The same thing could easily be said about the inverse...
What natural right does a content creator or copyright owner have to control what I can see, what I can hear, what I can transform, and what I can copy. It seems much more natural for people to be able to freely copy what they see than put restrictions on it. I may not be able to invade someones home as that would be violating a "natural property right". However, if someone releases their work to the public, it is less natural for there to be artificial restrictions on what I do with said content - particularly after I have paid for it.
At one time, I might have cared about the artists, the producers, and all the people in the production chain, and maybe even the corporation which is part of the structure (investment). But given that the RIAA/MPAA basically control what physical media is the defacto standard, they engage in price fixing, they buy laws which the general public does not want, they support media consolidation, they abuse artists, they want to lock up content (and eliminate the possibility of exercising our fair use rights), they try (and sometimes succeed) at changing laws that restrict innovation, research, development, and consumer choice, and the fines for infringement are absolutely ridiculous compared to any crime or loss the content owners incur. I could go on and on.
Walmart isn't the only game in town, and neither is Netflix or Blockbuster for online rental stores. There are at least 4 competitive adult rental stores that can be found easily by googling.
They work basically like netflix. The only drawback I see is there is limited availability on the more popular movies, but since you can have an unlimited queue and most of the Adult movies are basically the same, this is generally not a problem.
I'm actually not looking forward to either format. They'll probably sell well for a while, but I expect they will get crushed when holographic disks come out, not only due to the storage space (>200GB to 1600GB), but also due to a significantly increased transfer speed and faster access times.
Some manufacturers already have working prototypes and are planning (hoping?) to ship to OEMs in 2006.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx? NewsId=11966
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/news/index.htm l>
As much as new technology and R&D is great, I am looking for better integration of current technology.
It looks like the XBOX 360 has the potential for this. I've looked for a device I can plug into my home theater system that will do gaming, serve up music, movies, pictures, etc.
If they include a way to stream movies from my windows PC to the XBOX with reasonable quality, I might just buy a couple of 250-400 GB drives and rip all my movies to the PC.
If the new XBOX makes it easy to add on extra peripherals (like keyboard and mouse), it will be much more valuable than just a console.
And I may buy more games for the XBOX than I do for the PC, if the interface is more diverse and the graphics are excellent on HDTV.
I'd love to see technology move forward and improve, but I would also like to see us take advantage of the existing technology and make it user friendly for the masses.
Great Rant. Maybe you should tell that to your boss, who has kids.
Or to put things in perspective, you were once a kid. How cool would it have been if you were stuck in the nurses office with a bloody nose or with the flu, and had to wait until one of your parents has a lunch break? While you may not agree, our society makes concessions for raising children. While you may choose not to have kids, your parents did - and thus you've already reaped your benefits that you are now paying for.
If you are stuck with the bad hours or travel, maybe you should be unavailable and have plans next time. You might get stuck with these assignments and hours because it is known that you are flexible and available, not just because you have no wife/kids.
"You guys for the Greens and Libertarians do know you're just throwing your votes away right? The reason all of these republicans are in power is because the liberal voters are split between the democrats and the third parties, while the conservatives are all focused on the one, republican party"
As a conservative Libertarian, I disagree. There are plenty of conservatives that feel disenfranchised by the neo-Con Republican party.
I liked the old Republican party, when the Federal government was smaller, and government at least attempted to be fiscally responsible (balanced budgets - or at least closer to balanced).
It disappoints me that Democrats assume that my vote, if forced to go to one of the big 2, would necessarily go to a Democrat. I would happily vote for a Democrat that protects civil liberties, without spending too much and increasing the size of government. I would vote for a Republican that is fiscally conservative, that lowers regulations and keeps the government away from my private decisions.
Neither exists - so I vote Libertarian. But I have always leaned slightly conservative or Republican. Don't assume Democrats are the default vote, when excluding 3rd parties.
For some true conservative (NOT Republican) viewpoints, go to www.cato.org
I love that they represent smaller government, more states rights, property ownership, and the constitution, something both the D's and R's are opposed to, except when there is a direct payback to their reelection campaign.
I'm glad that the "Assault Weapon" ban is set to expire - since it was rights restrictive and provided no real benefits. Too bad California passed a more restrictive ban.
US reactors also have a negative moderator temperature coefficient - which basically means that as the temperature rises, the number of fission reactions decreases. I think it has something to do with the neutron absortion rate.
In a BWR, the boiling action carries the heat produced away - and it also is an integral part of maintaining the reaction. If the pumps stop, the reactor will not run away.
"If you know someone who is using Netflix right now ask them about the service? Do they like it?"
I am a netflix customer. Their service is very fast. Due to various distribution centers, they ship very quickly. I have found that I can, using their 3 DVD at a time service, can cycle 6 DVDs a week, every week.
I get 3 DVDs on Saturday. I put them in the mail on Monday. I get 3 new DVDs on Wednesday, and put them in the mail the next day. I get the next shipment by Saturday. Keep repeating this and you can get at least 24 movies a month.
Their rental system is easy to use. You just create a list of movies (your queue) and it picks them off, 3 at a time, or 2, or 5, depending on your subscription.
You could even stagger the movies out so you receive a new one just about every day mail is delivered. You don't need to send them all at the same time - that's just what works for me.
Cost wise, I pay less than $1 per movie. That is very reasonable to me.
Due to the greedy pricepoint, I never rent pay per view movies, and likewise will not use video on demand. If they set the pricepoint at $1 per movie or had bulk pricing of 15 movies/month for ~ $14.99 a month, I might consider it. But for the deal I get with Netflix, the convenience, the gas I save, I don't see myseld leaving the service anytime soon.
I find it strange that pay-per-view is so expensive. The same signal is being beamed onto my dish regardless if I pay or not. I would think the volume would more than triple if the cost per movie were 1/4, or they would get more total revenue by selling a bulk amount per month, even $5 for 5 movies - since it is better than what I currently average - ZERO.
I would pay for Ultima 1-5 redone with updated graphics, slightly better interaction, and the story left completely intact.
I wish companies would bring back some of the great games of the past with updated graphics, sound, and interfaces - and designed to work on modern systems without running in turbo blur mode.
If I was a DirecTV customer, I would care, as do many others.
I do not live in a major metropolitan area, so I do not get a very good signal (analog or digital) from the local stations. Many people also have issues due to terrain. With satellite, line of sight is much better (either you get it or you don't), and barring severe weather, the signal is much more dependable.
I currently get my locals on Dish, just not in HDTV. And due to market rules, I do not qualify to receive the distant network HD feeds. So if they did add locals in HDTV, it would be an appreciated increase in service.
"Imagine you had a political website. Now imagine that some web browser was programmed to leave out certain words in your site, changing the message you are delivering. Would you be happy with that situation? I don't think so. But suddenly it is okay if it's someone *else's* expression that is being misrepresented, just because it's more convenient for you?"
You seem to be missing the point - this should not be an issue if YOU are in control of your web browser. The problem is when someone else controls the abilty to choose what we watch, how we watch it, or even what filters we choose to apply. If you choose to watch a movie while blinking continuously, or even use a movie to help fall asleep, the movie studios, actors, producers, directors, and corporations should have no say and no contol over how you experience content they created, which you now own a legal copy of.
If Internet Explorer or Firefox automatically applied filtering, I would have a problem with it. If they offered user controlled selective filtering, I'd appreciate it. And if someone else chooses to view this post via user applied filters, so be it.
Check out www.LP.org for the Libertarian Party official positions.
Some people call themselves libertarians, which is different from the party.
The Libertarian Party very much supports the Constitution, and is against government intervention. The Libertarian Party believes in allowing the free market to flourish without undue intervention. The Libertarian Party believes in self responsibility.
The Democrats believe in Social Freedom, but Fiscal Control over the lives of the populace (universal healthcare).
The Republicans believe in Economic Freedom, with social controls over the populace (abortion, drugs, censorship).
Libertarians believe in both economic and social freedom.
I know it is a lot more complicated than that, and the Republican and Democrat lines are blurring together and becoming harder to distinguish. The only thing both parties stand for is money, power, and personal (politicians and their friends) economic advantage.
"For example, the deregulation of the energy market in California was botched big time, and the energy consumers were gouged by the likes of Enron. "
The energy consumers and the regulated utilities are both paying the price. Deregulation isn't a bad thing.
The problems in California were caused by:
1) Disallowing the utilities to set up long term contracts for power. The legislature wanted to encourage an energy market to develop - and we got one, only it was quite volatile and open to market gaming.
2) Requiring utilities to serve all customers without allowing them to pass on the costs to consumers (laws of supply and demand did not apply). If prices could have been ratcheted up, people would have used less power at up to $1.00/kwh. Even charging customers double what they were used to ($.20/kwh) would have curbed demand and prices would not have been so outrageous. We also would not be paying for less than 1 years excesses over the next 10 years.
3) A slow acting legislature and governor did not help when the system was obviously hemmoraging. They were more concerned with passing the blame than fixing the problem.
Lastly, I don't think Enron deserves all the credit they are getting. They did not cause the situation - they did take advantage of it as did many others. I think they are just an easy target used to focus blame on, when there was plenty of incompetence and dishonesty to go around.
I was thinking nearly the same thing - use a vacuum cleaner. With a strong vacuum, whatever sticks to the suit sticks to it. Remove suit in entry area per preocedures which lower the chance of knocking dust off. Have a heavy duty hepa filter pulling air from the ship to the entry area to limit spread.
It'd be kinda like taking off the shoes in the entry way. It may not be 100% effective, but how much needs to be done to be safe in a practical manner.
If only more politicians were honest, and believed in the sanctity of the constitution in order to support the things we hold most dear as a society.
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
It's great that you can make a living doing something you love to do. It's too bad that you have to do it in an industry that has colluded to defraud the public by price fixing, media ownership consolidation, and buying Orwellian laws.
Had the RIAA, MPAA, or any of the other major media organizations not taken such a greedy view on DRM, maybe I would support it. I would hope that artists like yourself would support DRM only to the point where it keeps individuals from mass distributing copies, and does so in the least restrictive manner possible. When an industry embraces DRM (and laws which support it) to exercise further control over the market at the expense of the public, that just isn't right.
When the industry continues to push for tighter controls, ones that would restrict technology and fair use rights, so they can charge an additional fee for any miniscule functionality, that just isn't right.
Copyright is way out of balance. What was wrong with the previous 28 years of protection, or 50 even? Why must a work produced be given such a long monopoly that it can never enter the public domain within a persons lifetime? With effective DRM - what is to protect our legitimate purchases in the future from continuing to function?
Why should the content producer be allowed to control if I take a clip of their work for a transformative purpose, or even for comment or educational purposes? Why should the content producer be allowed to control if I record a movie or radio program for later viewing/listening (timeshifting) or for transferring to a protable device of my choosing (spaceshifting)? Why shouldn't I be able to edit out certain portions I don't wish for my children (if I really had any) to view/hear? Why shouldn't I be able to fast forward or bring up the menu in my DVD player for a movie I legitimately purchased. What's next - controlling the volume and whether I can turn the TV off at all?
The sad thing is games, movies, and music are often more valuable to the end user when they are bootleg or illegal because of the lack of restrictions.
I would have more respect for artists and the industry (RIAA/MPAA) in general, if their stated purpose and proposed actions were geared solely to keep people from mass distributing works in their entirety (or at least a large gross%). Since their goals are much further reaching, I have no respect for their DRM and none of the current models are acceptable.
In my area, they have a much more practical approach. There are three sizes of trash cans. Each costs a different amount per month. If you use a small can (and generate less trash), you pay less. Although you are paying for capacity and not actual usage.
Another thing to consider is the service costs roughly the same regardless of the volume or weight of trash you produce. Many of the costs are fixed and not dependent on trash volume.
"If we accept this logic, then we must also accept the conclusion that minors should not be exposed to influences that might cause them to go "over the edge"."
Baseball and schoolwork MIGHT cause them to go "over the edge." If we are going to push a standard or restriction, it should be one that has credible evidence that one thing caused another, and be weighed against the societal costs of lost freedoms the rest of us who can take it.
"I think the rat bastards should fry, and you do not...we are allowed to think differently:)"
Actually, we are in agreement on this issue. I, in general, support the death penalty. I am just looking at it from a practical perspective. The death penalty already has enough opposition and is difficult enough to determine when it does or doesn't apply. I am in favor of setting the bar at 18 years old because it draws a clear line consistent with labelling someone an adult, and it removes the burdensome expenses of trying a death penalty case and working through all the appeals (including the age based ones).
The costs may be due to BS red tape, but they are real. Given the current system, and the real tax dollars, I think the costs to society should be a consideration. One also has to consider that the appeals for someone under 18 could be much more extensive due to the age/maturity/responsibility/ emotional development arguments.
I don't really care if the death penalty can or cannot be applied to minors - as long as they can still be tried as an adult and receive life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Removing the death penalty for minors and keeping the really bad ones in prison for life will probably save tax payers millions (due to all the appeals), and will still not be a free pass.
One of my favorite turn based games is still XCOM. Plan bases, hire and equip soldiers, shoot down alien craft, take out the aliens, capture and research their technology, and save the world.
You are better off running XCOM on a slower computer (my XP 1800 was a bit fast) and there is a patch to make the game work with current videocards (replaces the.exe file). A 500-900 Mhz machine would work great.
The advantage of the audio channels is reducing the cables down to 1. HDMI is supposed to be a smaller cable capable of longer runs. I see the audio thing as an advantage for consumers that have a cable/sat receiver to TV only setup.
If audio receivers had a bunch of HDMI inputs that they can pass through to the TV, this would be even better - 1 cable per device, all feeding into the audio receiver and the video fed to the TV.
I remember about 10 years back talking to one of the managers for Sony about changes we would see in the future. At the time, he predicted that we would move from an ownership society to a rent and lease society.
Look at things now - think about all the things you pay a monthly subscription for. DRM locks or at least partially disables your ability to make use of content in a way you see fit. You now have to ask permission in order to access things - or have to buy add on products from the authorized supplier. Look at print cartridges (luckily the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this), ITunes, WindowsXP, etc. Everything is licensed and we have less and less control.
Even Apple showed that they could change the way content you already purchased functions.
Further down the line, we may not even purchase programs - they may exist on servers that we have access to, where you pay a monthly fee for the right to use.
The **AA industry has shown that it can force the public to adopt technology that does not necessarily benefit consumers - like not being able to fast forward through a commercial on a DVD.
With enough controls transferred to corporations by law, and consumer level gadgets outawed, corporations can move on to the next frontier - discriminatory pricing. We've already seen a few first attempts at this with regional coding on DVDs. Sure there are workarounds - but the industry keeps getting better at schemes to lock the consumer in.
So this really is a big deal - why should content creators have sway over the law at the expense of consumers and the free market?
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing could easily be said about the inverse... What natural right does a content creator or copyright owner have to control what I can see, what I can hear, what I can transform, and what I can copy. It seems much more natural for people to be able to freely copy what they see than put restrictions on it. I may not be able to invade someones home as that would be violating a "natural property right". However, if someone releases their work to the public, it is less natural for there to be artificial restrictions on what I do with said content - particularly after I have paid for it. At one time, I might have cared about the artists, the producers, and all the people in the production chain, and maybe even the corporation which is part of the structure (investment). But given that the RIAA/MPAA basically control what physical media is the defacto standard, they engage in price fixing, they buy laws which the general public does not want, they support media consolidation, they abuse artists, they want to lock up content (and eliminate the possibility of exercising our fair use rights), they try (and sometimes succeed) at changing laws that restrict innovation, research, development, and consumer choice, and the fines for infringement are absolutely ridiculous compared to any crime or loss the content owners incur. I could go on and on.
Walmart isn't the only game in town, and neither is Netflix or Blockbuster for online rental stores. There are at least 4 competitive adult rental stores that can be found easily by googling.
Here's one: http://www.sugardvd.com/
They work basically like netflix. The only drawback I see is there is limited availability on the more popular movies, but since you can have an unlimited queue and most of the Adult movies are basically the same, this is generally not a problem.
I'm actually not looking forward to either format. They'll probably sell well for a while, but I expect they will get crushed when holographic disks come out, not only due to the storage space (>200GB to 1600GB), but also due to a significantly increased transfer speed and faster access times. Some manufacturers already have working prototypes and are planning (hoping?) to ship to OEMs in 2006. http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx? NewsId=11966
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/news/index.htm l>
As much as new technology and R&D is great, I am looking for better integration of current technology.
It looks like the XBOX 360 has the potential for this. I've looked for a device I can plug into my home theater system that will do gaming, serve up music, movies, pictures, etc.
If they include a way to stream movies from my windows PC to the XBOX with reasonable quality, I might just buy a couple of 250-400 GB drives and rip all my movies to the PC.
If the new XBOX makes it easy to add on extra peripherals (like keyboard and mouse), it will be much more valuable than just a console.
And I may buy more games for the XBOX than I do for the PC, if the interface is more diverse and the graphics are excellent on HDTV.
I'd love to see technology move forward and improve, but I would also like to see us take advantage of the existing technology and make it user friendly for the masses.
Great Rant. Maybe you should tell that to your boss, who has kids.
Or to put things in perspective, you were once a kid. How cool would it have been if you were stuck in the nurses office with a bloody nose or with the flu, and had to wait until one of your parents has a lunch break? While you may not agree, our society makes concessions for raising children. While you may choose not to have kids, your parents did - and thus you've already reaped your benefits that you are now paying for.
If you are stuck with the bad hours or travel, maybe you should be unavailable and have plans next time. You might get stuck with these assignments and hours because it is known that you are flexible and available, not just because you have no wife/kids.
"You guys for the Greens and Libertarians do know you're just throwing your votes away right? The reason all of these republicans are in power is because the liberal voters are split between the democrats and the third parties, while the conservatives are all focused on the one, republican party"
As a conservative Libertarian, I disagree. There are plenty of conservatives that feel disenfranchised by the neo-Con Republican party.
I liked the old Republican party, when the Federal government was smaller, and government at least attempted to be fiscally responsible (balanced budgets - or at least closer to balanced).
It disappoints me that Democrats assume that my vote, if forced to go to one of the big 2, would necessarily go to a Democrat. I would happily vote for a Democrat that protects civil liberties, without spending too much and increasing the size of government. I would vote for a Republican that is fiscally conservative, that lowers regulations and keeps the government away from my private decisions.
Neither exists - so I vote Libertarian. But I have always leaned slightly conservative or Republican. Don't assume Democrats are the default vote, when excluding 3rd parties.
Well said.
For some true conservative (NOT Republican) viewpoints, go to www.cato.org
I love that they represent smaller government, more states rights, property ownership, and the constitution, something both the D's and R's are opposed to, except when there is a direct payback to their reelection campaign.
I'm glad that the "Assault Weapon" ban is set to expire - since it was rights restrictive and provided no real benefits. Too bad California passed a more restrictive ban.
US reactors also have a negative moderator temperature coefficient - which basically means that as the temperature rises, the number of fission reactions decreases. I think it has something to do with the neutron absortion rate.
In a BWR, the boiling action carries the heat produced away - and it also is an integral part of maintaining the reaction. If the pumps stop, the reactor will not run away.
"If you know someone who is using Netflix right now ask them about the service? Do they like it?"
I am a netflix customer. Their service is very fast. Due to various distribution centers, they ship very quickly. I have found that I can, using their 3 DVD at a time service, can cycle 6 DVDs a week, every week.
I get 3 DVDs on Saturday. I put them in the mail on Monday. I get 3 new DVDs on Wednesday, and put them in the mail the next day. I get the next shipment by Saturday. Keep repeating this and you can get at least 24 movies a month.
Their rental system is easy to use. You just create a list of movies (your queue) and it picks them off, 3 at a time, or 2, or 5, depending on your subscription.
You could even stagger the movies out so you receive a new one just about every day mail is delivered. You don't need to send them all at the same time - that's just what works for me.
Cost wise, I pay less than $1 per movie. That is very reasonable to me.
Due to the greedy pricepoint, I never rent pay per view movies, and likewise will not use video on demand. If they set the pricepoint at $1 per movie or had bulk pricing of 15 movies/month for ~ $14.99 a month, I might consider it. But for the deal I get with Netflix, the convenience, the gas I save, I don't see myseld leaving the service anytime soon.
I find it strange that pay-per-view is so expensive. The same signal is being beamed onto my dish regardless if I pay or not. I would think the volume would more than triple if the cost per movie were 1/4, or they would get more total revenue by selling a bulk amount per month, even $5 for 5 movies - since it is better than what I currently average - ZERO.
I would pay for Ultima 1-5 redone with updated graphics, slightly better interaction, and the story left completely intact.
I wish companies would bring back some of the great games of the past with updated graphics, sound, and interfaces - and designed to work on modern systems without running in turbo blur mode.
If I was a DirecTV customer, I would care, as do many others.
I do not live in a major metropolitan area, so I do not get a very good signal (analog or digital) from the local stations. Many people also have issues due to terrain. With satellite, line of sight is much better (either you get it or you don't), and barring severe weather, the signal is much more dependable.
I currently get my locals on Dish, just not in HDTV. And due to market rules, I do not qualify to receive the distant network HD feeds. So if they did add locals in HDTV, it would be an appreciated increase in service.
"Imagine you had a political website. Now imagine that some web browser was programmed to leave out certain words in your site, changing the message you are delivering. Would you be happy with that situation? I don't think so. But suddenly it is okay if it's someone *else's* expression that is being misrepresented, just because it's more convenient for you?"
You seem to be missing the point - this should not be an issue if YOU are in control of your web browser. The problem is when someone else controls the abilty to choose what we watch, how we watch it, or even what filters we choose to apply. If you choose to watch a movie while blinking continuously, or even use a movie to help fall asleep, the movie studios, actors, producers, directors, and corporations should have no say and no contol over how you experience content they created, which you now own a legal copy of.
If Internet Explorer or Firefox automatically applied filtering, I would have a problem with it. If they offered user controlled selective filtering, I'd appreciate it. And if someone else chooses to view this post via user applied filters, so be it.
Check out www.LP.org for the Libertarian Party official positions.
Some people call themselves libertarians, which is different from the party.
The Libertarian Party very much supports the Constitution, and is against government intervention. The Libertarian Party believes in allowing the free market to flourish without undue intervention. The Libertarian Party believes in self responsibility.
The Democrats believe in Social Freedom, but Fiscal Control over the lives of the populace (universal healthcare).
The Republicans believe in Economic Freedom, with social controls over the populace (abortion, drugs, censorship).
Libertarians believe in both economic and social freedom.
I know it is a lot more complicated than that, and the Republican and Democrat lines are blurring together and becoming harder to distinguish. The only thing both parties stand for is money, power, and personal (politicians and their friends) economic advantage.
"For example, the deregulation of the energy market in California was botched big time, and the energy consumers were gouged by the likes of Enron. "
The energy consumers and the regulated utilities are both paying the price. Deregulation isn't a bad thing.
The problems in California were caused by:
1) Disallowing the utilities to set up long term contracts for power. The legislature wanted to encourage an energy market to develop - and we got one, only it was quite volatile and open to market gaming.
2) Requiring utilities to serve all customers without allowing them to pass on the costs to consumers (laws of supply and demand did not apply). If prices could have been ratcheted up, people would have used less power at up to $1.00/kwh. Even charging customers double what they were used to ($.20/kwh) would have curbed demand and prices would not have been so outrageous. We also would not be paying for less than 1 years excesses over the next 10 years.
3) A slow acting legislature and governor did not help when the system was obviously hemmoraging. They were more concerned with passing the blame than fixing the problem.
Lastly, I don't think Enron deserves all the credit they are getting. They did not cause the situation - they did take advantage of it as did many others. I think they are just an easy target used to focus blame on, when there was plenty of incompetence and dishonesty to go around.
I was thinking nearly the same thing - use a vacuum cleaner. With a strong vacuum, whatever sticks to the suit sticks to it. Remove suit in entry area per preocedures which lower the chance of knocking dust off. Have a heavy duty hepa filter pulling air from the ship to the entry area to limit spread.
It'd be kinda like taking off the shoes in the entry way. It may not be 100% effective, but how much needs to be done to be safe in a practical manner.
If only more politicians were honest, and believed in the sanctity of the constitution in order to support the things we hold most dear as a society. http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
It's great that you can make a living doing something you love to do. It's too bad that you have to do it in an industry that has colluded to defraud the public by price fixing, media ownership consolidation, and buying Orwellian laws.
Had the RIAA, MPAA, or any of the other major media organizations not taken such a greedy view on DRM, maybe I would support it. I would hope that artists like yourself would support DRM only to the point where it keeps individuals from mass distributing copies, and does so in the least restrictive manner possible. When an industry embraces DRM (and laws which support it) to exercise further control over the market at the expense of the public, that just isn't right.
When the industry continues to push for tighter controls, ones that would restrict technology and fair use rights, so they can charge an additional fee for any miniscule functionality, that just isn't right.
Copyright is way out of balance. What was wrong with the previous 28 years of protection, or 50 even? Why must a work produced be given such a long monopoly that it can never enter the public domain within a persons lifetime? With effective DRM - what is to protect our legitimate purchases in the future from continuing to function?
Why should the content producer be allowed to control if I take a clip of their work for a transformative purpose, or even for comment or educational purposes? Why should the content producer be allowed to control if I record a movie or radio program for later viewing/listening (timeshifting) or for transferring to a protable device of my choosing (spaceshifting)? Why shouldn't I be able to edit out certain portions I don't wish for my children (if I really had any) to view/hear? Why shouldn't I be able to fast forward or bring up the menu in my DVD player for a movie I legitimately purchased. What's next - controlling the volume and whether I can turn the TV off at all?
The sad thing is games, movies, and music are often more valuable to the end user when they are bootleg or illegal because of the lack of restrictions.
I would have more respect for artists and the industry (RIAA/MPAA) in general, if their stated purpose and proposed actions were geared solely to keep people from mass distributing works in their entirety (or at least a large gross%). Since their goals are much further reaching, I have no respect for their DRM and none of the current models are acceptable.
In my area, they have a much more practical approach. There are three sizes of trash cans. Each costs a different amount per month. If you use a small can (and generate less trash), you pay less. Although you are paying for capacity and not actual usage.
Another thing to consider is the service costs roughly the same regardless of the volume or weight of trash you produce. Many of the costs are fixed and not dependent on trash volume.
I totally disagree with this:
"If we accept this logic, then we must also accept the conclusion that minors should not be exposed to influences that might cause them to go "over the edge"."
Baseball and schoolwork MIGHT cause them to go "over the edge." If we are going to push a standard or restriction, it should be one that has credible evidence that one thing caused another, and be weighed against the societal costs of lost freedoms the rest of us who can take it.
"I think the rat bastards should fry, and you do not...we are allowed to think differently :)"
Actually, we are in agreement on this issue. I, in general, support the death penalty. I am just looking at it from a practical perspective. The death penalty already has enough opposition and is difficult enough to determine when it does or doesn't apply. I am in favor of setting the bar at 18 years old because it draws a clear line consistent with labelling someone an adult, and it removes the burdensome expenses of trying a death penalty case and working through all the appeals (including the age based ones).
The costs may be due to BS red tape, but they are real. Given the current system, and the real tax dollars, I think the costs to society should be a consideration. One also has to consider that the appeals for someone under 18 could be much more extensive due to the age/maturity/responsibility/ emotional development arguments.
4 5&did=385
c le?AID=/20050220/OPINION03/502190321/1058
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti
http://www.nyadp.org/main/police811.html
Here's a few sources I found - if you want more, google them "death penalty taxpayers millions"
I don't really care if the death penalty can or cannot be applied to minors - as long as they can still be tried as an adult and receive life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Removing the death penalty for minors and keeping the really bad ones in prison for life will probably save tax payers millions (due to all the appeals), and will still not be a free pass.
One of my favorite turn based games is still XCOM. Plan bases, hire and equip soldiers, shoot down alien craft, take out the aliens, capture and research their technology, and save the world.
.exe file). A 500-900 Mhz machine would work great.
You are better off running XCOM on a slower computer (my XP 1800 was a bit fast) and there is a patch to make the game work with current videocards (replaces the
The advantage of the audio channels is reducing the cables down to 1. HDMI is supposed to be a smaller cable capable of longer runs. I see the audio thing as an advantage for consumers that have a cable/sat receiver to TV only setup. If audio receivers had a bunch of HDMI inputs that they can pass through to the TV, this would be even better - 1 cable per device, all feeding into the audio receiver and the video fed to the TV.
I remember about 10 years back talking to one of the managers for Sony about changes we would see in the future. At the time, he predicted that we would move from an ownership society to a rent and lease society.
Look at things now - think about all the things you pay a monthly subscription for. DRM locks or at least partially disables your ability to make use of content in a way you see fit. You now have to ask permission in order to access things - or have to buy add on products from the authorized supplier. Look at print cartridges (luckily the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this), ITunes, WindowsXP, etc. Everything is licensed and we have less and less control.
Even Apple showed that they could change the way content you already purchased functions.
Further down the line, we may not even purchase programs - they may exist on servers that we have access to, where you pay a monthly fee for the right to use.
The **AA industry has shown that it can force the public to adopt technology that does not necessarily benefit consumers - like not being able to fast forward through a commercial on a DVD.
With enough controls transferred to corporations by law, and consumer level gadgets outawed, corporations can move on to the next frontier - discriminatory pricing. We've already seen a few first attempts at this with regional coding on DVDs. Sure there are workarounds - but the industry keeps getting better at schemes to lock the consumer in.
So this really is a big deal - why should content creators have sway over the law at the expense of consumers and the free market?