It's not like the average user can go to Fry's and buy from a wide selection of OSes. Sure they can buy a HP or a Compaq or some other hardware vender. But when they get the PC home it has windows and ie on it. Then the average computer user is also not the most technically apt lot either. once they get online and can read e-mail, play some games and generally browse the net that's it. The average user is too busy and disinterested to really care about what browser they use and what the implications are regarding security and reliability. It's only after the true windows experience, (blue screen, bog downs from spy/adware, lost work, or even ID theft) that they will spend the effort to find something better. Windows works well enough for most and despite the wide spread abuses, those directly affected are still a small percentage of the total population. because if its dominant position and default acceptance ie is in use by the vast and ignorant masses. Anyone who knows anything about buffer over runs and M$FT excellent track record with bug fixes especially with security holes.
It's not a matter of looking for alternatives. It's a matter of even knowing that alternatives exist. The vas majority of Windowss users are not computer savy at all. It is diffcult for the masses to even get their system on line and start looking around the web for even basic portals. it's not like driving down the street and looking for businesses. For the vast majority, the web is an alien place. it's also not a matter of lazyness but a matter of fear. Once a typical user gets their system up they typically leave well enough alone. Your average user is not aware that windows has allowed his system to be used as part of a DDoS attack or is now a smap bot. They just check out CNN or some other news portal they've managed to get to and check e-mail. A few even figure out how to go shopping. IE is on top because of ignorance and fear. Period.
Broadcasting over the public airwaves is intrusive regarless of v-chip status in the tv. The rating system does not work because it is not enforced and there are many older tv's still in service that do not have a v chip. I have three such sets at home.
Suggestive dancing is never artistic nor political
and never deserves first amendment protection. While we may differ on this the supreme court has always said that pronogrophy does not qaulify as well as other speach and my be limited to protect minors.
As a member of the community my oppinion of what is decent is just as valid as yours. In particlar over a public medium the standards of decnecy should reflect a more conservitive view. Access to indecent material must always go through a tougher gate keeper in order to keep it out of reach of minors. V-chips are not suffecient. if you want this stuff then prove your are over a certain age or buy premimum channels over cable. Open TV broadcasting content must be more limited than other mediums because of its ready access. That's the way it must be: one can discuss gay rights, race relations, etc but one can not girate one's body in lewd fashion or other suggestive action. This is never political: it is for profit and shock value in order to gain attention for ratings or other commercial use.
Braodcast TV is rarely about political speech and should be generally considered entertainment or comercial speech. The latter two categories are less protected by the first amendment that the first (by supreme court case law).
It would be nice if the fcc published a clearer set of rules governing the programming over public airwaves. The FCC should do a much better job of enforceing the ratings given to content and every program broadcast on the public airwaves should be screened for content and rated. Case and statuaroy law both are clear that broadcast TV is a generally available medium and it is considered to be invasive because every house in the US has one (nearly) and most have two or more. The specialty piece of equipment is obviously not a burden to obtain access to programming. A new TV may be purchased for less than $50.
I am all for you having access to what ever depravity ridden programming you may desire. Don't put it in on the public airwaves. Suggestive dancing is not the same as PETA protesting a cannery. It does not qualify for first amendment protection.
Here in the US it is the broadcasters responsiblity to adhear to rules of deceny in terms of program content. In order to leese a frequency for TV broadcasting the broadcaster signs an agreement with the federal government do this very thing.
it is a shame that people dress this way or behave in lewd fashion at such events. I remember growing up watching the Dallas Cowboys play every Sunday afternoon. The entire family gathered around and we had popcorn and snacks. I recall well hearing my aunt yelling at the ball on a field goal attempt "Go Left, Left, left!!!" Like somehow her words would guide the ball through the posts. Back I don't know if the fans at the stadium dressed like they do now but if they did it was not shown on TV. It serves no good purpose to televise that sort of thing in the first place.
anyway as far as screening TV instead we'll do something else. There's a whole closet full of board games and there's a basketball hoop that needs to be set up. Forget TV, what a waste it has become.
The part of the spectrum used for TV broadcast is considered open in that the recipient does not have to pay a fee in order to receive the broadcast. Also the lessees (the broadcaster does not own the frequency, it is leased from the federal government) have signed an agreement with the government to adhere to FCC rules governing decency.
It's not that simple. TV broad casters use the public airwaves. as such they have a responsibility to keep the content generally clean. This standard has slid a lot over the decades and quite frankly needs to be cleaned up a lot. What happened to shows that were funny or creative with out resorting to cheap baseless tactics ?
If that is your view of football then no. However, it is a sporting event where beating the crap out of each other gets a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's not Hockey.
We didn't see the boob. Read the whole post. The TV was turned off about halfway through the half time show. The halftime show was very suggestive in a sexual nature that was way more offensive than a single nipple. Everyone (with small children) I have talked to about the show agreed that it was in total not appropriate for family viewing.
Wow, your parents had way more time to devote to screening your TV watching than I. Besides a major sporting event should not include such debasing content.
If you want to see naughty crap on TV get cable or sattelite or go rent porn.
I agree that violence is too tolerated on open broadcast mediums.
I wish you had read the whole post. We turned off the tv most of the way thorugh the half time show. and as a reasult missed part of the 3rd quarter. what's wrong with you that you can not read ?
I agree that Spears is much worse than a sinlge bared breast.
The panic was not over the boob so much as the taboo associated with it over the public ariwaves.
Great. So what was the rating for the Superbowl? The half time show could not have been TV-Y even with out Jackson's bare breast. It was lewd and indecent. I just wanted to watch the premier football game with my family. We had to turn off the TV for the half time show as it got ever increasingly raunchy. As a result we missed part of the third quarter.
It seems to me that in exchange for the privilege of exclusive use of part of the airwaves the programming must be acceptable to the vast majority of people. There is too much violence and indecency on the public broadcast medium already. When you say as a parent I have to monitor my children's viewing, fine, I already do but when supposedly mainstream programming shows crap like the half time show then I can't rely on any rating scheme. Just cut my efforts off at the knees. I guess the only solution is to toss the TV out of the house and only read books to my children until they are old enough to deal with these things. My youngest one loves books over TV anyway.
For those who want this crap in their homes I say to you go fetch it. It's in stores and on the internet. It is much easier to keep things out of my home when they are not beemed directly in to it.
You got me there. I guess I should have said lazier and laziest. Not sure though which is lazier and laziest. Oh well, it's good work if you can get it!/.ing from 9-5 is great!
3.5 years in jail maybe enough to set this guy right with decent society. Depends on how tough it is in jail and if he understands doing this again will get him in for more time. Frankly they should shut him in a completely mind numbing boring place with nothing to do all day but look at the walls. Maybe add something insidious to the punishment like repeatedly showing the same 30 minute sitcom episode over and over with out stop at a moderately loud volume. It would have to be something with an annoying sounding actor in it like Gary Chandelling. Maybe it's even funny, at first and even a dozen times over it's bearable, but 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3.5 years. lets see.... 48 times a day by 365 time 3.5 = 61,320! I bet he wouldn't make it past 2 or 3 days with out crying.
...we hear the Fed. Chairman Greeenspan talking about the upward pressure on inflation because of the EQIPEC (EQ Item Producing and Exporting Countries) are restricting demand and therefore driving up the value of the Platnium. Then pressing on he states that we should start 'mining' the American lunch hour reserves and use this otherwise down time to produce more domestic EQ Items.
It's the not caring that's the problem. Sure there are lots of things to think about and do in one's life but if nobody raised a stink when interests like the RIAA or the MPAA move to steal our rights then we would have none. So, instead of complaining about the reporting of this stuff write your congressman and tell him to send these other guys packing. While it's true that Slashdot has a anti these guys slant that does not mean what's said here is unimportant or completely unbiased. But often stories get posted here which reference obscure events that the big media outlets won't cover.
Under current copyright law, Americans who record a TV program or radio segment generally may "sell or otherwise dispose of" that analog recording or digital file as they wish.
[My understanding is that this is true only if it does not impact the copyright holders ability to make money on the protected work and that the sell price only reflects the cost of producing the copy with out any profit made on the work itself.]
The proposed bill would end that exemption, handing copyright owners substantial new control over the distribution of their works by curtailing copying rights granted to consumers under a doctrine known as "fair use."
"If you were to take today's episode of 'E.R.' and tape it and give it to your mother, it would be copyright infringement under this bill," said Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law.
Before the DMCA anyone could make a backup copy of DVD's legally. The fair use doctrine is simply stated here Fair Use.
The gist of it is this, does the copy being made have any impact on the copyright holder's ability to make money with the protected work? If I have bought the copy at Wal*Mart and want to copy it on to my HD for my own personal use then that would have been fine before the DMCA. The DMCA makes this copying illegal because DVDs employ a copy protection scheme. If the movie is on a VHS tape then I can still do it. Now, some informed congressmen are attempting to right a wrong when this part of Fair Use was taken away solely because the work was distributed on a DVD.
I don't want it for backups. I want to make a movie library on my PC that I can play back by selecting from a menu list. Who wants to fumble around for the DVD cases and get up off the couch? I can't wait to get one of those Sony 7 video in/out + 1 TB storage PCs. Now what I want is a way to input all of may Satellite receivers and re-route the signal to any TV in the house and to have the ability to change which receiver that TV is watching as well an change what channel the receiver is tuned in to.
Anyway I would just make a copy on the PC and put the disk in the closet just in case my drive crashes.
Gettinng again bashed by that guy from tacoville
Searching for some dirt; toss it on me
Some people claim there's bad stats to blame
But I know, it's that lexus guy's fault.
No, it is a program based on published MS-Windows APIs. The function of these interface changes. Which then causes the program that uses them to change. This causes some functions to not work, work differently, or cause catastrophic errors. OS's like applications have bugs. When one writes an application and finds a bug in a closed source OS then one has limited choices. Find some way to implete a given feature that does not use the buggy API, write the code to replace the API function and use that instead, do not implement the feature which relied on the API, use the API and correct the results to make it behave as expected (what many application creators do), or ship your own version of the dll's (with the corrected function - MS makes lots of these available just for this purpose and this is what most application creators do especially MS). The problem is when MS finally gets around to fixing the bug there are lots of applications (often MS's own applications) which rely on the bug to work. Then if there is a enough complaints from users MS will put the bug back so that old applications (usually its own) will work again. WINE is not the problem, but rather this adds to the head ache of creating something like WINE.
The real problem is the way MS has made these "micro" updates to the OS available and then purpetuates this mismash of dll versions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like the average user can go to Fry's and buy from a wide selection of OSes. Sure they can buy a HP or a Compaq or some other hardware vender. But when they get the PC home it has windows and ie on it. Then the average computer user is also not the most technically apt lot either. once they get online and can read e-mail, play some games and generally browse the net that's it. The average user is too busy and disinterested to really care about what browser they use and what the implications are regarding security and reliability. It's only after the true windows experience, (blue screen, bog downs from spy/adware, lost work, or even ID theft) that they will spend the effort to find something better. Windows works well enough for most and despite the wide spread abuses, those directly affected are still a small percentage of the total population. because if its dominant position and default acceptance ie is in use by the vast and ignorant masses. Anyone who knows anything about buffer over runs and M$FT excellent track record with bug fixes especially with security holes.
It's not a matter of looking for alternatives. It's a matter of even knowing that alternatives exist. The vas majority of Windowss users are not computer savy at all. It is diffcult for the masses to even get their system on line and start looking around the web for even basic portals. it's not like driving down the street and looking for businesses. For the vast majority, the web is an alien place. it's also not a matter of lazyness but a matter of fear. Once a typical user gets their system up they typically leave well enough alone. Your average user is not aware that windows has allowed his system to be used as part of a DDoS attack or is now a smap bot. They just check out CNN or some other news portal they've managed to get to and check e-mail. A few even figure out how to go shopping. IE is on top because of ignorance and fear. Period.
Broadcasting over the public airwaves is intrusive regarless of v-chip status in the tv. The rating system does not work because it is not enforced and there are many older tv's still in service that do not have a v chip. I have three such sets at home. Suggestive dancing is never artistic nor political and never deserves first amendment protection. While we may differ on this the supreme court has always said that pronogrophy does not qaulify as well as other speach and my be limited to protect minors. As a member of the community my oppinion of what is decent is just as valid as yours. In particlar over a public medium the standards of decnecy should reflect a more conservitive view. Access to indecent material must always go through a tougher gate keeper in order to keep it out of reach of minors. V-chips are not suffecient. if you want this stuff then prove your are over a certain age or buy premimum channels over cable. Open TV broadcasting content must be more limited than other mediums because of its ready access. That's the way it must be: one can discuss gay rights, race relations, etc but one can not girate one's body in lewd fashion or other suggestive action. This is never political: it is for profit and shock value in order to gain attention for ratings or other commercial use.
Braodcast TV is rarely about political speech and should be generally considered entertainment or comercial speech. The latter two categories are less protected by the first amendment that the first (by supreme court case law).
It would be nice if the fcc published a clearer set of rules governing the programming over public airwaves. The FCC should do a much better job of enforceing the ratings given to content and every program broadcast on the public airwaves should be screened for content and rated. Case and statuaroy law both are clear that broadcast TV is a generally available medium and it is considered to be invasive because every house in the US has one (nearly) and most have two or more. The specialty piece of equipment is obviously not a burden to obtain access to programming. A new TV may be purchased for less than $50.
I am all for you having access to what ever depravity ridden programming you may desire. Don't put it in on the public airwaves. Suggestive dancing is not the same as PETA protesting a cannery. It does not qualify for first amendment protection.
Here in the US it is the broadcasters responsiblity to adhear to rules of deceny in terms of program content. In order to leese a frequency for TV broadcasting the broadcaster signs an agreement with the federal government do this very thing.
it is a shame that people dress this way or behave in lewd fashion at such events. I remember growing up watching the Dallas Cowboys play every Sunday afternoon. The entire family gathered around and we had popcorn and snacks. I recall well hearing my aunt yelling at the ball on a field goal attempt "Go Left, Left, left!!!" Like somehow her words would guide the ball through the posts. Back I don't know if the fans at the stadium dressed like they do now but if they did it was not shown on TV. It serves no good purpose to televise that sort of thing in the first place.
anyway as far as screening TV instead we'll do something else. There's a whole closet full of board games and there's a basketball hoop that needs to be set up. Forget TV, what a waste it has become.
The part of the spectrum used for TV broadcast is considered open in that the recipient does not have to pay a fee in order to receive the broadcast. Also the lessees (the broadcaster does not own the frequency, it is leased from the federal government) have signed an agreement with the government to adhere to FCC rules governing decency.
It's not that simple. TV broad casters use the public airwaves. as such they have a responsibility to keep the content generally clean. This standard has slid a lot over the decades and quite frankly needs to be cleaned up a lot. What happened to shows that were funny or creative with out resorting to cheap baseless tactics ?
If that is your view of football then no. However, it is a sporting event where beating the crap out of each other gets a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's not Hockey.
We didn't see the boob. Read the whole post. The TV was turned off about halfway through the half time show. The halftime show was very suggestive in a sexual nature that was way more offensive than a single nipple. Everyone (with small children) I have talked to about the show agreed that it was in total not appropriate for family viewing.
Wow, your parents had way more time to devote to screening your TV watching than I. Besides a major sporting event should not include such debasing content.
If you want to see naughty crap on TV get cable or sattelite or go rent porn.
I agree that violence is too tolerated on open broadcast mediums.
I wish you had read the whole post. We turned off the tv most of the way thorugh the half time show. and as a reasult missed part of the 3rd quarter. what's wrong with you that you can not read ?
I agree that Spears is much worse than a sinlge bared breast.
The panic was not over the boob so much as the taboo associated with it over the public ariwaves.
Great. So what was the rating for the Superbowl? The half time show could not have been TV-Y even with out Jackson's bare breast. It was lewd and indecent. I just wanted to watch the premier football game with my family. We had to turn off the TV for the half time show as it got ever increasingly raunchy. As a result we missed part of the third quarter.
It seems to me that in exchange for the privilege of exclusive use of part of the airwaves the programming must be acceptable to the vast majority of people. There is too much violence and indecency on the public broadcast medium already. When you say as a parent I have to monitor my children's viewing, fine, I already do but when supposedly mainstream programming shows crap like the half time show then I can't rely on any rating scheme. Just cut my efforts off at the knees. I guess the only solution is to toss the TV out of the house and only read books to my children until they are old enough to deal with these things. My youngest one loves books over TV anyway.
For those who want this crap in their homes I say to you go fetch it. It's in stores and on the internet. It is much easier to keep things out of my home when they are not beemed directly in to it.
You got me there. I guess I should have said lazier and laziest. Not sure though which is lazier and laziest. Oh well, it's good work if you can get it! /.ing from 9-5 is great!
Can software developers get any lazier ?
The ones who aren't lazy are too busy reading slash dot.
It's a double whammy.
I like that better. Good idea.
3.5 years in jail maybe enough to set this guy right with decent society. Depends on how tough it is in jail and if he understands doing this again will get him in for more time. Frankly they should shut him in a completely mind numbing boring place with nothing to do all day but look at the walls. Maybe add something insidious to the punishment like repeatedly showing the same 30 minute sitcom episode over and over with out stop at a moderately loud volume. It would have to be something with an annoying sounding actor in it like Gary Chandelling. Maybe it's even funny, at first and even a dozen times over it's bearable, but 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3.5 years. lets see.... 48 times a day by 365 time 3.5 = 61,320! I bet he wouldn't make it past 2 or 3 days with out crying.
Ouch, His dance card would be filled out every night, only he won't get to 'see' his dates.
So, would fake posts which detract from a competitor's product be astromudding ?
Like "Open source is a cancer...." etc. ?
...we hear the Fed. Chairman Greeenspan talking about the upward pressure on inflation because of the EQIPEC (EQ Item Producing and Exporting Countries) are restricting demand and therefore driving up the value of the Platnium. Then pressing on he states that we should start 'mining' the American lunch hour reserves and use this otherwise down time to produce more domestic EQ Items.
It's the not caring that's the problem. Sure there are lots of things to think about and do in one's life but if nobody raised a stink when interests like the RIAA or the MPAA move to steal our rights then we would have none. So, instead of complaining about the reporting of this stuff write your congressman and tell him to send these other guys packing. While it's true that Slashdot has a anti these guys slant that does not mean what's said here is unimportant or completely unbiased. But often stories get posted here which reference obscure events that the big media outlets won't cover.
Vote Nader! He's never voted for any law!
Populus iamdudum defutatus est!
You don't understand basic copyright law, retard.
Before the DMCA anyone could make a backup copy of DVD's legally. The fair use doctrine is simply stated here Fair Use.
The gist of it is this, does the copy being made have any impact on the copyright holder's ability to make money with the protected work? If I have bought the copy at Wal*Mart and want to copy it on to my HD for my own personal use then that would have been fine before the DMCA. The DMCA makes this copying illegal because DVDs employ a copy protection scheme. If the movie is on a VHS tape then I can still do it. Now, some informed congressmen are attempting to right a wrong when this part of Fair Use was taken away solely because the work was distributed on a DVD.
I don't want it for backups. I want to make a movie library on my PC that I can play back by selecting from a menu list. Who wants to fumble around for the DVD cases and get up off the couch? I can't wait to get one of those Sony 7 video in/out + 1 TB storage PCs. Now what I want is a way to input all of may Satellite receivers and re-route the signal to any TV in the house and to have the ability to change which receiver that TV is watching as well an change what channel the receiver is tuned in to.
Anyway I would just make a copy on the PC and put the disk in the closet just in case my drive crashes.
Tux singing to the tune of Margaritaville
Gettinng again bashed by that guy from tacoville
Searching for some dirt; toss it on me
Some people claim there's bad stats to blame
But I know, it's that lexus guy's fault.
No, it is a program based on published MS-Windows APIs. The function of these interface changes. Which then causes the program that uses them to change. This causes some functions to not work, work differently, or cause catastrophic errors. OS's like applications have bugs. When one writes an application and finds a bug in a closed source OS then one has limited choices. Find some way to implete a given feature that does not use the buggy API, write the code to replace the API function and use that instead, do not implement the feature which relied on the API, use the API and correct the results to make it behave as expected (what many application creators do), or ship your own version of the dll's (with the corrected function - MS makes lots of these available just for this purpose and this is what most application creators do especially MS). The problem is when MS finally gets around to fixing the bug there are lots of applications (often MS's own applications) which rely on the bug to work. Then if there is a enough complaints from users MS will put the bug back so that old applications (usually its own) will work again. WINE is not the problem, but rather this adds to the head ache of creating something like WINE.
The real problem is the way MS has made these "micro" updates to the OS available and then purpetuates this mismash of dll versions.