I don't see the problem with this. If a person kills a bunch of people and keeps evidence of the murders in their house, and if there is just cause to suspect him of the murders, a search warrant is issued and that information is used against him. This is the same thing. I don't want the police scanning a data recorder at check points and writing me tickets for each time I broke a minor traffic law, but if there is sufficient evidence that I committed a crime, with the proper procedures, this is perfectly OK.
I do not see how the fact that the information is digital or in a car has any bearing...
It sounds good on the surface, but I think it would be a slippery slope. Some politician would eventually lobby that these poor kids should not be deprived of the Discovery Channel, then TLC...
You also have the problem that cable is not available to all consumers. Would we then pay for sat. equipment so they can get basic broadcast channels via sat.? What if they can't get a sat. signal either?
Aside from that problem, I would take another tactic. The networks/affiliates are paying for all of the infrastructure, towers, etc., to support the broadcasts. If they took that money and gave it to the cable company, could the cable company not make the broadcast channels available to everyone for no charge? That won't happen though since local channels are the only things keeping some people from switching from cable to sat.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying people have a right to broadcast TV. It is a business. Government should stay out of it as much as possible. While it remains a viable business, broadcast TV should stick around. When that stops, it should die as any product would. FCC will handle the bands as they come available, but we don't need the government making sure that everyone has a TV signal. Have you read The Running Man?
I believe that over 99% of all statistics in/. comments are made up on the spot.
Even if this is a valid number, 20% of households is still a huge number.
So this spectrum is opened to unlicensed use. Where exactly does the revenue come from? Sure, companies that make devices that utilize the spectrum will make money, are you proposing these products be taxed? How then will it be decided who gets their new cable service paid for with this tax? Anyone who did not already have it? People who can't afford it? Do we really want to go down that road?
You're looking at it all wrong.
Pretty soon we will be able to pay less for current equipment that is already faster than my internet connection so it does not matter anyway.
It is the same idea, just requires a little advance preparation. Since you do not have due dates, you always have a few movies around that you want to see. You still just watch when the mood strikes you, but you save a trip to and from the rental shop. I do this with PPV and Tivo and don't even have a disc to return, but of course the selection is much more limited.
as far as I can determine I'm as sane as the next guy
Catch 22, if you weren't you wouldn't know it.
On to the matter at hand: young kids..WHITE LIST! I mean duh, do you want ANYONE you don't know sending your five year old anything? (hint: no)
As the child ages, only the parent knows best based on the maturity and responsibility of the child. If you don't know...spend some time with your kid, it will do you both good.
Spam should not be illegal, but something needs to be done to force the financial burden from the recipients/providers onto the spammers. Illicit messages should be clearly identified as adult material, which would allow ISPs to block them based on local regulations or at consumer request. This is an international issue, it will never be entirely resolved through legislation. It will have to be solved through technology.
Re:News? Publish date = Nov 2002
on
PHP Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Um, no. It's not. It's a book review, hence the topic "Book Reviews:"
Broadcast television is not free. It is consumer supported either directly or indirectly through advertising.
Broadcast television is not a right. Someone has to pay for it, and if it stops being economically viable, I do not want my tax dollars supporting it. As long as it is viable, it is a great thing for people who can't/won't pay for the alternatives, but if you can't afford it, I am not paying for it
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the problem with this. If a person kills a bunch of people and keeps evidence of the murders in their house, and if there is just cause to suspect him of the murders, a search warrant is issued and that information is used against him. This is the same thing. I don't want the police scanning a data recorder at check points and writing me tickets for each time I broke a minor traffic law, but if there is sufficient evidence that I committed a crime, with the proper procedures, this is perfectly OK.
I do not see how the fact that the information is digital or in a car has any bearing...
It sounds good on the surface, but I think it would be a slippery slope. Some politician would eventually lobby that these poor kids should not be deprived of the Discovery Channel, then TLC...
You also have the problem that cable is not available to all consumers. Would we then pay for sat. equipment so they can get basic broadcast channels via sat.? What if they can't get a sat. signal either?
Aside from that problem, I would take another tactic. The networks/affiliates are paying for all of the infrastructure, towers, etc., to support the broadcasts. If they took that money and gave it to the cable company, could the cable company not make the broadcast channels available to everyone for no charge? That won't happen though since local channels are the only things keeping some people from switching from cable to sat.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying people have a right to broadcast TV. It is a business. Government should stay out of it as much as possible. While it remains a viable business, broadcast TV should stick around. When that stops, it should die as any product would. FCC will handle the bands as they come available, but we don't need the government making sure that everyone has a TV signal. Have you read The Running Man?
I believe that over 99% of all statistics in /. comments are made up on the spot.
Even if this is a valid number, 20% of households is still a huge number.
So this spectrum is opened to unlicensed use. Where exactly does the revenue come from? Sure, companies that make devices that utilize the spectrum will make money, are you proposing these products be taxed? How then will it be decided who gets their new cable service paid for with this tax? Anyone who did not already have it? People who can't afford it? Do we really want to go down that road?
Watch it...you'll spill that half empty glass on your shirt.
You're looking at it all wrong.
Pretty soon we will be able to pay less for current equipment that is already faster than my internet connection so it does not matter anyway.
It is the same idea, just requires a little advance preparation. Since you do not have due dates, you always have a few movies around that you want to see. You still just watch when the mood strikes you, but you save a trip to and from the rental shop. I do this with PPV and Tivo and don't even have a disc to return, but of course the selection is much more limited.
I agree it would be a welcome addition. To many people do not know enough to have a virus scanner and contribute to the overall problem.
The downside is that it is unlikely that MS will continue the cross platform offerings that this product has now.
as far as I can determine I'm as sane as the next guy
Catch 22, if you weren't you wouldn't know it.
On to the matter at hand: young kids..WHITE LIST! I mean duh, do you want ANYONE you don't know sending your five year old anything? (hint: no)
As the child ages, only the parent knows best based on the maturity and responsibility of the child. If you don't know...spend some time with your kid, it will do you both good.
Spam should not be illegal, but something needs to be done to force the financial burden from the recipients/providers onto the spammers. Illicit messages should be clearly identified as adult material, which would allow ISPs to block them based on local regulations or at consumer request. This is an international issue, it will never be entirely resolved through legislation. It will have to be solved through technology.
Um, no. It's not. It's a book review, hence the topic "Book Reviews:"
Install a water cooler with the tub as a resevoir, overclock your CPU...
Not so much a model as a production deployment. Then again, if this is a beta... that would explain a lot....
Clearly, manual gain control was not an option.
A zero length string is not nothing.
Broadcast television is not free. It is consumer supported either directly or indirectly through advertising.
Broadcast television is not a right. Someone has to pay for it, and if it stops being economically viable, I do not want my tax dollars supporting it. As long as it is viable, it is a great thing for people who can't/won't pay for the alternatives, but if you can't afford it, I am not paying for it