The problem with your analysis is that you think whether or not someone is a terrorist or "guilty" should be a criteria whether the government can hold them without charge or give them a trial.
First, guilt is decided through a trial. Without one, guilt or innocence cannot be determined. It's a legal result from a legal proceeding. And the process is handled through the judicial branch.
Second, it should be completely irrelevant what the allegations are against an individual. We have a judicial process. It's called due process, and it is based on some notions about justice and fairness. Even the most conservative position usually agrees the notion of "fairness" includes due process. So to say it would ok to withhold due process from an individual (something guaranteed in the US Constition) because they are labeled as a terrorist by the executive branch is rather specious and blatantly unconstitional on its face.
You should champion the cause of anyone who is denied their basic constitional rights, regardless of not only the allegations against them but also whatever they may have actually done. If everyone cannot exercise those rights, then it's completely possible no one can.
Myth 1: Viewers always skip the commercials when watching a record program. This isn't true and anyone with a DVR/PVR can verify this fact. You watch commercials that interest you or perhaps even just plain forget to forward through.
Myth 2: Advertisers automatically hate DVRs/PVRs because of Myth 1. As recently reported on Slashdot, there is at least one study to show that retention levels are just as high for viewers who fast forward through commercials than those who watch them at normal speed. Of course, everyone's gut reaction is that DVRs/PVRs are bad for advertisers because they have the capability to fast forward.
Myth 3: Hot women are great in bed. I'm not suggesting you start sleeping with ugly women, but don't assume anything.
Myth 4: Media companies are smart. Ok, that's not a myth but it is a point I want to make. ReplayTV was sued because it allowed users to email shows and had a "instant" commercial skip function. Besides the fact that emailing the show is no different than recording it on a VCR and giving the tape to a friend (which is completely legal under the fair use doctrine), the media companies just want to treat anything in digital form different because it lets them fight a battle that they already lost 20 years ago. Their argument is essentially that any device which COULD be used for illegal purpose is inherently illegal. Their goal is to continue their business model of reselling content. Take a movie. Pay to see it in a theater. Buy the video or DVD. Purchase it on PPV. This is because they truly feel that the content is licensed and not owned (in a limited fashion) by the consumer. As long as they can resell it, the economics make sense because they get multiple returns for the production. DVRs/PVRs and the change in behavior are one step in the process for destroying that model. Record a digital version of a movie on PPV and then burn it to a consumer DVD burning device. Then loan the copy to a friend. Each step is removing a revenue stream from the media company. And they don't know how to stop this.
Of course, it doesn't work!
So maybe someone at Inuit browses Slashdot. Ahahaha! Right!
----
Hi,
I have just finished doing quite a bit of reading, both at Intuit.com and through other resources, about the copy protection method Intuit used on the recent version of TurboTax. While Intuit may be concerned about lost sales of TurboTax due to copying, I can cite at least one example of a lost sale due to this copy protection. Me. I had been purchasing and using TurboTax for 6 years but will do so no longer. As the copy protection Intuit used on TurboTax definitely DOES affect the use of my system by writing information in the boot sector area, I luckily have avoid the problem by not using the product. So whoever decided the use of the copy protection was a good idea should be held accountable, because I am sure sales will be detrimentally affected. And those numbers will be clear. As I am sure you are aware, most people do not bother writing to vendors to express displeasure about certain business practices. Hopefully, my note is merely one expression of a lot more silent ex-Intuit customers.
Thank you.
----
Slashdot Mirror
Car? I think you're gonna need a truck.
First, guilt is decided through a trial. Without one, guilt or innocence cannot be determined. It's a legal result from a legal proceeding. And the process is handled through the judicial branch.
Second, it should be completely irrelevant what the allegations are against an individual. We have a judicial process. It's called due process, and it is based on some notions about justice and fairness. Even the most conservative position usually agrees the notion of "fairness" includes due process. So to say it would ok to withhold due process from an individual (something guaranteed in the US Constition) because they are labeled as a terrorist by the executive branch is rather specious and blatantly unconstitional on its face.
You should champion the cause of anyone who is denied their basic constitional rights, regardless of not only the allegations against them but also whatever they may have actually done. If everyone cannot exercise those rights, then it's completely possible no one can.
Myth 1: Viewers always skip the commercials when watching a record program. This isn't true and anyone with a DVR/PVR can verify this fact. You watch commercials that interest you or perhaps even just plain forget to forward through.
Myth 2: Advertisers automatically hate DVRs/PVRs because of Myth 1. As recently reported on Slashdot, there is at least one study to show that retention levels are just as high for viewers who fast forward through commercials than those who watch them at normal speed. Of course, everyone's gut reaction is that DVRs/PVRs are bad for advertisers because they have the capability to fast forward.
Myth 3: Hot women are great in bed. I'm not suggesting you start sleeping with ugly women, but don't assume anything.
Myth 4: Media companies are smart. Ok, that's not a myth but it is a point I want to make. ReplayTV was sued because it allowed users to email shows and had a "instant" commercial skip function. Besides the fact that emailing the show is no different than recording it on a VCR and giving the tape to a friend (which is completely legal under the fair use doctrine), the media companies just want to treat anything in digital form different because it lets them fight a battle that they already lost 20 years ago. Their argument is essentially that any device which COULD be used for illegal purpose is inherently illegal. Their goal is to continue their business model of reselling content. Take a movie. Pay to see it in a theater. Buy the video or DVD. Purchase it on PPV. This is because they truly feel that the content is licensed and not owned (in a limited fashion) by the consumer. As long as they can resell it, the economics make sense because they get multiple returns for the production. DVRs/PVRs and the change in behavior are one step in the process for destroying that model. Record a digital version of a movie on PPV and then burn it to a consumer DVD burning device. Then loan the copy to a friend. Each step is removing a revenue stream from the media company. And they don't know how to stop this.
Of course, it doesn't work! So maybe someone at Inuit browses Slashdot. Ahahaha! Right! ---- Hi, I have just finished doing quite a bit of reading, both at Intuit.com and through other resources, about the copy protection method Intuit used on the recent version of TurboTax. While Intuit may be concerned about lost sales of TurboTax due to copying, I can cite at least one example of a lost sale due to this copy protection. Me. I had been purchasing and using TurboTax for 6 years but will do so no longer. As the copy protection Intuit used on TurboTax definitely DOES affect the use of my system by writing information in the boot sector area, I luckily have avoid the problem by not using the product. So whoever decided the use of the copy protection was a good idea should be held accountable, because I am sure sales will be detrimentally affected. And those numbers will be clear. As I am sure you are aware, most people do not bother writing to vendors to express displeasure about certain business practices. Hopefully, my note is merely one expression of a lot more silent ex-Intuit customers. Thank you. ----