'It is just that there cannot be a national religion that is forced upon the populace. At least that's what the framers we going for I believe.'
I would disagree. Many of the colonists who inspired that (including the 'pilgrams' and 'puritans') freedom of religion clause had a religion that was actually too extreme and thus illegal where they came from. They wanted to whip, stock, burn, and maim in the name of god because their beliefs called for that. The founders were actually protecting their rights to do exactly that, saying that religion and religious practices are not merely above the law but outside of it. In the modern day we have chosen to largely ignore the amendment and actually have numerous laws and court precedents with respect to religion.
'The mere presence of a mention or investigation into religion is not forcing anything upon anyone else..'
Actually yes, that is how indoctrination works. Just like standing up and pledging allegiance every morning it has a psychological impact on a child.
However, I agree that the amendment doesn't require all mention of religion be stricken from schools but it is an all or none thing. In my experience those who want religious views in school tend to only want their own religious view expressed and would quite upset if there were an honest and candid class on Satanism that lacked an anti slant.
Ultimately, if Dawkins is there to speak of atheism he should be allowed to speak anymore than a proponent of any other religious stand. If he is there to speak agnostically about evolution then that is science and not religion at all.
'I might be wrong, but considering the rarity of jury nullification, I doubt that would be considered the primary purpose of a jury.'
It's extremely rare today, probably because judges explicitly lie to juries today and define their duty just the way you did.
A jury does not merely assume the role of the judge and serve the same duties a judge would take on in a trial without a jury, juries have additional powers and duties that a judge does not and the primary duty/power that separates a jury from a judge is the obligation to determine the need for and to exercise nullification. The purpose of the court is not to enforce the law but to bring about justice. In modern day this purpose is being lost and the blind application of law is being substituted for the blind application of justice.
I can not speak for Australia but in the U.S. the judicial is a fully empowered branch of government and is a balance against the executive and law making branches. In the U.S. the judicial is supposed to have power on par with the other branches and the power to keep them in check. The people supposedly rule in the U.S. and juries are the only place the people are directly empowered to voice their will directly.
'Either way, even in a jury system, I would hope the end result would be the same. "Yeah I did X, but X shouldn't be a crime" is a fine political statement, but obviously not a defense in a court of law, while X is still a crime by current law.'
Actually in the US at least 'X shouldn't be a crime' is SUPPOSED to be the primary purpose of a jury trial. Juries do not answer to congress or lawmakers, they are the people and the final authority in determining what is and is not the law (though obviously only on a specific case by case basis). That is what jury nullification is about and there are numerous instances where the founding fathers made reference to it being a jurors duty to determine whether the law SHOULD apply in a given case.
Laws are black and white, reality isn't merely shades of gray but full blown color. Juries are supposed to be the bridge between the two and prevent law from being applied when the result is not justice.
Unfortunately, juries used that power in the jim jones south, they did what was just in the eye of public opinion at the moment and that opinion changed drastically within a few years. Now the courts have decided they don't have to tell juries about the right to nullification and in fact tell them otherwise. They will even declare a mistrial if the juries are told about their rights and they find out.
Example, not so far back a bus driver let a passenger out of his bus and the old woman was struggling to get through the snow to the other side of the street. A car was coming and the man jumped out and crossed and pushed her out of the way just in time to be struck by the oncoming car himself. The bus driver was issued a j-walking citation by the police for his trouble.
This is a case where jury nullification should apply.
'I think it is sort of funny that netflix gave this service to existing customers for free. and now people are bitching about the quality of this service that i see as basically icing on my dvd subscription cake.'
Interesting but I signed up explicitly for the instant viewing. I'm actually fairly happy with the quality (since the silverlight player, the old stuff was crap). What I'm upset about is the extremely limited selection.
I strongly support this model, even with the DRM at least this recognizes the correct model for the modern digital age. Subscribe to a massive database of content that is available at all times. There will be lower returns from heavy users, but higher returns from low volume users than using the old model. It doesn't rely on artificial copy prevention or restriction. No need to create scarcity or give a subclass of users more content than those with a limited budget.
The movie studios need to learn, its time for them to be more like HBO. They need to thrive on subscription revenues. Unlike the recording industry they still have a legitimate place in the world, they just need to recognize that the way they distribute and profit from the content they produce needs to change.
The big recording studios are screwed their model depended on extremely high costs of quality music production and stranglehold on distribution and dissemination of content. In the modern age there are probably at least half a dozen people living within a half mile of you who can record high quality music and distribution/advertising can be accomplished via filesharing, etc. This means 99.9% of musicians still have their primary revenue streams available, concerts and merchandising.
Movies still cost a metric buttload to produce and since anything but castaway requires quite a few people if nothing else, nobody is going to be doing away with hollywood anytime soon.
That's a good thing. This is hype over a non-issue. The quality of the silverlight player is dramatically better than the old crap. The old crap only worked in IE with WMP and was blurry as shit.
No, the studios dictated VC-1 to NetFlix along with a boatload of DRM.
The new silverlight solution also has dramatically improved video quality. The old streams never blocked but they were actually very blurry, even at 2.2mbps (the fastest stream they had available).
Not their choice. The studios have forced the MS codec and the DRM on them.
Netflix just made a far superior player that seeks faster, has seriously improved video quality at lower bitrates, and works in multiple browsers out of the options they have with that codec/drm.
'Although this comes down to being Microsoft's fault, the VC-1 codec is currently the only DRM'd solution that the movie studios see as being viable.'
I don't blame Microsoft for that, I blame the studios. I also blame the studios for the fact that far more blockbuster movies than not aren't available for instant viewing and that all new dvd releases aren't immediately available.
Quality on par with Youtube? Where do you get that?
The old scheme had video that was extremely blurry at even the highest available bitrates. The new video is clear even at low bitrates with no buffering, no blurring, it compares favorably to SD cable and good divx/xvid rips on my 50" hdtv. If they can get that incredible increase in video quality at a lower bitrate then I say more power to them. Maybe they'll actually add some content.
Not to mention the fact that it works in Firefox, I had to use IE Tab to get the old crapware working.
Only complaint I have is the lack of content. There is no justification for the new releases not ALL being available for instant viewing the moment they are available for mailing.
Actually I'm pretty sure the pairing has to do with the DRM that the studios are forcing onto them. That was the reason they were married to IE and WMP before.
The new player at least works in Firefox and should be cross platform at some point in the future since silverlight is being ported.
Not to mention the fact that the video quality is dramatically improved over the previous player (unless you are a blind crackhead). I don't even know what bitrate it is running at because the quality is great and if they can deliver that quality at a lower bitrate then I say more power to em. Lower bandwidth per play means they can handle more users and that means a larger selection to draw them.
What I want to see is a larger selection though. I want to see everything available for instant play on the same release schedule as the local blockbuster. Unlimited instant access in exchange for having to pay on a subscription basis instead of play once is the very essence of embracing modern technology and download realities.
I agree, except for the DRM thing. I agree that I don't need especial rights to a rental although offline viewing would certainly be nice. The DRM is the entire reason that Mac and Linux users can't view the films now.
The new player is a major improvement over the previous in almost every way. It starts faster, has dramatically better video quality (the old videos looked like a blur effect had been applied even on the highest bitrates), isn't locked to ie only, and you can jump around the timeline without a horrible multi-minute delay. I honestly haven't even looked at the bitrates for the new player since it looks better than standard def broadcast cable on my 50 inch hdtv.
My only complaint is the lack of selection. I could forgive old stuff not being available but it's hard to understand why every new dvd title isn't available for streaming.
For the past few months I've maintained my netflix membership only to show support for a concept that embraces copying and download technology instead of trying to fight it to maintain artificial scarcity. I've already watched all the content I'm interested in on the netflix instant play and actually watch almost nothing but torrent downloads and the 1 physical disc at a time I get when it finally shows up (my god they are slow shipping and recognizing they have received discs.
The new player works in both Firefox and IE and is a MAJOR quality improvement over the previous player. It starts faster, the picture is dramatically better. The previous version never had blockiness but at ANY quality setting it looked like it had a blur effect applied. Their hacked together scripts NEVER detected the correct bitrate for me, requiring me to manually set the bitrate. Except of course that sometimes the appropriate bitrates didn't even appear as an option when I used the key sequence to change it manually.
The new player has no issues, it auto scales to available bandwidth and recalculates on the fly every 6 seconds with no video interruption. Unlike the old version, you can jump around in the video timeline fairly quickly. With the old version it required 2mins plus of buffering.
For the people talking about ripping streams, the rippers don't work with the current version of media player and the DRM refuses to work without it.
'The C version can do a
streaming install of new packages from stdin, suitable for piping
wget through during a network boot/install, using under 64K of heap
and no temporary disk space in excess'
That is so damn hot. Seriously, my screen nearly combusted when I read that.;)
No doubt. But the sensible conclusion would be that the intent your instrument is exercising is to decline the EULA leaving you with the unmodified fair use rights you have to any legally distributed and purchased copy of a work.
IANAL But AFAIK both parties must understand what they are agreeing to in order for the agreement to be legally binding. That is why on most important contracts you are required to initial each page and the part you sign also states that by signing you are saying you understand the agreement.
That is also why a child, the mentally incapacitated, and the drunk can not enter into a binding agreement. They are assumed to be incapable of understanding the agreement they are entering. Simply understanding that they are entering into an agreement is not enough.
Clicking "I Agree" is your acceptance of the EULA, not loading the software. It doesn't matter what the EULA says, including when it says it applies, if you never agree to it in the first place. If you do not accept the EULA, and then subsequently load the software then you are left with a legally obtained and distributed copy that was produced with the authorization of the copyright holder and your fair use rights. None of the benefits or the problems with the EULA would then apply.
That issue is a bit of a strawman. The question is not whether a EULA is enforcable once you have agreed to it, it's a contract. The question is whether you need to agree to a EULA to have fair use rights to a copy you have legally acquired.
The obvious answer is no, its simply a matter of how to use the material without agreeing to the EULA contract or forfeiting your fair use rights to material acquired by you legally through a path of authorized distribution.
This cat thing seems like a good idea. A cat can't enter a contract and the contract goes away allowing you to utilize material you don't need said contract to have the right to utilize.
Slashdot Mirror
'It is just that there cannot be a national religion that is forced upon the populace. At least that's what the framers we going for I believe.'
I would disagree. Many of the colonists who inspired that (including the 'pilgrams' and 'puritans') freedom of religion clause had a religion that was actually too extreme and thus illegal where they came from. They wanted to whip, stock, burn, and maim in the name of god because their beliefs called for that. The founders were actually protecting their rights to do exactly that, saying that religion and religious practices are not merely above the law but outside of it. In the modern day we have chosen to largely ignore the amendment and actually have numerous laws and court precedents with respect to religion.
'The mere presence of a mention or investigation into religion is not forcing anything upon anyone else..'
Actually yes, that is how indoctrination works. Just like standing up and pledging allegiance every morning it has a psychological impact on a child.
However, I agree that the amendment doesn't require all mention of religion be stricken from schools but it is an all or none thing. In my experience those who want religious views in school tend to only want their own religious view expressed and would quite upset if there were an honest and candid class on Satanism that lacked an anti slant.
Ultimately, if Dawkins is there to speak of atheism he should be allowed to speak anymore than a proponent of any other religious stand. If he is there to speak agnostically about evolution then that is science and not religion at all.
'But I wouldn't expect maybe a single Slashdotter to be in this position.'
Sub-domain hosting is actually a fairly common thing. If I used tinydns I'd be at risk for this vulnerability now.
You make it sound like this is the rarest thing in the world. It a solid and substantial vulnerability.
Maybe you don't have any third party controlled sub-domains but I assure you it is actually quite common.
no winner declared.
'I might be wrong, but considering the rarity of jury nullification, I doubt that would be considered the primary purpose of a jury.'
It's extremely rare today, probably because judges explicitly lie to juries today and define their duty just the way you did.
A jury does not merely assume the role of the judge and serve the same duties a judge would take on in a trial without a jury, juries have additional powers and duties that a judge does not and the primary duty/power that separates a jury from a judge is the obligation to determine the need for and to exercise nullification. The purpose of the court is not to enforce the law but to bring about justice. In modern day this purpose is being lost and the blind application of law is being substituted for the blind application of justice.
I can not speak for Australia but in the U.S. the judicial is a fully empowered branch of government and is a balance against the executive and law making branches. In the U.S. the judicial is supposed to have power on par with the other branches and the power to keep them in check. The people supposedly rule in the U.S. and juries are the only place the people are directly empowered to voice their will directly.
'Either way, even in a jury system, I would hope the end result would be the same. "Yeah I did X, but X shouldn't be a crime" is a fine political statement, but obviously not a defense in a court of law, while X is still a crime by current law.'
Actually in the US at least 'X shouldn't be a crime' is SUPPOSED to be the primary purpose of a jury trial. Juries do not answer to congress or lawmakers, they are the people and the final authority in determining what is and is not the law (though obviously only on a specific case by case basis). That is what jury nullification is about and there are numerous instances where the founding fathers made reference to it being a jurors duty to determine whether the law SHOULD apply in a given case.
Laws are black and white, reality isn't merely shades of gray but full blown color. Juries are supposed to be the bridge between the two and prevent law from being applied when the result is not justice.
Unfortunately, juries used that power in the jim jones south, they did what was just in the eye of public opinion at the moment and that opinion changed drastically within a few years. Now the courts have decided they don't have to tell juries about the right to nullification and in fact tell them otherwise. They will even declare a mistrial if the juries are told about their rights and they find out.
Example, not so far back a bus driver let a passenger out of his bus and the old woman was struggling to get through the snow to the other side of the street. A car was coming and the man jumped out and crossed and pushed her out of the way just in time to be struck by the oncoming car himself. The bus driver was issued a j-walking citation by the police for his trouble.
This is a case where jury nullification should apply.
which again, is the fault of the studios not netflix.
'I think it is sort of funny that netflix gave this service to existing customers for free. and now people are bitching about the quality of this service that i see as basically icing on my dvd subscription cake.'
Interesting but I signed up explicitly for the instant viewing. I'm actually fairly happy with the quality (since the silverlight player, the old stuff was crap). What I'm upset about is the extremely limited selection.
I strongly support this model, even with the DRM at least this recognizes the correct model for the modern digital age. Subscribe to a massive database of content that is available at all times. There will be lower returns from heavy users, but higher returns from low volume users than using the old model. It doesn't rely on artificial copy prevention or restriction. No need to create scarcity or give a subclass of users more content than those with a limited budget.
The movie studios need to learn, its time for them to be more like HBO. They need to thrive on subscription revenues. Unlike the recording industry they still have a legitimate place in the world, they just need to recognize that the way they distribute and profit from the content they produce needs to change.
The big recording studios are screwed their model depended on extremely high costs of quality music production and stranglehold on distribution and dissemination of content. In the modern age there are probably at least half a dozen people living within a half mile of you who can record high quality music and distribution/advertising can be accomplished via filesharing, etc. This means 99.9% of musicians still have their primary revenue streams available, concerts and merchandising.
Movies still cost a metric buttload to produce and since anything but castaway requires quite a few people if nothing else, nobody is going to be doing away with hollywood anytime soon.
That's a good thing. This is hype over a non-issue. The quality of the silverlight player is dramatically better than the old crap. The old crap only worked in IE with WMP and was blurry as shit.
'NetFlix chose to use VC-1 instead'
No, the studios dictated VC-1 to NetFlix along with a boatload of DRM.
The new silverlight solution also has dramatically improved video quality. The old streams never blocked but they were actually very blurry, even at 2.2mbps (the fastest stream they had available).
Not their choice. The studios have forced the MS codec and the DRM on them.
Netflix just made a far superior player that seeks faster, has seriously improved video quality at lower bitrates, and works in multiple browsers out of the options they have with that codec/drm.
'Although this comes down to being Microsoft's fault, the VC-1 codec is currently the only DRM'd solution that the movie studios see as being viable.'
I don't blame Microsoft for that, I blame the studios. I also blame the studios for the fact that far more blockbuster movies than not aren't available for instant viewing and that all new dvd releases aren't immediately available.
seriously, I hate MS as much as the next guy but the new player loads faster, seeks faster, and has DRAMATICALLY improved quality at all bitrates.
Further, it decouples WMP and IE from the service. I can finally use Netflix without IE Tab.
Quality on par with Youtube? Where do you get that?
The old scheme had video that was extremely blurry at even the highest available bitrates. The new video is clear even at low bitrates with no buffering, no blurring, it compares favorably to SD cable and good divx/xvid rips on my 50" hdtv. If they can get that incredible increase in video quality at a lower bitrate then I say more power to them. Maybe they'll actually add some content.
Not to mention the fact that it works in Firefox, I had to use IE Tab to get the old crapware working.
Only complaint I have is the lack of content. There is no justification for the new releases not ALL being available for instant viewing the moment they are available for mailing.
ethanol isn't really hype. There is no particular reason you'd be making it from corn in the first place.
Actually I'm pretty sure the pairing has to do with the DRM that the studios are forcing onto them. That was the reason they were married to IE and WMP before.
The new player at least works in Firefox and should be cross platform at some point in the future since silverlight is being ported.
Not to mention the fact that the video quality is dramatically improved over the previous player (unless you are a blind crackhead). I don't even know what bitrate it is running at because the quality is great and if they can deliver that quality at a lower bitrate then I say more power to em. Lower bandwidth per play means they can handle more users and that means a larger selection to draw them.
What I want to see is a larger selection though. I want to see everything available for instant play on the same release schedule as the local blockbuster. Unlimited instant access in exchange for having to pay on a subscription basis instead of play once is the very essence of embracing modern technology and download realities.
I agree, except for the DRM thing. I agree that I don't need especial rights to a rental although offline viewing would certainly be nice. The DRM is the entire reason that Mac and Linux users can't view the films now.
The new player is a major improvement over the previous in almost every way. It starts faster, has dramatically better video quality (the old videos looked like a blur effect had been applied even on the highest bitrates), isn't locked to ie only, and you can jump around the timeline without a horrible multi-minute delay. I honestly haven't even looked at the bitrates for the new player since it looks better than standard def broadcast cable on my 50 inch hdtv.
My only complaint is the lack of selection. I could forgive old stuff not being available but it's hard to understand why every new dvd title isn't available for streaming.
For the past few months I've maintained my netflix membership only to show support for a concept that embraces copying and download technology instead of trying to fight it to maintain artificial scarcity. I've already watched all the content I'm interested in on the netflix instant play and actually watch almost nothing but torrent downloads and the 1 physical disc at a time I get when it finally shows up (my god they are slow shipping and recognizing they have received discs.
The new player works in both Firefox and IE and is a MAJOR quality improvement over the previous player. It starts faster, the picture is dramatically better. The previous version never had blockiness but at ANY quality setting it looked like it had a blur effect applied. Their hacked together scripts NEVER detected the correct bitrate for me, requiring me to manually set the bitrate. Except of course that sometimes the appropriate bitrates didn't even appear as an option when I used the key sequence to change it manually.
The new player has no issues, it auto scales to available bandwidth and recalculates on the fly every 6 seconds with no video interruption. Unlike the old version, you can jump around in the video timeline fairly quickly. With the old version it required 2mins plus of buffering.
For the people talking about ripping streams, the rippers don't work with the current version of media player and the DRM refuses to work without it.
You should have used the erotic services section of craigslist. that counts as 4,446 roses on there!
They aren't normals they are muggles you bigot!
btw
'The C version can do a
streaming install of new packages from stdin, suitable for piping
wget through during a network boot/install, using under 64K of heap
and no temporary disk space in excess'
That is so damn hot. Seriously, my screen nearly combusted when I read that. ;)
No doubt. But the sensible conclusion would be that the intent your instrument is exercising is to decline the EULA leaving you with the unmodified fair use rights you have to any legally distributed and purchased copy of a work.
'You're saying that if you click "I agree" when you really (in your own mind) "don't agree to it in the first place"'
Clicking "I agree" would be agreeing. I was referring to bypassing the EULA.
IANAL But AFAIK both parties must understand what they are agreeing to in order for the agreement to be legally binding. That is why on most important contracts you are required to initial each page and the part you sign also states that by signing you are saying you understand the agreement.
That is also why a child, the mentally incapacitated, and the drunk can not enter into a binding agreement. They are assumed to be incapable of understanding the agreement they are entering. Simply understanding that they are entering into an agreement is not enough.
Clicking "I Agree" is your acceptance of the EULA, not loading the software. It doesn't matter what the EULA says, including when it says it applies, if you never agree to it in the first place. If you do not accept the EULA, and then subsequently load the software then you are left with a legally obtained and distributed copy that was produced with the authorization of the copyright holder and your fair use rights. None of the benefits or the problems with the EULA would then apply.
That issue is a bit of a strawman. The question is not whether a EULA is enforcable once you have agreed to it, it's a contract. The question is whether you need to agree to a EULA to have fair use rights to a copy you have legally acquired.
The obvious answer is no, its simply a matter of how to use the material without agreeing to the EULA contract or forfeiting your fair use rights to material acquired by you legally through a path of authorized distribution.
This cat thing seems like a good idea. A cat can't enter a contract and the contract goes away allowing you to utilize material you don't need said contract to have the right to utilize.
I've given examples elsewhere in the discussion. Repeating again would be redundant.