OK for management to order a mob hit on a union organizer then? After all, their only duty is to make as much money as possible...
It's as much OK for the management to do it, as it is for you to do it. In other words, no, not OK. Don't confuse a company trying to make money with a company breaking the law.
As far as for-profit corporations go, it is ALWAYS about profit. That's what they have to do - maximize their profits. To not be concerned with profit would be an abuse of the management's duties.
Now, you can argue that if they outsource their customer support then that would hurt them in the bottom line, because of poor quality and backlash, but that is a whole different argument.
Nothing's wrong with the community doing it. It's when the government gets involved that things go awry. See, the governments (even the local ones) have a tendency to subsidize an unprofitable venture with yours and mine tax dollars, thereby killing off the competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course then you run the risk of creating too many stupid laws (which the states are known for). Don't just assume that the legislators are all that smart. In this particular case, nothing about watching DVDs is inherently bad; surely, you can have the DVD player running and not watching it. What was illegal was careless driving.
This is what case law is for. All that needs to be done is for one court to deem that behavior illegal. There's no need for "special" laws like that, as others have pointed out.
So, what you're saying is that PBS should've somehow been off-limits to FCC regulations (which were not created under Bush)? "Shit", "Fuck" and "Blowjob" have been off-limits to boradcast TV-stations for a long time.
This case is pretty clear: they bleeped out the words "shit", "fuck" and "blowjob". These words have been off-limits forever. So PBS wisely chose not to run the show uncensored.
Then how come I hear "shit", "fuck" and "blowjob" on HBO all the time?
Only, in this case, the quotes are inapplicable. You see, the reason the shows are being censored is not the content, but the means of broadcast. The airwaves belong to the public, and as such are subject to public decency standards. They could've chosen to broadcast the show on cable, but they aimed for a larger target audience (which, ironically, is doubtful, since this is PBS we're talking about); therefore the producers have to suffer the consequences of broadcasting over the air.
A show that's broadcast over the air is being censored by its corporate distributor (in this case PBS) in order to avoid the imminent fines by the FCC (either that or to maintain its wholesome image), and somehow it's the fault of the big bad Bush administration? This has "publicity stunt" written all over it.
The people who are constantly getting hit with viruses, spyware, IE holes, etc. are exactly the kind of people who would have a hard time getting used to and accepting Linux. Most of the potential switchers (like me, for instance) already have their Windows boxes well-protected. There needs to be a better reason than just "it's not Windows" to entice me to convert.
Is Microsoft sticking a gun to your head requiring you to purchase their AV software? If not, then your post is just another anti-MS rant without a real point and full of buzzwords.
Not if a company has a government-mandated monopoly over telephone lines.
Well, why don't you start helping, by turning off you Internet and electricity services and use the money saved on helping the starved kids.
Get drunk without a hangover.
I click on that Google News link, and lo and behold: this story on Slashdot is the first article in the list. So naturally, I click on that...
For what it's worth, I would switch providers in a hurry if they limited my ability to use Vonage. So, it may not matter to all customers, but some care. Though, I agree with your overall point: as long as the providers stand to make more money than they would lose, they'll do it. But they DO have to be careful about their choices.
Yes, because the regulation is so effective when it comes to cell-phones, cable TV, etc. Let the providers make their decisions (however dumb they may be), but leave the choice as to which provider I choose, won't you?
Well it's not like The Guardian has the best track record as far as numbers are concerned. Read this article, and be amazed with the new Fahrenheit-Celsius conversion rules. (And yes, they corrected one error, but the other one is still there!)
So if the licence fee is worth it, why are you avoiding to pay it? Regardless of BBC's "best-in-the-world" quality (which is a dubious claim to begin with), the point is that it's ridiculous that the government makes you pay for it, when OTHER viable options are available.
Comcast's basic cable here in Philly suburbs is $10 a month. With taxes it's $11.
My mistake - BBC's site wasn't too clear on the topic. Still, it's completely ridiculous - what if I don't WANT to watch BBC? Why should I still pay for it? As for commercial-free stations - I get 2 or 3 of those with my service, though I completely satisfied with around 50 other channels that run ads, for a price that is still less than what BBC asks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/ No fee for the radio sets.
Hate to reply to my own post, but that is ten Pounds per month (the pound character got cut off).
Give me a break. My total cable bill is less than that here in the U.S.
I suppose that means it is OK for management to order a mob hit on a union organizer then? After all, their only duty is to make as much money as possible... It's as much OK for the management to do it, as it is for you to do it. In other words, no, not OK. Don't confuse a company trying to make money with a company breaking the law.
As far as for-profit corporations go, it is ALWAYS about profit. That's what they have to do - maximize their profits. To not be concerned with profit would be an abuse of the management's duties. Now, you can argue that if they outsource their customer support then that would hurt them in the bottom line, because of poor quality and backlash, but that is a whole different argument.
Nothing's wrong with the community doing it. It's when the government gets involved that things go awry. See, the governments (even the local ones) have a tendency to subsidize an unprofitable venture with yours and mine tax dollars, thereby killing off the competition.