"I share the disappointment of Webcasters and many content providers that an anonymous hold prevented the Senate from passing this bill before the Oct. 20 deadline," Leahy said in a statement.
I am sure we can figure out
who Leahy supports.
The simple answer, according to the article is that the local engine running on the box will decide which set of ads to grab from the server based on a local profile. IE box no 0001 wants ads for widgets because that box knows the TV is tuned to "Widget World" every week. Box knows, Big Brother dosen't... however there is an inconsistancy in the article. ------ From the article --------
"If you've just bought a car, you might see an ad that reinforces your decision and that ad might reference the vehicle's warranty or anti-lock breaking system," explained Downey. "On the other hand, if a viewer is in the 34th month of a 36-month lease, they will see ads that will highlight favorable interest rates and rebate programs." --------------- End ----------
How could the box know you bought a car or your lease is up unless another system is in place that is collecting that information and passing it to the box to let it know. Box is "safe" but the other system that lets the box know... well just idle thoughts on this...
/translator.pl?gibberish="This will provide content holders and distributors with the bigger opportunities to widen the ways of secure content distribution to various devices while consumers will enjoy more entertaining and exciting content, which will enlarge and vitalize the entire digital content distribution market."
Translation: This will not only make content far more restricted, but will also record and track your activities while giving new marketing information to the mega corporations and allow them to scheme with greater efficiency in dolling out overpriced drivel to the masses for consumption.
Ok, just wanted to make that clear.
Although in troubled times restrictions are necessary I fully believe that
"In times of emergency, restrictions on the freedom of the individual and imposed in the real or assumed interest of the community. We hold it to be essential that such restrictions be confined to a minimum of clearly specified actions ; that they be understood to be temporary and limited expedients in the nature of a sacrafice ; and that the measures restricting freedom be themseles subject to the free criticism and democratic control . Only thus can we have a reasonable assurance that emergency measures restricting individual freedom will not be degenerate into a permanent tyranny." - sec. 7 of the manifesto of the Congress for Cultural Freedom published in 1951 In was true then and it is true now. The steps of government and corporations that seek to influence the gov be be in the light, and not hidden, espically under the guise of "protecting the people".
Peace folks,
Slashdot Mirror
"I share the disappointment of Webcasters and many content providers that an anonymous hold prevented the Senate from passing this bill before the Oct. 20 deadline," Leahy said in a statement. I am sure we can figure out who Leahy supports.
The simple answer, according to the article is that the local engine running on the box will decide which set of ads to grab from the server based on a local profile. IE box no 0001 wants ads for widgets because that box knows the TV is tuned to "Widget World" every week. Box knows, Big Brother dosen't... however there is an inconsistancy in the article.
------ From the article --------
"If you've just bought a car, you might see an ad that reinforces your decision and that ad might reference the vehicle's warranty or anti-lock breaking system," explained Downey. "On the other hand, if a viewer is in the 34th month of a 36-month lease, they will see ads that will highlight favorable interest rates and rebate programs."
--------------- End ----------
How could the box know you bought a car or your lease is up unless another system is in place that is collecting that information and passing it to the box to let it know. Box is "safe" but the other system that lets the box know... well just idle thoughts on this...
/translator.pl?gibberish="This will provide content holders and distributors with the bigger opportunities to widen the ways of secure content distribution to various devices while consumers will enjoy more entertaining and exciting content, which will enlarge and vitalize the entire digital content distribution market." Translation: This will not only make content far more restricted, but will also record and track your activities while giving new marketing information to the mega corporations and allow them to scheme with greater efficiency in dolling out overpriced drivel to the masses for consumption. Ok, just wanted to make that clear.
Although in troubled times restrictions are necessary I fully believe that "In times of emergency, restrictions on the freedom of the individual and imposed in the real or assumed interest of the community. We hold it to be essential that such restrictions be confined to a minimum of clearly specified actions ; that they be understood to be temporary and limited expedients in the nature of a sacrafice ; and that the measures restricting freedom be themseles subject to the free criticism and democratic control . Only thus can we have a reasonable assurance that emergency measures restricting individual freedom will not be degenerate into a permanent tyranny." - sec. 7 of the manifesto of the Congress for Cultural Freedom published in 1951 In was true then and it is true now. The steps of government and corporations that seek to influence the gov be be in the light, and not hidden, espically under the guise of "protecting the people". Peace folks,