Content producers have a vested interest in having their content seen by as many people as possible. You may have noticed the pressure the studios put on the MPAA to drop a movie's rating from R to PG-13, or PG-13 to PG. Each step down increases the audience significantly.
Usually when you focus on some self-gratifiying behavior to the detriment of everything else (job, spouse, family, friends, etc.) they'll slap the "addiction" label on it. Such destructive behaviors can be sex, gambling, video games, and yes, the internet.
"Unlike the method (read: censorship at the broadcast level) presented in the article, you in fact are the one control."
BS. Go back and reread the threads, because you're the one who seems to have misunderstood the concept. If you've set your box to block everything tagged with sex and violence and adult content, or perhaps "controverisal" or "unpatriotic", then in fact YOU are the one who's being controlled, as the simple act of tagging something with those flags blocks it from your view.
You think you're in control, when in fact the censor who tags the shows is in control. Much like the MPAA ratings for movies, you're largely at the whim of those who're doing the censoring. If he's liberal then something you may think inappropriate is going to be shown to a large number of people. If he's extremely conservative, then anything and everything that he dislikes is tagged and consequently blocked by an equally large number of people... and they'll never know. Or to put it another way, if they have a agenda, then you're affected by it.
Carrying the later point even further, what if our fearless leaders pressure the censors to add the "controverisal" tag to everything that differs from the "official" viewpoint? Given how the current administration has trampled privacy and civil rights, would you put it past them?
One may be less worse than the other, but both suck, and both take control away from you and I and place it firmly in the hands of others. And again, considering how well the government and its agencies are running most things, that's one place I, for one, do not want it.
If you're afraid your kids might accidentally see a nipple or something else inappropriate then you need to exercise YOUR control and turn the thing off or have them watch a pre-screened white-washed DVD or better yet, teach them how to exercise their own judgement and make their own "proper" ethical and moral decisions.
Wrapping them up in goverment-approved cotton to prevent them from being "permanently scarred" benefits no one.
Who's going to be doing the tagging? If not a "board" then who?
Surely, you're not suggesting that we let anyone do it? Because that probably the only thing worse than letting a board do it. Like most "open" systems, they tend to be gamed by anyone and everyone with an agenda or an interest is doing so. I don't have the time or energy to combat a million "right-to-life" types ready to effectively ban an episode of ER because they disagree with the content.
"I don't want to watch CSI to see that its too violent, I already know."
Your examples are, for all intents and purposes, consumables. Go ask a dealer what it costs to replace batteries on a Prius or Insight. You can get al oil change for $36. An Insight battery is $3,600; several orders of magnitude difference.
Just because it's possible to charge at that rate doesn't mean you must. To me this sounds as if the battery technology is a lot more robust, which in turn means you might not have to "baby" it as much as you do existing batteries in hybrids (never discharge below 40%, never charge above 70%).
And to me, for the near future, pure electric cars aren't going to be practical. Give me a high-efficiency plug-in flex-fuel/diesel hybrid. Overnight charging covers most driving, and the hybrid is good for longer trips. Make it reasonably affordable and I'll be happy.
Of course, if that solar cell wasn't there the light/heat would simply go into the ground, with a portion reflected back up into, and absorbed by, the atmosphere. Net effect? Neglible.
Again, like the "tagging" thread above, who decides what's appropriate for what age? What do you do when someone thinks a topic like abortion isn't suitable for anyone at any age?
Any tagging scheme ultimately take the control out of your hands, and places it into someone elses. And that person has their own worldview, and as such doesn't have YOUR best interests at heart.
I don't know about you, but the number of people I trust to act in my personal best interests is, regrettably, very, very small.
What constitutes violence? A gunshot victum rolls into ER for treatment. Blood everyone. Violent? Suitible for kids?
Another corpse rolls up onto the beach and the CSI morge digs into it to determine cause of death. We never see the shot, simply the results. Violent? Suitible for kids?
A couple argue about an affair and she slaps him. Violent?
ER again, where a patient off his meds starts struggling and flailing about, knocking equipment and doctors everywhere. Violent?
Ultimately, tags are not a "simple solution", because on one hand some overly-rightous type can come up with reasons to consider practically anything "violent", effectively eliminating anything he doesn't like. Whereas another person could consider "violent" being ripped open with a chainsaw.
To quote, "The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics." And I agree. The problem with your suggestion is an old one: who draws the line? Label anything you don't like violent or "mature" or "adult content" and millions of set-top boxes block it automatically.
One could, I suppose, rate "violence" from a range of "mild" to "extreme", but again, who decides? Whose "value system" is in charge? Who draws the line?
Besides, most STB's already let you lock channels, shows, and ratings. If you think CSI may be too violent for your 16-year old, watch a few, then decide for yourself. And above all, don' let someone else make them for you.
How would I fix it? No software patents (can't patent mathematics). No gene patents (can't patent natural processes). No drug-renewal patents to prevent generics when all that was done was a simple reformualtion. No patenting additional "uses" for the same drug. No "look-and-feel" patents.
And above all, no "one click" business process patents.
If you're one of those people who're on the fence about software patents and think they should kept, then drop the term to seven years or so. Considering how fast the computer and software field move, seven years is a lifetime.
"Why should I waste my bandwidth on distributing Apple's movies and music for them?"
First, unless you're running a botnet or torrent server from your house [both bad ideas] most of the bandwidth is "wasted" (i.e. unused) anyway. Second, by participating in the system you get your own movies faster as well.
If improved performance for yourself (getting your movie when you want it) isn't a big enough benefit, then don't buy one.
Have to wonder how this works in a "home" situation where the kid has download tons of crap in the basement and his parents get the notice. Bet there's some potential for "behavior alteration" there...
The example is bad because it's defining the wrong outcome. If both spend five grand to have the "top spot", and the SEO can actually effect this type of outcome, then one of them will actually have the top spot and one the second. So using his "logic" the first one "won" and the second one "lost", so the second one's money was wasted, and a good portion of the first one's mony was spend simply competing with number two.
However, since there are other results in the search the net result of "winning" and "losing" is that you're first and second in a list of a million or so entires. Hardly seems like a total waste to me.
From my perspective, however, it would be better to the SEO types altogether, and avoid at all costs the SEO that "guarantees" you first place, as that's a guarantee that can't be made. Especially when most of them are making the same guarantee.
S-video carries the video data as two separate signals (brightness and color), unlike composite video which carries the entire set of signals in one signal line. S-video is better. Component typically breaks them out to three different RGB or Y'PbPr signals. Component beats s-video hands down. All are analog.
HDMI is a all-digital Transition Minimized Differential Signaling (TMDS) method that also includes audio data. HDMI beats component on todays "digital" LCD and plasma screens when used with digital sources like cable or DVDs, as you're not converting from digital to analog back to a digital matrix.
I try to make sure everything I buy today has HDMI inputs/outputs, as the single cable is "cleaner" and easier to route.
If you move into TV-land you also have coaxial, composite, s-video, component, and HDMI, as well as 1/8 and 1/4" phone jacks, RCA, digital-coax, and digital-optical for audio.
My personal theory [putting on tinfoil hat] is that's it's all a vast conspiracy by the cable and connector manuafactuers. Every new connector requires new cables, adaptors, and, in the end, replacing "obsolete" equipment that can no longer talk to one other.
And why does an optical or HDMI cable of sufficient length end up costing more than most DVD players? It's a CABLE for Pete's sake.
"So what's worse; someone presenting cherry-picked data as scientific evidence in a report to, say, the U.N., or someone cherry-picking data for his fictional book?"
How about someone cherry-picking intelligence data to support the conquest of Iraq?
Ditto. In particular they need "rights" that can be configured, especially in terms of access to system files and folders, the network, and internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
Content producers have a vested interest in having their content seen by as many people as possible. You may have noticed the pressure the studios put on the MPAA to drop a movie's rating from R to PG-13, or PG-13 to PG. Each step down increases the audience significantly.
Sounds like his "logic" is that his addiction is a disability, and it is illegal to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of a disability.
Usually when you focus on some self-gratifiying behavior to the detriment of everything else (job, spouse, family, friends, etc.) they'll slap the "addiction" label on it. Such destructive behaviors can be sex, gambling, video games, and yes, the internet.
"You see, since they didn't pay initially..."
You don't understand. Like many pirates^H^H^H^H^H file sharers, they're simply trying it out to see if they like it BEFORE they pay for it.
"Unlike the method (read: censorship at the broadcast level) presented in the article, you in fact are the one control."
BS. Go back and reread the threads, because you're the one who seems to have misunderstood the concept. If you've set your box to block everything tagged with sex and violence and adult content, or perhaps "controverisal" or "unpatriotic", then in fact YOU are the one who's being controlled, as the simple act of tagging something with those flags blocks it from your view.
You think you're in control, when in fact the censor who tags the shows is in control. Much like the MPAA ratings for movies, you're largely at the whim of those who're doing the censoring. If he's liberal then something you may think inappropriate is going to be shown to a large number of people. If he's extremely conservative, then anything and everything that he dislikes is tagged and consequently blocked by an equally large number of people... and they'll never know. Or to put it another way, if they have a agenda, then you're affected by it.
Carrying the later point even further, what if our fearless leaders pressure the censors to add the "controverisal" tag to everything that differs from the "official" viewpoint? Given how the current administration has trampled privacy and civil rights, would you put it past them?
One may be less worse than the other, but both suck, and both take control away from you and I and place it firmly in the hands of others. And again, considering how well the government and its agencies are running most things, that's one place I, for one, do not want it.
If you're afraid your kids might accidentally see a nipple or something else inappropriate then you need to exercise YOUR control and turn the thing off or have them watch a pre-screened white-washed DVD or better yet, teach them how to exercise their own judgement and make their own "proper" ethical and moral decisions.
Wrapping them up in goverment-approved cotton to prevent them from being "permanently scarred" benefits no one.
"Tags bypass the ratings board entirely."
Who's going to be doing the tagging? If not a "board" then who?
Surely, you're not suggesting that we let anyone do it? Because that probably the only thing worse than letting a board do it. Like most "open" systems, they tend to be gamed by anyone and everyone with an agenda or an interest is doing so. I don't have the time or energy to combat a million "right-to-life" types ready to effectively ban an episode of ER because they disagree with the content.
"I don't want to watch CSI to see that its too violent, I already know."
Now there's an open mind.
Your examples are, for all intents and purposes, consumables. Go ask a dealer what it costs to replace batteries on a Prius or Insight. You can get al oil change for $36. An Insight battery is $3,600; several orders of magnitude difference.
BTW, hybrids use all of those things as well.
"They are also supposed to have a very good service life, over 1000 complete charge cycles. "
Not even three years of overnight charging? For a car that's not very inspiring...
And perform the same types of damage.
Just because it's possible to charge at that rate doesn't mean you must. To me this sounds as if the battery technology is a lot more robust, which in turn means you might not have to "baby" it as much as you do existing batteries in hybrids (never discharge below 40%, never charge above 70%).
And to me, for the near future, pure electric cars aren't going to be practical. Give me a high-efficiency plug-in flex-fuel/diesel hybrid. Overnight charging covers most driving, and the hybrid is good for longer trips. Make it reasonably affordable and I'll be happy.
Of course, if that solar cell wasn't there the light/heat would simply go into the ground, with a portion reflected back up into, and absorbed by, the atmosphere. Net effect? Neglible.
"What's strange is that with the current advances in television and where it is going - TiVo, on demand television, YouTube..."
Give them time.
Again, like the "tagging" thread above, who decides what's appropriate for what age? What do you do when someone thinks a topic like abortion isn't suitable for anyone at any age?
Any tagging scheme ultimately take the control out of your hands, and places it into someone elses. And that person has their own worldview, and as such doesn't have YOUR best interests at heart.
I don't know about you, but the number of people I trust to act in my personal best interests is, regrettably, very, very small.
What constitutes violence? A gunshot victum rolls into ER for treatment. Blood everyone. Violent? Suitible for kids?
Another corpse rolls up onto the beach and the CSI morge digs into it to determine cause of death. We never see the shot, simply the results. Violent? Suitible for kids?
A couple argue about an affair and she slaps him. Violent?
ER again, where a patient off his meds starts struggling and flailing about, knocking equipment and doctors everywhere. Violent?
Ultimately, tags are not a "simple solution", because on one hand some overly-rightous type can come up with reasons to consider practically anything "violent", effectively eliminating anything he doesn't like. Whereas another person could consider "violent" being ripped open with a chainsaw.
To quote, "The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics." And I agree. The problem with your suggestion is an old one: who draws the line? Label anything you don't like violent or "mature" or "adult content" and millions of set-top boxes block it automatically.
One could, I suppose, rate "violence" from a range of "mild" to "extreme", but again, who decides? Whose "value system" is in charge? Who draws the line?
Besides, most STB's already let you lock channels, shows, and ratings. If you think CSI may be too violent for your 16-year old, watch a few, then decide for yourself. And above all, don' let someone else make them for you.
How would I fix it? No software patents (can't patent mathematics). No gene patents (can't patent natural processes). No drug-renewal patents to prevent generics when all that was done was a simple reformualtion. No patenting additional "uses" for the same drug. No "look-and-feel" patents.
And above all, no "one click" business process patents.
If you're one of those people who're on the fence about software patents and think they should kept, then drop the term to seven years or so. Considering how fast the computer and software field move, seven years is a lifetime.
"Why should I waste my bandwidth on distributing Apple's movies and music for them?"
First, unless you're running a botnet or torrent server from your house [both bad ideas] most of the bandwidth is "wasted" (i.e. unused) anyway. Second, by participating in the system you get your own movies faster as well.
If improved performance for yourself (getting your movie when you want it) isn't a big enough benefit, then don't buy one.
Have to wonder how this works in a "home" situation where the kid has download tons of crap in the basement and his parents get the notice. Bet there's some potential for "behavior alteration" there...
I guess on a column-oriented database I don't want to do a 'SELECT * FROM X' ?
The example is bad because it's defining the wrong outcome. If both spend five grand to have the "top spot", and the SEO can actually effect this type of outcome, then one of them will actually have the top spot and one the second. So using his "logic" the first one "won" and the second one "lost", so the second one's money was wasted, and a good portion of the first one's mony was spend simply competing with number two.
However, since there are other results in the search the net result of "winning" and "losing" is that you're first and second in a list of a million or so entires. Hardly seems like a total waste to me.
From my perspective, however, it would be better to the SEO types altogether, and avoid at all costs the SEO that "guarantees" you first place, as that's a guarantee that can't be made. Especially when most of them are making the same guarantee.
S-video carries the video data as two separate signals (brightness and color), unlike composite video which carries the entire set of signals in one signal line. S-video is better. Component typically breaks them out to three different RGB or Y'PbPr signals. Component beats s-video hands down. All are analog.
HDMI is a all-digital Transition Minimized Differential Signaling (TMDS) method that also includes audio data. HDMI beats component on todays "digital" LCD and plasma screens when used with digital sources like cable or DVDs, as you're not converting from digital to analog back to a digital matrix.
I try to make sure everything I buy today has HDMI inputs/outputs, as the single cable is "cleaner" and easier to route.
"I don't want to wonder if my computer is tattling on me if I'm downloading an mp3..."
Forget your computer, worry about those logs your ISP is keeping.
"Why do we need another display connector?"
If you move into TV-land you also have coaxial, composite, s-video, component, and HDMI, as well as 1/8 and 1/4" phone jacks, RCA, digital-coax, and digital-optical for audio.
My personal theory [putting on tinfoil hat] is that's it's all a vast conspiracy by the cable and connector manuafactuers. Every new connector requires new cables, adaptors, and, in the end, replacing "obsolete" equipment that can no longer talk to one other.
And why does an optical or HDMI cable of sufficient length end up costing more than most DVD players? It's a CABLE for Pete's sake.
"So what's worse; someone presenting cherry-picked data as scientific evidence in a report to, say, the U.N., or someone cherry-picking data for his fictional book?"
How about someone cherry-picking intelligence data to support the conquest of Iraq?
Ditto. In particular they need "rights" that can be configured, especially in terms of access to system files and folders, the network, and internet access.
"You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow?"