Strangely enough, it seems to me that this deal between RCA and Clearplay offers an opportunity to those of us concerned about copyright balance.
Clearplay is building a buisness around making the fair use of DVD's you already purchased. Although I don't want to use their product, I hope they win in court, and it looks like RCA and WalMart are betting that they will. Think about it; this is a much more sympathetic (in the eyes of the court) class of defendant than Corley or Johansen. It may be difficult for a long time to persuade a court that Linux programmers have a valid reason to bypass the Content Scrambling System.
In the end, Clearplay's defense boils down to "how is this service different from fast forwarding through the parts you don't want to see?" Assuming that fast-forwarding (and using the restroom during commercials:) ) isn't the next use to be consided piracy, this should be a slam dunk. Once that's established, it will be easier to make the argument that region free players should be legal...or video mixes for non-commercial use...
You and I may not agree with this particular application, but to the degree that we want to be able to tinker with the property we own, we're on the same side.
Re:What has Apple Corps Done, Lately?
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
I understand that Apple Corps has a standing agreement with Apple Computer, and Apple Computer is very likely in breach of that contract with iTunes and iPod because, as was true in the infamous speaker case, the contract was worded so loosely that if a Macintosh makes a sound, it's in breach. But, has this company actually done anything with itself, or taken any measures to protect its trademark from much more egregious infringements by organizations with shallower pockets?
And the best question of all, have they ratified Apple's breach? The Ipod has been out for around 2 years now, right? Granted, we don't know what kind of communication has been going on since then, but it might be too late for them to assert their rights.
What would be more interesting is the percentage of subpoenas there are for each ISP. I've heard rumors of how AOL users are more immune, simply because of their Time Warner affiliation.
I haven't seen confirmation that AOL users are immune, does it exist? It seems more likely to me that AOL is releasing names without supoenas.
Nobody's going to use it except in a few niche markets unless it's cheaper to mass-produce than good ol' synthetic plastic. That will take a long time to achieve.
Absolutely correct on the "niche while expensive." Wrong on the "long time to get cheap." The company is competing with traditional plastics based on price and performance. Not 5 years from now, but now.
Actually, even if it did replace plastic, I'm not sure it would be better for the environment. Now you need to mass-mass produce corn. Agricultural run-off can be pretty destructive, too, not to mention the effects of irrigation on natural waterways. TANSTAAFL.
We're only talking about a fraction of a % of the US corn crop with the current technology, and future technology will use "worthless" sources of carbohydrates, like hay, grass, leaves, and corn stalks.
No-one said it's a free lunch. Even using biomass, it will take energy to make the plastic. It's just a "better" lunch, since the physical material for the plastic is coming from a renewable resource. Now if we had nearly unlimited renewable energy, the "lunch" would start to get really cheap.
This is very insightful. If you've paid the royalty, you get the right to listen to the music.
I'd almost be willing to abandon first sale to go with this plan, as a kind of, "Here's your check, now go away!" You want to throw out two hundred years of common law, fine. Here's your royalty. You don't want to refund it when it's sold? Fine. Then quit whining if people keep the mp3s.
Of course, it would never last. It might be worth it if they never came back with their hands out, but they'll always want more.
And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?
Umm... Where have you been? Many DVD's already require this of CSS compliant DVD players.
We already pay a "royalty" on blank CD-R's that are designated for music!
(b) Digital Audio Recording Media. - The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.
Title 17, Chapter 10, Supchapter C of US code. (from
Cornell website
I'm not an audiophile, but I do know enough on wave theory that I would suspect that a better test would be to take both files, and look at the FFT of both samples at various times, using small time step units, and calculating some 'error' that the stripped file is off by. This should penaltize more for adding noise that wasn't there in the original sample than just for lower signal. Set some threshold that can be determined by doing the same comparison between a 196kbit-encoded file and a 128kbit-encoded. If the stripped sample performs worse than this, then the stripping fails, as it also took too much of the non-watermark stuff away. (Or some variation on this method -- again, I'm not an audiophile, just a scientist). This would make concrete winning conditions and take ambiguity out of it.
Sensory testing for difference is nothing new. You use a triangle test. (Golden Ears or not)
Assemble triplicates of a music clip; one of each trio should be either watermarked or stripped, with the other two matching. The listener has to pick out the sample that is different. If you use 20 respondents, and 10 are successful, then there is a statistically significant difference. (p=.1) If 10 of your 20 subjects can't get it right, the difference is undetectable.
Using 2 or three testers is foolish. Either you have to be completely confident that they can discriminate between the two conditions (and how can you know if that's what you're trying to investigate) or they may guess, and obscure your results. A triangle test would be an easy, objective way to test the breaks. Assuming they want an objective test...
I wonder something else. The 1 in 37 million odds are based on a random distribution, right? Someone else already commented that since it's possible that people in the same country are distantly related, it increases the chances of a false match. Simililarly, if there are any genetic predispositions towards committing crimes, (or getting caught) it's conceivable that the DNA samples in the database are more similar than they would be if they were randomly distributed.
Now that AOL owns such a large cable network, why should they advocate open access? After all, that would help their competitors now that *they're* on top.
Now, now! Didn't you read the article? AOL is still in favor of open access, they just feel the market can best make it happen. It's a complete coincidence that this happens a month after "they get theirs".
Seriously, I do believe that AOL will provide open access now. If you have a cable modem, you can choose from AOL version X or Roadrunner. Take your pick.
"We have both kinds of music here...Country _and_ Western." ---Blues Brothers
And if enough people vote for the Libertarians that they can even get 10% of the votes, then next election people will consider them to be an actual relevent compeditor to the two major parties - and then they'll stop throwing away their vote on candidates who are "the lesser of two evils".
Case in point: Minnesota. I voted for Jesse Ventura, (Former Pro Wrestler) because I simply couldn't bring myself to vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. While I may not be entirely pleased with the job he's doing, he has certainly demonstrated the viability of third party candidates.
If I find myself in a similar bind come November, I'm ready to vote for a third party in a minute. He/She might not win, but I feel more sure now that it will help in the long run.
(OT) I just hope the Democrats and Republicans understand the message. After the election here, they felt it was a fluke, and not because their candidates had nothing to offer.
I have no problem with them wanting to offer a home page; if you don't like it, set it to blank and qyb.
Granted, the company that lays the cable has to be able to recoup their investment, or they won't do it. I'm not complaining that they're tying the ISP service to the modem access. Rather, I'm bothered that they see doing so as consistent with the statement, "We support consumer choice."
My interpretation of "Consumer choice" is open access, like the City of Portland. It bugs me to see the words twisted.
The companies also said, with respect to broadband access, that AOL Time Warner will be committed to ensuring consumer choice of ISPs and content and that they hope this merger will persuade all companies operating broadband platforms to provide consumers with real choice.
Looks good to me.
-Brent
Not to me. It's the same line Roadrunner has been using in denying access. "You can use an outside ISP if you want, you just have to pay for ours, first." It looks like (more) slight of hand.
Obviously the impact of this program will depend totally on the support of colleges, and frankly I don't expect much....
"he admits that state schools and private institutions like Princeton and Notre Dame wouldn't necessarily need eCollegebid"
Seriously though, without any support from major universitys, the program will flop...
I disagree. It's a shame to make this comparison, but there are some valid similarities between unsold airline seats and excess "capacity" at a college.
You are correct that schools like Princeton or Notre Dame won't benefit or support this service. They don't need to, if they are rejecting multiples of students for each one they accept. To extend and abuse the comparison to priceline, they are selling first class, "price insensitive" seats.
Colleges that would likely use this service are more like unsold seats on airlines. Students might not consider applying. Whether because students weren't aware of them, or they appeared to be too expensive, these universities would benefit from having a larger population of applicants. Every student they recruited through this program helps defray their costs. If the recruit displaced a less qualified student, it helps increase their class.
I hate to see the mentality of fungible goods being applied to the pursuit of learning. I'd like to think college students are not just bodies filling chairs, but helping advance the sum of human knowledge. It's easy to see why colleges might look at this as a tool, though. Education isn't its own end anymore.
In large part I agree with you. 50 schools isn't a large amount. Many colleges aren't going to consider this, and there is certainly and entrenched system of admissions that probably wouldn't be interested. With more schools dropping a policy of "need-blind" admissions, however, I think this could be a valuable tool. Even with 50 schools, if it helps some students find a match that they wouldn't have considered, or wouldn't have thought that they could afford, it would be useful.
ISO 9000 (offtopic) Was Re:...a bunch of garbage
on
One for the Kids
·
· Score: 1
Now, that is what I think is reasonable, but I know (and have met some of them) people are out there who think that reasonable effort consists of full ISO 9000-9001 compliance...
ISO certification wouldn't guarantee that the software be bug free, just that it's produced by the same method every time. If your documented method of QA was having a programmer sit blindfolded in front of the code, and reject if she/he saw any bugs, you would pass your ISO audit as long as you used the method you documented.
Of course, any reasonable ISO plan would have a real system in place, and a method for handling customer complaints and product improvement. Anyway...
My other half has long argued that intelligence isn't a survival trait. Intelligent people are having less children than stupid people. Is this just an example of Darwinism in action?
I'd say no. It could be argued that when humans started manipulating their environment, we rendered evolution moot. The changes in technology and society have been more significant than evolutionary adaptations, and have occured at a pace that doesn't allow time for evolutionary change.
As a small example, take refrigeration. Although humans still tolerate the same range of temperature, refrigeration technology allows us to live in hotter areas.
...Or medicine. The lifespan of humans has increased because of advances in medicine, not evolutionary changes.
Re:How biodegradable & more ways to create plastic
on
Grow Your Own Plastic
·
· Score: 1
...If I remember correctly, crude is really a mixture of several different kinds of molecules. In the the refinement process the molecules are seperated out -- some are what we call gasoline, some are kerosene, some eventually are turned into plastic, etc.
[Had to crack open the Organic book for this one...]
You are correct, crude oil is a mixture of different hydrocarbons, and the first step in purifying them is distilling. (Separating by boiling point.)
Cracking is the next step, where a large hydrocarbon like kerosene is introduced with water, under high pressure, temperature, and catalyst, to be broken into all kinds of low molecular weight parts. Some of these are recombined to make better burning gasoline.
Two raw materials for a number of large scale plastics are ethylene and propylene (45 billion pounds a year in 1988). They are made by cracking natural gas or straight run gasoline, so there is some tradeoff between plastics and fuel.
hmmm...I'd be more inclined to say that oil is too valuable to waste as a fuel source.
My feeling is that since oil is a finite resource, any substitution we can make with an infinite one is to our benefit. If, right now, we have a good substitute for plastic that is made from a renewable resource, (And doesn't require more fossil fuels to produce, convert into products, and dispose of than a traditional plastic. "Cradle to Grave" life cycle analysis is critical!) then we should save the oil for fuel. If we have a good energy substitute, ("Cradle to Grave", of course) then let's use fossil fuels for plastic. The best option, of course, would be to use a renewable energy resource to produce a renewable plastic, and either leave the oil in the ground or use it to bring up the standard of living of the rest of the world. (Who likely don't care much what Dreamcasts are made of.)
Given the technology today, I think we're closer to a useful, economic plastic substitute than a fuel substitue. (Although Toyota's hybrid cars look very promising.)
Again, disclaimer: I don't know about this particular plastic of Monsato's. There was more information around about their failed product, Biopol than this new product.
It's flexible enough, to be sure. But how durable is this stuff? Could it be used for all the purposes which any given type of plastic is used for today?
Most likely, it is durable under "normal" conditions. (Room temperature and humidity) It'll probably melt at typical plastic processing temperatures, (>230 F) and degrade in compost or some other unusual condition. If it can't survive room temperature, it wouldn't be commercially viable. Other biodegradable polymers can be made into fibers for clothing, and films or containers for packaging. Monsanto's Biopol could be made into credit cards.
If the plastic can somehow be "extracted" from the plants, then I'm assuming it's in liquid form.
The plastic probably isn't a liquid in the canola seed. It is likely they'll use a solvent to dissolve the polymer from the seed meal, and then purify the plastic and recover the solvent.
Re:How biodegradable & more ways to create plastic
on
Grow Your Own Plastic
·
· Score: 1
Disclaimer: I do know a little about plastics, but I'm speculating about Monsanto's particular plastic.
Do we really need more ways to create plastic? Exactly how biodegradable is this stuff?
My opinion is yes, we need more ways to create plastic. Oil is too valuable as an energy source to waste it making Nintendo cartridges. It would be best to run off renewable sources, like solar or wind, but until they become (more) cost-effective, at least we'll be reducing the ammount of fossil fuels we use up.
"The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the American Society for Testing and Materials have each devised strict guidelines and test methods for degradbility, which members of the Degradable Polymers Council ascribe to and promote. Degradable plastics technology generally recognizes that a degradable plastics product achieves ultimate full mineralization, meaning it breaks down into carbon dioxide and biomass, water and humus, and leaves behind no toxic residue."
I would speculate that their product is compostable, and degrades under compost conditions in about 3-6 months. Most likely, if a cup made from this material degraded when you threw it on the side of the road, it would be useful commercially. Without knowing more about it, I can't guess any better.
Warwick is effusive about the possibilities and has even suggested that gun owners could get implanted to keep them from entering schools or other areas where heavily armed people may be unwelcome.
That bit looks rather stupid and is probably taken out of context...
Although it might be a little extreme to start limiting classes of people from public places, I thought it was one of the most valuable ideas! The idea behind a "Smart Gun" isn't new. If you had an ID chip, and a chip-reading-enabler on your gun, it would reduce the chances of you or your family member being shot with it. Or you could put a chip detector on the gun cabinet, so that if a child found the combination, he/she would still be safe.
Perhaps guns that wouldn't work without the owner's (living, I hope) chip would be less likely to be stolen and used in a criminal manner.
What, theatres don't have the right to determine which movies they want to show? News papers don't have the right to determine what kind of ads they want to print? This is just typical scare talk from the typical paranoia crowd. I saw Showgirls in the theatre (not that I'm proud of it or anything). If there is a buck to be made, you can bet someone will be there to collect it.
Showgirls was, IIRC, one of the first (and few) movies to get an NC-17 rating. I also wasted my money to see it in the theaters. Since then, however, most chains have been unwilling to show NC-17 movies.
I don't think anti-censorship advocates are claiming that theaters and publishers don't have a right to discriminate in what they show. (At least I am not.) I object to an arbitrary and capricious system, intended to advise parents, being used to limit what we are able to see.
I want to decide what I and my children should or shouldn't see, not leave it up to an anonymous, unaccountable committee. While I grant it doesn't have the same force as a government preventing publication, I think the author has a point that organization-based "self"-censorship has the same effect.
It seems to me that if a cop has a search warrant or arrest warrant, that it would be fine to use this technology to execute the warrant. But without a warrant, no dice. It's an unreasonable search.
But the Supreme Court has ruled it is "reasonable" for a cop to peer through a window-blind. Why would it be unreasonable for an officer to use one of these devices in the same manner, without a warrant?
B) They already have anti-terrorist laws in effect for "conventional" technology, why is this any different
So because they're taking unreasonable "conventional" steps to violate my privacy, I should accept unreasonable, "novel" forms of intrusion? Nope. I don't buy it.
Funny you should say that. I read this article on Yahoo just today. It talks about a similar "Law enforcement only" program called DIRT. It mentions BO, too, but was just a little condescending. Scary to think of law enforcement using this on a regular basis.
Corn syrup answers. (Was Re:New Coke, Old Coke)
on
Bootlegging Buffy
·
· Score: 1
I have no idea why Canada gets sugar and the US gets corn syrup, but that's another story for another day.
My understanding is that it is a cost issue, which originally arose from sugar price supports in the US. It probably continues either because of taste expectations, or the costs of retooling the bottling plants. (_For God, Country and Coca-Cola : The Unauthorized History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company That Makes It_, Mark Pendergrast)
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
I don't think it is the "corn product" aspect, but the enzymes used to make the syrup. The plant I worked in produced a run of Kosher for Passover syrup every year, by emptying out the tanks, using a special enzyme, and getting inspected by the rabbinical authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearplay is building a buisness around making the fair use of DVD's you already purchased. Although I don't want to use their product, I hope they win in court, and it looks like RCA and WalMart are betting that they will. Think about it; this is a much more sympathetic (in the eyes of the court) class of defendant than Corley or Johansen. It may be difficult for a long time to persuade a court that Linux programmers have a valid reason to bypass the Content Scrambling System.
In the end, Clearplay's defense boils down to "how is this service different from fast forwarding through the parts you don't want to see?" Assuming that fast-forwarding (and using the restroom during commercials
You and I may not agree with this particular application, but to the degree that we want to be able to tinker with the property we own, we're on the same side.
And the best question of all, have they ratified Apple's breach? The Ipod has been out for around 2 years now, right? Granted, we don't know what kind of communication has been going on since then, but it might be too late for them to assert their rights.
OTOH, the score is currently 2-0 Beatles.
I haven't seen confirmation that AOL users are immune, does it exist? It seems more likely to me that AOL is releasing names without supoenas.
Absolutely correct on the "niche while expensive." Wrong on the "long time to get cheap." The company is competing with traditional plastics based on price and performance. Not 5 years from now, but now.
We're only talking about a fraction of a % of the US corn crop with the current technology, and future technology will use "worthless" sources of carbohydrates, like hay, grass, leaves, and corn stalks.
No-one said it's a free lunch. Even using biomass, it will take energy to make the plastic. It's just a "better" lunch, since the physical material for the plastic is coming from a renewable resource. Now if we had nearly unlimited renewable energy, the "lunch" would start to get really cheap.
I'd almost be willing to abandon first sale to go with this plan, as a kind of, "Here's your check, now go away!" You want to throw out two hundred years of common law, fine. Here's your royalty. You don't want to refund it when it's sold? Fine. Then quit whining if people keep the mp3s.
Of course, it would never last. It might be worth it if they never came back with their hands out, but they'll always want more.
Umm... Where have you been? Many DVD's already require this of CSS compliant DVD players.
We already pay a "royalty" on blank CD-R's that are designated for music!
Title 17, Chapter 10, Supchapter C of US code. (from
Cornell website
What does she want, blood?
Sensory testing for difference is nothing new. You use a triangle test. (Golden Ears or not)
Assemble triplicates of a music clip; one of each trio should be either watermarked or stripped, with the other two matching. The listener has to pick out the sample that is different. If you use 20 respondents, and 10 are successful, then there is a statistically significant difference. (p=.1) If 10 of your 20 subjects can't get it right, the difference is undetectable.
Using 2 or three testers is foolish. Either you have to be completely confident that they can discriminate between the two conditions (and how can you know if that's what you're trying to investigate) or they may guess, and obscure your results. A triangle test would be an easy, objective way to test the breaks. Assuming they want an objective test...
I wonder something else. The 1 in 37 million odds are based on a random distribution, right? Someone else already commented that since it's possible that people in the same country are distantly related, it increases the chances of a false match. Simililarly, if there are any genetic predispositions towards committing crimes, (or getting caught) it's conceivable that the DNA samples in the database are more similar than they would be if they were randomly distributed.
Now, now! Didn't you read the article? AOL is still in favor of open access, they just feel the market can best make it happen. It's a complete coincidence that this happens a month after "they get theirs".
Seriously, I do believe that AOL will provide open access now. If you have a cable modem, you can choose from AOL version X or Roadrunner. Take your pick.
"We have both kinds of music here...Country _and_ Western." ---Blues Brothers
Case in point: Minnesota. I voted for Jesse Ventura, (Former Pro Wrestler) because I simply couldn't bring myself to vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. While I may not be entirely pleased with the job he's doing, he has certainly demonstrated the viability of third party candidates.
If I find myself in a similar bind come November, I'm ready to vote for a third party in a minute. He/She might not win, but I feel more sure now that it will help in the long run.
(OT) I just hope the Democrats and Republicans understand the message. After the election here, they felt it was a fluke, and not because their candidates had nothing to offer.
My interpretation of "Consumer choice" is open access, like the City of Portland. It bugs me to see the words twisted.
You are correct that schools like Princeton or Notre Dame won't benefit or support this service. They don't need to, if they are rejecting multiples of students for each one they accept. To extend and abuse the comparison to priceline, they are selling first class, "price insensitive" seats.
Colleges that would likely use this service are more like unsold seats on airlines. Students might not consider applying. Whether because students weren't aware of them, or they appeared to be too expensive, these universities would benefit from having a larger population of applicants. Every student they recruited through this program helps defray their costs. If the recruit displaced a less qualified student, it helps increase their class.
I hate to see the mentality of fungible goods being applied to the pursuit of learning. I'd like to think college students are not just bodies filling chairs, but helping advance the sum of human knowledge. It's easy to see why colleges might look at this as a tool, though. Education isn't its own end anymore.
In large part I agree with you. 50 schools isn't a large amount. Many colleges aren't going to consider this, and there is certainly and entrenched system of admissions that probably wouldn't be interested. With more schools dropping a policy of "need-blind" admissions, however, I think this could be a valuable tool. Even with 50 schools, if it helps some students find a match that they wouldn't have considered, or wouldn't have thought that they could afford, it would be useful.
ISO certification wouldn't guarantee that the software be bug free, just that it's produced by the same method every time. If your documented method of QA was having a programmer sit blindfolded in front of the code, and reject if she/he saw any bugs, you would pass your ISO audit as long as you used the method you documented.
Of course, any reasonable ISO plan would have a real system in place, and a method for handling customer complaints and product improvement. Anyway...
I'd say no. It could be argued that when humans started manipulating their environment, we rendered evolution moot. The changes in technology and society have been more significant than evolutionary adaptations, and have occured at a pace that doesn't allow time for evolutionary change.
As a small example, take refrigeration. Although humans still tolerate the same range of temperature, refrigeration technology allows us to live in hotter areas.
[Had to crack open the Organic book for this one...]
You are correct, crude oil is a mixture of different hydrocarbons, and the first step in purifying them is distilling. (Separating by boiling point.)
Cracking is the next step, where a large hydrocarbon like kerosene is introduced with water, under high pressure, temperature, and catalyst, to be broken into all kinds of low molecular weight parts. Some of these are recombined to make better burning gasoline.
Two raw materials for a number of large scale plastics are ethylene and propylene (45 billion pounds a year in 1988). They are made by cracking natural gas or straight run gasoline, so there is some tradeoff between plastics and fuel.
My feeling is that since oil is a finite resource, any substitution we can make with an infinite one is to our benefit. If, right now, we have a good substitute for plastic that is made from a renewable resource, (And doesn't require more fossil fuels to produce, convert into products, and dispose of than a traditional plastic. "Cradle to Grave" life cycle analysis is critical!) then we should save the oil for fuel. If we have a good energy substitute, ("Cradle to Grave", of course) then let's use fossil fuels for plastic. The best option, of course, would be to use a renewable energy resource to produce a renewable plastic, and either leave the oil in the ground or use it to bring up the standard of living of the rest of the world. (Who likely don't care much what Dreamcasts are made of.)Given the technology today, I think we're closer to a useful, economic plastic substitute than a fuel substitue. (Although Toyota's hybrid cars look very promising.)
Most likely, it is durable under "normal" conditions. (Room temperature and humidity) It'll probably melt at typical plastic processing temperatures, (>230 F) and degrade in compost or some other unusual condition. If it can't survive room temperature, it wouldn't be commercially viable. Other biodegradable polymers can be made into fibers for clothing, and films or containers for packaging. Monsanto's Biopol could be made into credit cards.
The plastic probably isn't a liquid in the canola seed. It is likely they'll use a solvent to dissolve the polymer from the seed meal, and then purify the plastic and recover the solvent.
My opinion is yes, we need more ways to create plastic. Oil is too valuable as an energy source to waste it making Nintendo cartridges. It would be best to run off renewable sources, like solar or wind, but until they become (more) cost-effective, at least we'll be reducing the ammount of fossil fuels we use up.
As for how degradable it is, the biodegradable polymer council points out the following:
I would speculate that their product is compostable, and degrades under compost conditions in about 3-6 months. Most likely, if a cup made from this material degraded when you threw it on the side of the road, it would be useful commercially. Without knowing more about it, I can't guess any better.
Although it might be a little extreme to start limiting classes of people from public places, I thought it was one of the most valuable ideas! The idea behind a "Smart Gun" isn't new. If you had an ID chip, and a chip-reading-enabler on your gun, it would reduce the chances of you or your family member being shot with it. Or you could put a chip detector on the gun cabinet, so that if a child found the combination, he/she would still be safe.
Perhaps guns that wouldn't work without the owner's (living, I hope) chip would be less likely to be stolen and used in a criminal manner.
Showgirls was, IIRC, one of the first (and few) movies to get an NC-17 rating. I also wasted my money to see it in the theaters. Since then, however, most chains have been unwilling to show NC-17 movies.
I don't think anti-censorship advocates are claiming that theaters and publishers don't have a right to discriminate in what they show. (At least I am not.) I object to an arbitrary and capricious system, intended to advise parents, being used to limit what we are able to see.
I want to decide what I and my children should or shouldn't see, not leave it up to an anonymous, unaccountable committee. While I grant it doesn't have the same force as a government preventing publication, I think the author has a point that organization-based "self"-censorship has the same effect.
It seems to me that if a cop has a search warrant or arrest warrant, that it would be fine to use this technology to execute the warrant. But without a warrant, no dice. It's an unreasonable search.
But the Supreme Court has ruled it is "reasonable" for a cop to peer through a window-blind. Why would it be unreasonable for an officer to use one of these devices in the same manner, without a warrant?
B) They already have anti-terrorist laws in effect for "conventional" technology, why is this any different
So because they're taking unreasonable "conventional" steps to violate my privacy, I should accept unreasonable, "novel" forms of intrusion? Nope. I don't buy it.
Funny you should say that. I read this article on Yahoo just today. It talks about a similar "Law enforcement only" program called DIRT. It mentions BO, too, but was just a little condescending. Scary to think of law enforcement using this on a regular basis.
I have no idea why Canada gets sugar and the US gets corn syrup, but that's another story for another day.
My understanding is that it is a cost issue, which originally arose from sugar price supports in the US. It probably continues either because of taste expectations, or the costs of retooling the bottling plants. (_For God, Country and Coca-Cola : The Unauthorized History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company That Makes It_, Mark Pendergrast)
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
I don't think it is the "corn product" aspect, but the enzymes used to make the syrup. The plant I worked in produced a run of Kosher for Passover syrup every year, by emptying out the tanks, using a special enzyme, and getting inspected by the rabbinical authority.