However, that is entirely up to the company, or individual(s) who owns the rights to the software (assuming it isn't free/GPL). When it happens, it sure is nice, but absolutely not a duty or expectation in any shape or form.
*You* may not be impying it, but apparently some here think and/or assume that companies/persons *should* do this for the betterment of (insert your reason here).
To those who do, I say: Bully for you, go ahead and do it yourself, and be happy when others do so, but may I also sell you a lovely piece of swampland I have in Florida? Or perhaps some of Tinkerbell's Fairydust?
I've seen some people who have responded to your post who just don't seem to "get" it.
If I had mod points I would have, instead of replying, modded you up insightful, but instead I reply: you have a good point; with some software (note they key word "some"), if you want good/better quality, you have to pay for it.
The now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never had:
1) a Bill of Rights explicitly built into the Constitution (not that ours is not under attack in ways that you seem to be alluding to). 2) a more-or-less functional and effective seperation of governmental powers/function where one side could effective counter the interests of the other if they got out of hand (not that we dont have some of this element, but "in Soviet Russia" if you weren't with the Politbureau, you could forget it). 3) a premise of Freedom on the part of most Government Politicos and most of the Citizenry. In Soviet Russia, and the Russia of today, this is not the case (and yes, I know we have our problems). To plagerize a quote from Churchhill, one could argue that the United States is the worst Government in the World to be under, save all the others (I know I invite much debate with the use of that little gem of a statment as well).
Anway, I think your points are valid in their illustrative intent of showing how those with power/money/influence are sapping our freedoms and seeking to change the definition of words and terms from right under our noses (regardless of the Government they are in/own/buy), but it also needs to be taken in context, considering the nature of the two governments in the comparison.
This was posted by a user named "footballdude" on DSLreports.com, so I cannot take the credit for it but it made me laugh and I think it's worth re-posting here (I added the part about the invalid address).
___________ The conversation in court, regarding the letter to the website owners where the complaintant claims they face "severe sanctions" should they delete any pirated material or usable evidence in the case against them, might go something like this:
"Your honor, these malcontents deliberately destroyed evidence against them." "What evidence?" "The stuff you destroyed." "I don't know what you're talking about." "Our programmers traced your IP address and saw copyrighted material." "You mean the impossible address of 66.250.450.10 you listed? Who has that address, anyway?" "We meant to say.45!" "They were mistaken, I don't have any copyrighted material." "Because you deleted it!" "I never had any. Even if I did, wouldn't you want me to delete it?" "No! We wanted you to keep it." "If you want me to keep it, why are you suing me for having it?" "Your honor, please remove the defendant and issue a summary judgement for twenty thousand dollars."
Demonoid went down only because the site owner(s)/operator(s) and/or their site host reside in a country that has and actually cares to enforce DMCA-like/Copyright laws. A site similar to this will probably pop up in Russia or elsewhere in due time.
Notice that bi-torrent.com, supernova.org and their kin are still alive and well, and likely remain so for a quite a while.
The only way **AA will make any real headway here is to sue the.torrent users themselves.
All very true, but shall we quash free speech on the hand of one Bozo with a vendetta?
Here in the United States, divorces and/or breakups can get quite nasty. Do a meta search for a taste of the nastiness out there. If we outlawed everything people did in the name of "getting even" or the like, just about nothing would be legal anymore.
Attempting to clamp down on the distribution of the video by holding corporations liable for the swell (swill?) of crap that happens under the radar screen of the internet and eBay just sets us all up to lose access to potentially vital information for us depeding on the situation and what we need (including what some may call pr0n).
My solution: prosecute the "jerk" who "betrayed her." Not the company which had no way of knowing what was going on without making everyone pay more to set up a system that may (or may not) catch material that is posted for auction that may (or may not) offend some people.
What is so hard to understand about going after the perpatrator and not the blind, unknowing service? Shall we outlaw driving because people deliberately use cars to kill (innocent?) people. No, no, wait! Let's outlaw alcohol, because it is so often used for illegal purposes (and sold on the 'net to boot!). Yes! outlawing alcohol worked very well, IIRC.
Ad infinitem argument, I know, but I hope you get my point: there are better, more intelligent ways of prosecuting the illegal distribution of under-age pornogrophy.
That's a GREAT IDEA! Why don't we applaud all methods of making more use of the internet illegal, like sharing legal non-copyrigted files of the following type:
* non copyrighted music * non copyrighted videos * " stories * freeware * shareware * non copyrighted pictures * " research papers * insert your favorite legal item here
After all, all I want to do is CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME! I dont have a creative thought in my head! I can only enjoy the creativity (such as it may or may not be) that passes muster of the corporate entertainment industry! Oh THANK-YOU, MPAA!
I know the sites are heavily populated by traffic of the illegal kind, but that is not all they do. If the MPAA wants to be progressive about it they should sue the illegal file sharers themselves, like the RIAA was finally forced to do, not servers that can and do provide for legal activity as well.
Sites of any real legitimacy would then survive (and the rest go underground until the next method of file sharing takes off) and be free to post purely legal content.
The internet continues to morph into a place for consumption by the masses. This is just another lame attempt by the industry to further this trend.
I have no problem paying 20 to 50 cents extra for RFID technology for prescriptions (in principle). As long as it fsucking stays at 20 to 50 cents.
But I can see that little gem of a price rapidly inflating over time for "new advances."
Also, I have to wonder just how much good it will really be at things like combating the rare but extremely dangerous incidents of pharmeceutical human error. Human error is almost always the weakest link in any chain of security/precation.
And what is to stop counterfeit FRID tags, anyway?
I think what gets at the heart behind the dissatisfaction with the grandparent post is the idea (at least among many/.ers) of having someone else in control of an OS and/or what goes on inside of a machine.
Personally, I'd rather have a copy of Windows XP/2K, or any other locally controlled OS on my machine (which has never been "pwned" BTW) than surrender that sense of control to an OS/Server source somewhere "out there." I'm willing to pay to have this control, too, if neccessary.
Now before people jump all over me saying that sense of control is merely a perception, let's remember that formatting drives, driver updates, and other root privilages that affect one's ability to firmly control their user experience are sorely lacking via the server based model.
Further, this model appears to imply a reliable and fast internet connection. who will pay for this? and what do we do when we have a problem with it and cant get access? Sure we can probably have some limted functionality on our end via some (limited) shell of an OS, but it would be too limited for me.
I know that all a model like this would need is suffiicient computer market penetration to take off and affect many applications and hardware. Many may argue that this would be an improvement, but I for one won't be getting on board with it.
"That's all it is, a "rule" made up by the motion picture industry. It is NOT a law! It has no legal authority behind it. It is basically discrimination against an entire segment of our society"
for those of you who need proof: he's correct, it is voluntary:
http://www.bigscreen.com/MPAA_RatingsInfo.php
and I agree, young people pretty much have no rights (or at least are treated as such).
BUT, IMO, it is more important to treat children with respect, if we expect them to be respectful of others when they grow up.
I remember many years ago when I was a high school student, the new Principal came to the stage. He said something which was factually correct, but came off as arrogant did nothing to endear himself in the eyes of the students: Without any advance notice of the subject of the meeting, he stood up on the podium and said, and I quote, "I am here to talk - and you are here to listen." The Boos and Jeers from the collective student body were a portent of things to come for our well intentioned but adolescently unskilled administrator; he didn't last four years.
We must lead our youth by example. It's not just a matter of what we say, but HOW we say it and in what context. We cannot expect our youth (notice I never use the word "child" or "children" directly) to treat us with respect if we do not show them respect first. This principle applies to all other aspects of youth learning as well. I can tell you, from personal experience as an adlolescent and 8 1/2 as a social worker working with the same population, young people strongly resent the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality and can sniff out this hypocritical behavior better than drug sniffing dogs in a room full of pot. Young people cannot stand the air of arrogance either.
If we want our youth to become responsible, moral, tolarant, compassionate adults, we had better be prepared to treat them in kind. If we honestly expect that stopping them from seeing an R or NC 17 rated movie early, in the abscence of other forms of guidance-by-example, will somehow keep them "safe", we are only lying to ourselves.
I've havent seen such a heartfelt description of someones faith in their belief of what Christianity is all about in a long time (and I'm not one, FWIW).
I do strongly oppose your view on Gay Marriage and adoption inside of one, however. As a former social worker of 8 & 1/2 years and a Father who has a wonderful wife and a beautiful newborn son, I have seen far too many lonely children languish in foster care and group homes without the families they deserve. Why should Gays be told "you're not good enough/moral enough to help a child" and that group/foster homes are more always more appropriate?
Still, it seems to me that you're not one of those preachy types. You're a very good example of a responsible disagreement with the parent poster, and for that my hat is off to you.
"Drawing the parallel with the nuclear issue IMHO weakens your argument."
I respectfully disagree. What I was trying to get at with the Nuke comparison in my opinion still holds true. Back in the Day US & Russian Citizens were being told it was all perfectly safe and we had nothing to wory about. We were told this by scientists and the Government. While it is more or less true that nuclear power can be used in a safe fashion it only occurs under the following conditions (not all of which are always met):
1) responsible goverment regulation and oversight with regard to techincal standards, emissions, safety/failsafe design, retrofitting, repairs, etc. 2) Proper disposal of waste. 3) Regular Inspections of numbers 1 & 2 by a goverment body 4) A reasonable degree of transparancy/accountability with regard to numbers 1 through 3 to the public which is being served 5) A sense of Responsibility on the part of the power producer
I live in Ohio where a lot of flap came up with the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power plant here because of First Energy's failure to report/hiding problems with stress corrosion cracking of the reactor pressure vessel heads (according to the USNRC). Do a google search and you'll see what I'm talking about. Davis Besse was shut down for over a year, and Perry has been down more than it has been up for the last 5 years. The giant sucking sounds you hear from these nuclear power plants is their tremendous maintenence costs, far exceeding those of conventional coal/hydro plants. Guess who is stuck with all those stranded maintenence costs? Hint: it's not the industry or its' shareholders.
I don't know, perhaps France is better with design/maintenance/civic & fiscal responsibility than we are. But until viable, sustainable, Nuclear Fusion comes along (and I'm not holding my breath for it), nukes just don't seem economically viable, at least here in Ohio.
"The truth or falsity of the scientist's statements has yet to be determined because anti nuke activists have prevented it from getting to that point."
Not true. You haven't read enough about conventional use of nuclear power over the last half century by Military and Civilian applications. If you believe "anti-nuke activists" have duct-taped the mouth of the nuclear power industry or are anywhere near the primary reason for it's decline relative to other sources, you're giving them too much credit/power.
But to get back on topic:
GM products are the same in that we are being told by Big Business, which in turn lobbys and heavily influences (if not outright maipulates) the opinion of Science and the Government here in the US to say the GM is completely safe and that they "have it all under control." Given the prior track record of Science and the Goverment in ways I previously outlines in my parent post and above, I find this highly unlikely and an oversimplification based on a lack of understanding that only time and non-politicized research, and experience will tell.
What's wrong with proceeding with caution, diligence and thorough research to reduce risks? I can't say for sure, but the drive for profits and patents above prudence for safety and future ramifications probaly has a lot to do with it.
And yes, I know this is nothing new. That's part of my point.
You only give part of the picture when you say that genetically altered/modified foods are monitored by the FDA and EPA.
The European union and the various countied that comprise it have concerns about these sometimes called "Frankenfoods." Many won't accept them over safety concerns and a lack of research. Are they wrong? Our government seems to think so. There are a few counties in Africa with starving people/children who wont accept the genetically modified crops the the United States offers because of the terms of the gift and genetic drift to native crops.
As far as gentically modified foods being safe, I beleive that people just haven't figured out the dangers of using such modified products yet. The genome of life is extremely complex. Modifying one or more genes to achieve the desired result (usually increased yield and/or chemical/pest resistance) means that many other properties can, and probably are, being altered as well - only in ways we may or may not be able to observe. Take for instance, siclke cell anemia. Nasty disease, right? But did you know that in its' recessive form it provides near immunity from Malaria, a horrendous contagion that kills millions of Africans? I'm sure people with this affliction would love to be rid of it and I'd be first in line to have my genes altered if I had the active form of this disease. But hopefully you see my point: modifying genes may not be as simple as it seems.
People used to think DDT was the industry's gift to manking for its ability to wipe out pests. It took decades to prove it was harmful to the EPA and FDA. And these two organizations, while full well knowing it's risks and its' being banned in the U.S., allow it to be exported to other countries for use there. How responsible is that?
Further, if these products are so safe, why is there so much resistance from Monsanto and their kin to labeling such gentically modified products on food labels? After all, preservatives are put on labels, and we've know for many a year according to the FDA that they are "safe," so why all the fuss?
Similarly, in the past, we were told by scientists with full confidence that nuclear power/energy was the answer to all our energy needs - a clean, safe and unlimited power source that would be so bountiful it would be "too cheap to meter." We all know how that one turned out...
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to feed the world or that genetic research to modify foods is wrong, but when I hear people advocate that its the best thing to happen to us, or that it's science's gift to mankind, I start to get nervous about a person/group/field trying to gloss over what is nothing less than tampering with what makes life what it is: precious and real.
I'm just saying we should be VERY careful, as in more than we are being now, and we can't just take everything our government says at face value, as they are often beholden to big coroprate interests whose primary concern is often the almighty dollar above all else.
for supplanting or replacing a full intestinal exam to deal with things like Crohn's disease, spotting colon cancer early, and other ailments where early detection and/or prevention could save lives?.
I agree with your sentiments, but here are three (probably obvious but I just have to say them anyway) points:
1) Do you honestly expect politicians/gov't administrators to make themselves accountable to the laws/regulations which they pass? This hypocritical priniciple of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do seems to have a direct relationship proportional to the population which is being represented/served; the greater the population, the more the hypocrisy. If "political" calls were made to be DNC enforceable it would lead to the issue of how one defines "political," a process I believe would be subject to even more corruption. This brings me to point 2.
2) If the Gov't did decide to include political speech as DNC enforceable then I believe that the courts would be more likely to say that the DNC list is an unconstitutional limit on free speech because of "intereference with the democratic process" or some other such reasoning (do recall that many judges are elected and not appointed...). Again, the more speech the DNC disallows the greater the likelihood of it being struck down by the courts.
3) Consider the problems that could arise from having an even more powerful DNC list, such as bill collectors not being able to pursue deadbeats, your electric company not being able to call about a hazard that requires your immediate attention (the need to cut power, for example). These extreme examples are meant to illustrate a point about the difficulty of policy formulation.
With all that being said, I do agree consumers should have the option of designating their phone (land line and/or cel) as strictly personal use only. That means no fundraising, no politics, no surveys, just personal use, except for opt-ins which would require a SIGNATURE ON FILE, with exemptions like the ones I allude to above (still there would be room for abuse...). If these people/busniness/organizations want to speak to (bother) us, then they can pay the postage to mail things. We could then "evalutate" (throw away) this written speech just like the rest of the unwanted mail which we receive and get to process at our convenience, not theirs.
Further, I am very curious as to how many bounty hunters will have will and/or the ability to get foriegn spammers to US Courts.
This, of course, speaks nothing of the spammers who are already here.
Spammers being actively hunted in the post Soviet Bloc countries, China, Nigeria, etc would be a very interesting thing to see if it *ever* happened, which I sincerely doubt.
The war on spam reminds me of the war on drugs.
And, IIRC, the war on drugs has yet to be won.
Donald Rumsfeld, a man I am not very fond of, did correctly point out in my opinion that the war on drugs is a demand problem.
So is Spam.
As long as spam is profitable, it *will* continue.
This will mainly serve to make the FTC look good while doing little (VERY little) to solve the problem.
If you will recall your college history lessons, the Unted States troops presence in Vietnam started in an "advisory" capacity under the Kennedy adminsitration as part of the Cold War affort to keep Communism in check. The Unted states did not care to take a close look at what an emerging leader of the day there (Ho Chi Minh) had planned for Vietnam. He was viewed as a Communist Aggressor that had to be stopped.
It was under the Johnson Administration after Kennedy's assassination that the United States Military Presence increased in numbers and it's expanding role there. It was a very conscious and deliberate decison on President Johnson's part; he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
Further, it was under the dubious claims of the gulf of tonkin incident that things really got hot over there. At first seeming to be a completely appropriate response, there were later accusations that the whole story was deliberately concocted to sway Congress to get the U.S. more involved. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was never proven to be true or deliberately false, but it was successfull in getting congress to authorize a significantly increased troop presence there by a resolution, which appears to be the modern day equivilant of declaring War. When congressmen later complained of how things were going and asked who gave him the authority to conduct a war of this scope President Johnson correctly replied: "you did."
The French knew when to bail. The Unted States, for better or for worse (I would say for worse) stayed for a while longer...
It's a curious parralell to today's situation with Iraq: 1) the certainty of being right on the part of the current sitting President 2) claims that false and or misleading information was used to get congress to approve large scale involvement, some of which have been proven to be false (the tubes for uranium enrichment being supplied by a forign power) and many others to be dubious (chemical weapons stockpiles and links to Al Quada). 3) A growing national concern over the intervation and the accusations of a lack of patriotism and weakness towards those who question the administration. 4) the fact that the U.S. is in the middle of quite an ugly mess where 98% of the troops there are ours, with over 1,000 american soldiers dead so far, and no end in sight.
The only difference: The previous occupying power (the British) had left almost 100 years earlier, although they still left a mess behind.
I always get annoyed by people's sigs which, like yours at the moment, taunt/mock/tease others.
It may or may not be true that "most" of the people who respond to you are "idiots," but do you honestly think your.sig helps to facilitate the kind of meaningful discussion you seem to want to have?
Put another way:
Be careful of the.sig you type, make sure its soft and sweeet, or someday you may find its the.sig you have to eat.
Slashdot Mirror
What you say is very true.
However, that is entirely up to the company, or individual(s) who owns the rights to the software (assuming it isn't free/GPL). When it happens, it sure is nice, but absolutely not a duty or expectation in any shape or form.
*You* may not be impying it, but apparently some here think and/or assume that companies/persons *should* do this for the betterment of (insert your reason here).
To those who do, I say: Bully for you, go ahead and do it yourself, and be happy when others do so, but may I also sell you a lovely piece of swampland I have in Florida? Or perhaps some of Tinkerbell's Fairydust?
.
I've seen some people who have responded to your post who just don't seem to "get" it.
If I had mod points I would have, instead of replying, modded you up insightful, but instead I reply:
you have a good point; with some software (note they key word "some"), if you want good/better quality, you have to pay for it.
Anyone who tries to refute this is full of Siht.
Very true, but remember the following:
The now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never had:
1) a Bill of Rights explicitly built into the Constitution (not that ours is not under attack in ways that you seem to be alluding to).
2) a more-or-less functional and effective seperation of governmental powers/function where one side could effective counter the interests of the other if they got out of hand (not that we dont have some of this element, but "in Soviet Russia" if you weren't with the Politbureau, you could forget it).
3) a premise of Freedom on the part of most Government Politicos and most of the Citizenry. In Soviet Russia, and the Russia of today, this is not the case (and yes, I know we have our problems). To plagerize a quote from Churchhill, one could argue that the United States is the worst Government in the World to be under, save all the others (I know I invite much debate with the use of that little gem of a statment as well).
Anway, I think your points are valid in their illustrative intent of showing how those with power/money/influence are sapping our freedoms and seeking to change the definition of words and terms from right under our noses (regardless of the Government they are in/own/buy), but it also needs to be taken in context, considering the nature of the two governments in the comparison.
end intellectual nitpick/rant.
This was posted by a user named "footballdude" on DSLreports.com, so I cannot take the credit for it but it made me laugh and I think it's worth re-posting here (I added the part about the invalid address).
.45!"
___________
The conversation in court, regarding the letter to the website owners where the complaintant claims they face "severe sanctions" should they delete any pirated material or usable evidence in the case against them, might go something like this:
"Your honor, these malcontents deliberately destroyed evidence against them."
"What evidence?"
"The stuff you destroyed."
"I don't know what you're talking about."
"Our programmers traced your IP address and saw copyrighted material."
"You mean the impossible address of 66.250.450.10 you listed? Who has that address, anyway?"
"We meant to say
"They were mistaken, I don't have any copyrighted material."
"Because you deleted it!"
"I never had any. Even if I did, wouldn't you want me to delete it?"
"No! We wanted you to keep it."
"If you want me to keep it, why are you suing me for having it?"
"Your honor, please remove the defendant and issue a summary judgement for twenty thousand dollars."
Demonoid went down only because the site owner(s)/operator(s) and/or their site host reside in a country that has and actually cares to enforce DMCA-like/Copyright laws. A site similar to this will probably pop up in Russia or elsewhere in due time.
.torrent users themselves.
Notice that bi-torrent.com, supernova.org and their kin are still alive and well, and likely remain so for a quite a while.
The only way **AA will make any real headway here is to sue the
That one is both Funny and Insighful.
All very true, but shall we quash free speech on the hand of one Bozo with a vendetta?
Here in the United States, divorces and/or breakups can get quite nasty. Do a meta search for a taste of the nastiness out there. If we outlawed everything people did in the name of "getting even" or the like, just about nothing would be legal anymore.
Attempting to clamp down on the distribution of the video by holding corporations liable for the swell (swill?) of crap that happens under the radar screen of the internet and eBay just sets us all up to lose access to potentially vital information for us depeding on the situation and what we need (including what some may call pr0n).
My solution: prosecute the "jerk" who "betrayed her." Not the company which had no way of knowing what was going on without making everyone pay more to set up a system that may (or may not) catch material that is posted for auction that may (or may not) offend some people.
What is so hard to understand about going after the perpatrator and not the blind, unknowing service? Shall we outlaw driving because people deliberately use cars to kill (innocent?) people. No, no, wait! Let's outlaw alcohol, because it is so often used for illegal purposes (and sold on the 'net to boot!). Yes! outlawing alcohol worked very well, IIRC.
Ad infinitem argument, I know, but I hope you get my point: there are better, more intelligent ways of prosecuting the illegal distribution of under-age pornogrophy.
That's a GREAT IDEA! Why don't we applaud all methods of making more use of the internet illegal, like sharing legal non-copyrigted files of the following type:
* non copyrighted music
* non copyrighted videos
* " stories
* freeware
* shareware
* non copyrighted pictures
* " research papers
* insert your favorite legal item here
After all, all I want to do is CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME! I dont have a creative thought in my head! I can only enjoy the creativity (such as it may or may not be) that passes muster of the corporate entertainment industry! Oh THANK-YOU, MPAA!
I know the sites are heavily populated by traffic of the illegal kind, but that is not all they do. If the MPAA wants to be progressive about it they should sue the illegal file sharers themselves, like the RIAA was finally forced to do, not servers that can and do provide for legal activity as well.
Sites of any real legitimacy would then survive (and the rest go underground until the next method of file sharing takes off) and be free to post purely legal content.
The internet continues to morph into a place for consumption by the masses. This is just another lame attempt by the industry to further this trend.
Unfortunately I think it will continue.
.
I have no problem paying 20 to 50 cents extra for RFID technology for prescriptions (in principle). As long as it fsucking stays at 20 to 50 cents.
But I can see that little gem of a price rapidly inflating over time for "new advances."
Also, I have to wonder just how much good it will really be at things like combating the rare but extremely dangerous incidents of pharmeceutical human error. Human error is almost always the weakest link in any chain of security/precation.
And what is to stop counterfeit FRID tags, anyway?
My 2 cents...
.
Maybe that's why I called it a rhetorical question?
Another argument that will be used it that "piracy hurts everyone..."
I mostly watch movies on DVD now, anyway.
.
If and when it gets used in Theatres?
Ummmnnn.... was that a rhetorical question?
.
NPR did an long piece on this same idea on the Diane Rehm Show. The guest was in complete agreement with you:
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/04/10/20.php
A very dangerous way to lead, IMO, when this faith overrides and quite often stifles other reasonable points of view.
.
"Stop Confusing Me With Facts!"
.
I think what gets at the heart behind the dissatisfaction with the grandparent post is the idea (at least among many /.ers) of having someone else in control of an OS and/or what goes on inside of a machine.
Personally, I'd rather have a copy of Windows XP/2K, or any other locally controlled OS on my machine (which has never been "pwned" BTW) than surrender that sense of control to an OS/Server source somewhere "out there." I'm willing to pay to have this control, too, if neccessary.
Now before people jump all over me saying that sense of control is merely a perception, let's remember that formatting drives, driver updates, and other root privilages that affect one's ability to firmly control their user experience are sorely lacking via the server based model.
Further, this model appears to imply a reliable and fast internet connection. who will pay for this? and what do we do when we have a problem with it and cant get access? Sure we can probably have some limted functionality on our end via some (limited) shell of an OS, but it would be too limited for me.
I know that all a model like this would need is suffiicient computer market penetration to take off and affect many applications and hardware. Many may argue that this would be an improvement, but I for one won't be getting on board with it.
.
"That's all it is, a "rule" made up by the motion picture industry. It is NOT a law! It has no legal authority behind it. It is basically discrimination against an entire segment of our society"
for those of you who need proof:
he's correct, it is voluntary:
http://www.bigscreen.com/MPAA_RatingsInfo.php
and I agree, young people pretty much have no rights (or at least are treated as such).
BUT, IMO, it is more important to treat children with respect, if we expect them to be respectful of others when they grow up.
I remember many years ago when I was a high school student, the new Principal came to the stage. He said something which was factually correct, but came off as arrogant did nothing to endear himself in the eyes of the students: Without any advance notice of the subject of the meeting, he stood up on the podium and said, and I quote, "I am here to talk - and you are here to listen." The Boos and Jeers from the collective student body were a portent of things to come for our well intentioned but adolescently unskilled administrator; he didn't last four years.
We must lead our youth by example. It's not just a matter of what we say, but HOW we say it and in what context. We cannot expect our youth (notice I never use the word "child" or "children" directly) to treat us with respect if we do not show them respect first. This principle applies to all other aspects of youth learning as well. I can tell you, from personal experience as an adlolescent and 8 1/2 as a social worker working with the same population, young people strongly resent the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality and can sniff out this hypocritical behavior better than drug sniffing dogs in a room full of pot. Young people cannot stand the air of arrogance either.
If we want our youth to become responsible, moral, tolarant, compassionate adults, we had better be prepared to treat them in kind. If we honestly expect that stopping them from seeing an R or NC 17 rated movie early, in the abscence of other forms of guidance-by-example, will somehow keep them "safe", we are only lying to ourselves.
.
I've havent seen such a heartfelt description of someones faith in their belief of what Christianity is all about in a long time (and I'm not one, FWIW).
I do strongly oppose your view on Gay Marriage and adoption inside of one, however. As a former social worker of 8 & 1/2 years and a Father who has a wonderful wife and a beautiful newborn son, I have seen far too many lonely children languish in foster care and group homes without the families they deserve. Why should Gays be told "you're not good enough/moral enough to help a child" and that group/foster homes are more always more appropriate?
Still, it seems to me that you're not one of those preachy types. You're a very good example of a responsible disagreement with the parent poster, and for that my hat is off to you.
.
"Drawing the parallel with the nuclear issue IMHO weakens your argument."
I respectfully disagree. What I was trying to get at with the Nuke comparison in my opinion still holds true. Back in the Day US & Russian Citizens were being told it was all perfectly safe and we had nothing to wory about. We were told this by scientists and the Government. While it is more or less true that nuclear power can be used in a safe fashion it only occurs under the following conditions (not all of which are always met):
1) responsible goverment regulation and oversight with regard to techincal standards, emissions, safety/failsafe design, retrofitting, repairs, etc.
2) Proper disposal of waste.
3) Regular Inspections of numbers 1 & 2 by a goverment body
4) A reasonable degree of transparancy/accountability with regard to numbers 1 through 3 to the public which is being served
5) A sense of Responsibility on the part of the power producer
I live in Ohio where a lot of flap came up with the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power plant here because of First Energy's failure to report/hiding problems with stress corrosion cracking of the reactor pressure vessel heads (according to the USNRC). Do a google search and you'll see what I'm talking about. Davis Besse was shut down for over a year, and Perry has been down more than it has been up for the last 5 years. The giant sucking sounds you hear from these nuclear power plants is their tremendous maintenence costs, far exceeding those of conventional coal/hydro plants. Guess who is stuck with all those stranded maintenence costs? Hint: it's not the industry or its' shareholders.
I don't know, perhaps France is better with design/maintenance/civic & fiscal responsibility than we are. But until viable, sustainable, Nuclear Fusion comes along (and I'm not holding my breath for it), nukes just don't seem economically viable, at least here in Ohio.
"The truth or falsity of the scientist's statements has yet to be determined because anti nuke activists have prevented it from getting to that point."
Not true. You haven't read enough about conventional use of nuclear power over the last half century by Military and Civilian applications. If you believe "anti-nuke activists" have duct-taped the mouth of the nuclear power industry or are anywhere near the primary reason for it's decline relative to other sources, you're giving them too much credit/power.
But to get back on topic:
GM products are the same in that we are being told by Big Business, which in turn lobbys and heavily influences (if not outright maipulates) the opinion of Science and the Government here in the US to say the GM is completely safe and that they "have it all under control." Given the prior track record of Science and the Goverment in ways I previously outlines in my parent post and above, I find this highly unlikely and an oversimplification based on a lack of understanding that only time and non-politicized research, and experience will tell.
What's wrong with proceeding with caution, diligence and thorough research to reduce risks? I can't say for sure, but the drive for profits and patents above prudence for safety and future ramifications probaly has a lot to do with it.
And yes, I know this is nothing new. That's part of my point.
.
You only give part of the picture when you say that genetically altered/modified foods are monitored by the FDA and EPA.
The European union and the various countied that comprise it have concerns about these sometimes called "Frankenfoods." Many won't accept them over safety concerns and a lack of research. Are they wrong? Our government seems to think so. There are a few counties in Africa with starving people/children who wont accept the genetically modified crops the the United States offers because of the terms of the gift and genetic drift to native crops.
As far as gentically modified foods being safe, I beleive that people just haven't figured out the dangers of using such modified products yet. The genome of life is extremely complex. Modifying one or more genes to achieve the desired result (usually increased yield and/or chemical/pest resistance) means that many other properties can, and probably are, being altered as well - only in ways we may or may not be able to observe. Take for instance, siclke cell anemia. Nasty disease, right? But did you know that in its' recessive form it provides near immunity from Malaria, a horrendous contagion that kills millions of Africans? I'm sure people with this affliction would love to be rid of it and I'd be first in line to have my genes altered if I had the active form of this disease. But hopefully you see my point: modifying genes may not be as simple as it seems.
People used to think DDT was the industry's gift to manking for its ability to wipe out pests. It took decades to prove it was harmful to the EPA and FDA. And these two organizations, while full well knowing it's risks and its' being banned in the U.S., allow it to be exported to other countries for use there. How responsible is that?
Further, if these products are so safe, why is there so much resistance from Monsanto and their kin to labeling such gentically modified products on food labels? After all, preservatives are put on labels, and we've know for many a year according to the FDA that they are "safe," so why all the fuss?
Similarly, in the past, we were told by scientists with full confidence that nuclear power/energy was the answer to all our energy needs - a clean, safe and unlimited power source that would be so bountiful it would be "too cheap to meter." We all know how that one turned out...
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to feed the world or that genetic research to modify foods is wrong, but when I hear people advocate that its the best thing to happen to us, or that it's science's gift to mankind, I start to get nervous about a person/group/field trying to gloss over what is nothing less than tampering with what makes life what it is: precious and real.
I'm just saying we should be VERY careful, as in more than we are being now, and we can't just take everything our government says at face value, as they are often beholden to big coroprate interests whose primary concern is often the almighty dollar above all else.
.
for supplanting or replacing a full intestinal exam to deal with things like Crohn's disease, spotting colon cancer early, and other ailments where early detection and/or prevention could save lives?.
A lot, I hope
.
I agree with your sentiments, but here are three (probably obvious but I just have to say them anyway) points:
1) Do you honestly expect politicians/gov't administrators to make themselves accountable to the laws/regulations which they pass? This hypocritical priniciple of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do seems to have a direct relationship proportional to the population which is being represented/served; the greater the population, the more the hypocrisy. If "political" calls were made to be DNC enforceable it would lead to the issue of how one defines "political," a process I believe would be subject to even more corruption. This brings me to point 2.
2) If the Gov't did decide to include political speech as DNC enforceable then I believe that the courts would be more likely to say that the DNC list is an unconstitutional limit on free speech because of "intereference with the democratic process" or some other such reasoning (do recall that many judges are elected and not appointed...). Again, the more speech the DNC disallows the greater the likelihood of it being struck down by the courts.
3) Consider the problems that could arise from having an even more powerful DNC list, such as bill collectors not being able to pursue deadbeats, your electric company not being able to call about a hazard that requires your immediate attention (the need to cut power, for example). These extreme examples are meant to illustrate a point about the difficulty of policy formulation.
With all that being said, I do agree consumers should have the option of designating their phone (land line and/or cel) as strictly personal use only. That means no fundraising, no politics, no surveys, just personal use, except for opt-ins which would require a SIGNATURE ON FILE, with exemptions like the ones I allude to above (still there would be room for abuse...). If these people/busniness/organizations want to speak to (bother) us, then they can pay the postage to mail things. We could then "evalutate" (throw away) this written speech just like the rest of the unwanted mail which we receive and get to process at our convenience, not theirs.
.
I agree.
Further, I am very curious as to how many bounty hunters will have will and/or the ability to get foriegn spammers to US Courts.
This, of course, speaks nothing of the spammers who are already here.
Spammers being actively hunted in the post Soviet Bloc countries, China, Nigeria, etc would be a very interesting thing to see if it *ever* happened, which I sincerely doubt.
The war on spam reminds me of the war on drugs.
And, IIRC, the war on drugs has yet to be won.
Donald Rumsfeld, a man I am not very fond of, did correctly point out in my opinion that the war on drugs is a demand problem.
So is Spam.
As long as spam is profitable, it *will* continue.
This will mainly serve to make the FTC look good while doing little (VERY little) to solve the problem.
Our tax dollars at waste - again.
.
Ah! you were the person I saw this from :D I hereby acknowledge & give you full credit for it :-) The sentiment behind it fits these times completely.
.
If you will recall your college history lessons, the Unted States troops presence in Vietnam started in an "advisory" capacity under the Kennedy adminsitration as part of the Cold War affort to keep Communism in check. The Unted states did not care to take a close look at what an emerging leader of the day there (Ho Chi Minh) had planned for Vietnam. He was viewed as a Communist Aggressor that had to be stopped.
It was under the Johnson Administration after Kennedy's assassination that the United States Military Presence increased in numbers and it's expanding role there. It was a very conscious and deliberate decison on President Johnson's part; he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
Further, it was under the dubious claims of the gulf of tonkin incident that things really got hot over there. At first seeming to be a completely appropriate response, there were later accusations that the whole story was deliberately concocted to sway Congress to get the U.S. more involved. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was never proven to be true or deliberately false, but it was successfull in getting congress to authorize a significantly increased troop presence there by a resolution, which appears to be the modern day equivilant of declaring War. When congressmen later complained of how things were going and asked who gave him the authority to conduct a war of this scope President Johnson correctly replied: "you did."
The French knew when to bail. The Unted States, for better or for worse (I would say for worse) stayed for a while longer...
It's a curious parralell to today's situation with Iraq:
1) the certainty of being right on the part of the current sitting President
2) claims that false and or misleading information was used to get congress to approve large scale involvement, some of which have been proven to be false (the tubes for uranium enrichment being supplied by a forign power) and many others to be dubious (chemical weapons stockpiles and links to Al Quada).
3) A growing national concern over the intervation and the accusations of a lack of patriotism and weakness towards those who question the administration.
4) the fact that the U.S. is in the middle of quite an ugly mess where 98% of the troops there are ours, with over 1,000 american soldiers dead so far, and no end in sight.
The only difference: The previous occupying power (the British) had left almost 100 years earlier, although they still left a mess behind.
.
You must be one of those people who is rarely able to deal with those you who disagree with you (or your .sig).
Your response just further proves my point: more attacks, more taunts, more teasing.
Children do this all of the time. But they (usually) grow out of it.
.
I always get annoyed by people's sigs which, like yours at the moment, taunt/mock/tease others.
.sig helps to facilitate the kind of meaningful discussion you seem to want to have?
.sig you type, make sure its soft and sweeet, or someday you may find its the .sig you have to eat.
It may or may not be true that "most" of the people who respond to you are "idiots," but do you honestly think your
Put another way:
Be careful of the
.