No I work for a small medical research company. However I do feel that if I come up with something i should get to decide how or if I license it.
It supports the notion that they are unfriendly to free and open standards, and like to get license fees out of people for trivial patents.
I think the fact that they are trying to publish standards says otherwise. You do whatever you like with your standards, but there's nothing wrong with a firm developing thier own standards for their own systems. There was no reason for anyone that was using FAT w/o a license to do so, as you can use cdfs or ext2/3 on a floppy, and I'm sure there's a host of others. If you have a problem with the patent system thats one thing, but aside from this one case of suing someone that used a patented technology wihtout a license there's no bases to say that MS makes a habit of patenting something, getting it as an approved standard and then sueing implementors.
You're living in a fantasy world. MS has been run by the same two guys since it started--look it up. One of those guys owns so much stock that nothing that shareholders do will unseat him. Shareholder revolts are extremely rare at any company, but MS is the last place they'd ever happen. And anti-trust suits aren't a problem for MS: antitrust is a criminal matter, not civil, and the DoJ has already shown they're not interested in pursuing anti-trust action against anyone, especially MS. MS has nothing to fear in the antitrust department. Even if they did, the cost of the lawsuit is less then the money to be gained by putting competitors out of business.
Sorry, its you thats living in a fantasy world. You cannot come up with any examples of MS submitting something as a standard and then suing over patent infringment. All you have are lame "M$ is the suxx1!!1!" arguments.
You realize that the other 49% (or whatever the % is) of MS shareholders could still sue if the stocks took hit because of a blatently dangerous tactic. You're also a nut if you think that MS couldn't get into anymore trouble with anti trust problems. Get your head out of your ass and join us in the real world.
I don't consider providing ratings and a method to filter them to be censorship. Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement.
On this one I might be able to provide a bit of help. It's not quite out yet, but Amazon.com is taking preorders for $39.99. Release date for the PSP is September 1. Release date for the PS2 and Wii is October 1. Enjoy!;)
It does seem to be at the center of our disagreement. However, your sources are incorrect. Until the AO rating is overcome (by censoring the game), it will NOT be allowed for sale. Its been specifically banned for sale in the US. Check out the games section for/., the latest update is that TT is appealing the British decision (and probably the US one as well).
Erm, the advertisement against pirating at the beginning of movies?;) Just kidding. The only TV the kids have watched recently is from videos, but the next time I see one, I'll let you know. Usually they are advertisements for movies.
I find that odd, because movie trailers even for R rated movies are pretty watered down. The ratings themselves are rated if shown on a DVD or in the theater.
If you can find a way to get this done without making laws or ended up with only one model of TV that provides the option, please let me know.
You can screen what your kids watch before they watch it. More effort on you, but I assume you knew having kids would be a daunting task.
Ah, so here's the real thorn. And you know what? I support you on this feeling. The public schools around here are so horrible that we don't even use them. We're shelling out extra bucks to send the kids to private school, and yet we're still paying the property taxes to support what I consider a failed system. Worse yet, we have this local earned income tax that partly goes to the education system. Somehow, private school still manages to cost less than public school. So I share your frustration, if for slightly different reasons.
Its another thorn, not the main one. I would love TV, movies, music and video games to push the edge more and more... but this is not possible because of the ratings systems in place. Having people rate things, enforcement and chips to filter rated material costs everyone money too. Maybe games would be just a little cheaper if they didn't need lawyers around because some dopy parent blames the game instead of their parenting, and didn't need to buy approval from the ESRB.
I agree that you shouldn't pay into a system you're not using as well.
Actually, this isn't true, at least not around where I live. Most of the homeowners here have children, and we have consistently voted against property tax increases (at least when given the option). We just recently voted down (with a vengeance) a proposal to increase the local earned income tax to add to the school budget. I personally have never met _anybody_ that thinks the school budget (let alone property taxes) needs to go up. And yet the board of supervisors keeps raising the taxes. We even voted one of the worst offenders of tax increases off the board, but the taxes keep going up. Several off us (all with children) are starting to look at other counties (and states) to move to because of the ridiculous tax burden. The truth is that it isn't the children that are making your taxes go up. It's the politicians, and they are using the children as an excuse. If we didn't have a public school system, the politicians would just find another way to separate you from your money.
Ahh, you see here in Vermont things are a bit different. We actually get to vote on whether or not to increase the school budget. The budget of course comes from property taxes, but who can say no to the children?? (Sorry for the sarcasm.) We also get to vote to close certain schools which are literally less than half full. But even that gets shot down, for some vague "keep neighborhood schools!" rallying cry. Nevermind that you can drive through the city north to south in about 20 minutes... Its not a big city at all, but people seem to think kids taking a bus is a bad thing.
Go re-read my prior post. I never said they did; I said it's a de facto standard, and now they're trying to shake companies down for license fees. It's part of their pattern.
It doesn't support the notion that MS submitted to a standards body and then sued over patent rights. A defacto standard is not a published standard. So if their pattern is sueing people that violate their patent (which they did NOT license anyone to use) then yes, it fits their pattern. It doesn't fit the pattern of pushing for a published standard and then sueing.
It's a prime example of bad business practices (submitting something as a standard and then suing for patent violations). It's the kind of thing MS would do if they got their crap approved as standards.
What RAMBUS did is irrelevent to what MS may or may not do. All you're doing is speculating.. and now its not even what MS has done, its based on what another unrelated company has done.
It's useless for everyone else. If they want to just keep it to themselves for use in MS Office, that's fine; so why are they going to ISO trying to get it approved as an "open standard", when it's anything but open?
If its useless I really doubt it'd get approved. Do you have other ISO approved standards that are useless to everyone but one company?
A covenant not to sue is pretty worthless too, since they can just change their minds at any time.
Not really, especially if they promised in writing. A judge very likely would consider that a binding contract to anyone that implements the standard.
Wrong. MS is a person, actually two people and some henchmen. These two people have been running the company the whole time, so you absolutely can predict the company's future behavior based on its past behavior, just like you can predict a serial killer's behavior. There aren't different political ideas fighting within it; that's utterly ridiculous. Companies aren't democracies, they're dictatorships. Nothing high-level happens without the CEO's approval.
Not true. Go research the internal politics of getting VS Express released as a free download. Its true that decisions need to be approved, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the company is in lock step and cannot sway the decision maker.
If MS ever gets totally different leadership, then it would make sense to give them the benefit of the doubt. But for now, the same two criminals are running the company who have always been running it, and to assume that they might change their behavior at any time is utter lunacy.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. MS is a publicly traded company, so saying two people run it is bull. Shareholders as a rule don't like lawsuits, especially when it can harm their stock. MS also would probably rather spend money on other things than defending itself against more lawsuits. It doesn't make business sense to stir up more anti-trust suits.
As to causes of obesity: I think the worst one is that people don't really know what to do about it. There are so many different books, diet plans, etc. and it's hard to figure out which one works.
No, I'm convienced the cause of obesity are lazy people without any self control. The way to lose weight is to consume less calories. You also should exercise to increase calories burned. It really is that simple. But people are lazy and don't have the self control to tell themselves no.
Every overweight person I've met has filled this criteria, and it was further re-enforced while my wife worked getting precertifications for gastric bypass surgery (which is never needed).
Its probably that belief that keeps them poor and in remedial classes.
This doesn't apply to just blacks... it seems poor and stupid go hand in hand. They're all probably capable of more too, but are just too stupid to realize that being stupid will hold them back..
I was with you until you started on your sterotyping rant. Preppies aren't the kids that were doing well; they were the ones who had well off parents and never had to work. Kinda like the Paris Hilton you seem to hate.
The "our" word referred to those of us who are parents. You should not have considered yourself to be included in that group.
I think you see how the phrase "as adults" would lead me to believe otherwise.
Nor is it _your_ right to own a TV. That has nothing to do with it. I have absolutely no problem with bearing the expense -- I'm even willing to pay the price for the V-chip as an add-on option. If you look at one of my other posts, you'll see that. I don't expect those who have no use for the V-chip to bear the cost of it.
It is my right to have access to art, ideas and entertainment which is free of censorship though. Parents typically believe that these things should be censored to protect their kids. I'm sorry I didn't see your other posts, but I don't really have time to search the thread for your other posts or your posting history.
As one who has publicly confessed that they don't care about any following generations, I'm not sure you would be even remotely qualified to comment on what methods of raising kids are or are not appropriate. Regardless of what you may think, children who have the whole world thrown at them at once may have a very difficult time coping with it. In my opinion, introducing the realities of the world gradually (not withholding them altogether) is a better approach, and definitely isn't the same thing as being completely sheltered from the world until the time you leave home. I have witnessed the effects of "oversheltering", and they aren't good. I have no plans to make the same mistake.
I do care about the following generations, because it is for them that many want to censor and make everyone else responsible for thier choices. What I said I didn't care about was if there were any more generations.
At any rate, caring or not has nothing to do with whether I know what I'm talking about or not. Would you say a doctor that doesn't care about his patients doesn't know anything medically?
Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with restricting media content. This is a completely separate problem in our society that is related to how parents (and schools) treat problems _after_ they happen. When I was in school, there was a bully who kept calling me names. I ignored him until he started pushing me around (physically). After hearing the situation, my Dad told me I'd have to fight back. So, when he started bothering me the next day in Gym class, I pounded him to the floor. He stopped bothering me, and all the school did was give me (and him) a lecture. A similar thing happened to my son. He defended himself, and was threatened with expulsion for it. Apparently, today's society wanted me to call a lawyer and sue the other kid's parents instead of dealing with the issue directly. I feel just as annoyed as you by this sort of emasculation of society.
Sure it does. The same groups that believe we should have censorship are the ones calling to get people fired for what they've done in the context of art / entertainment. As a result more and more conent is being censored for fear of offending anyone. Its detemental to our society as a whole.
And adults don't fall into the ANYONE category?
So where may I purchase Manhunt 2? From what I understand, the game is complete. How many NC-17 or R rated movies are made?
I didn't say I found all commercials offensive, although there are a few that I find to be so. I find that _some_ of them have content not suitable for all ages. The biggest problem is that some of those come on during programming for children, which is something I'll never understand. The children generally aren't interested in the products they are selling, and parents who are watching may be irritated enough by the out-of-place content that they would avoid the product just out of spite.
I can hardly think of any commercial I find remotely offensive, even for kids. Please provide an example.
As I already said, I don't think everyone should pay
OOXML is what the default format for Office is (or is going to be) so I don't understand your claim of it being useless. I also seem to remember saying they wouldn't sue over it.
MS has done bad things in the past, but to say they'll never change (or haven't, for that matter) is just short sighted. MS isn't a person that you learn not to trust, they're a large company which many different political ideas fighting within it. You really need to learn to take things on a case by case basis.
Lets be clear here, she violated a federal law which happens to be a felony.
I'm not saying its just, or right, or that she doesn't get any leniency. I think she did something very stupid and there really ISN'T any legitmate reason to record a movie in a theater with a camcorder though. But to blame the theater manager or to say she didn't break the law is simply not true. Its also not true that she's totally innocent. As I said, there really doesn't seem to be any good reason to bring a camcorder into a theater.
That's fine and a valid point to argue; you can also try to argue if this is fair use or not. I'm not sure copying something to show someone else is fair use though. Usually fair use would include you do something other than just showing the clip, such as commenting on the scene (ala an editorial or review), using it for some sort of artistic expression, etc.
But copying for the sake of just showing someone else, I don't think that qualifies, and it would be interesting to see if a judge thinks so or not.
I don't believe you. I think recording a 20 second clip is fair use. Prove me wrong.
The the law; it doesn't make any fair use provisions, and the law has not yet been tested in court as to whether this situation is fair use. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think, that's the state of things now.
No, the OP made a blanket statement which is what I was refuting. The statement was that "if he purchased a house, he could [always] do what he wanted with it." [sic] I was pointing out that there are times when that is not true, and one of those times is when a HOA is involved. Ignoring that HOA exist is simply stupid, and the statement is equally as stupid.
In other words, his house example intentially leaves out a concept which does exist in order to prove his point. I was just pointing that out. Omission of facts is not a good way to argue.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is our responsibility as adults to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance.
Let me fix this for you.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is your responsibility as [a parent] to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance.
Its not your god given right to watch or even own a TV. It was YOUR choice to have a child, YOU pay the expense of raising it. I personally don't give a damn if there's another generation after me.
I'm really astounded that people think of the V-chip as censorship. Could somebody explain exactly how a screening tool that can be turned on or off by the owner is censorship? The V-chip is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for good and for bad. Good parents will carefully monitor what their children are watching (either to keep them away from inappropriate content or to explain questionable content). Bad parents will rely solely on the V-chip (a huge mistake) to allow them to shirk their responsibility.
Its very easy to see how v-chip + ratings system is censorship; look no further than the recent Manhunt 2 debacle. Rated AO, suddenly cannot be purchasd by ANYONE. Suddenly, other game developers are taking out content BEFORE they even submit for a rating.
have two children. I use the parental lock-down features on my cable box, but I also monitor what they are watching. The parental lock-down is nice because it cuts down on inappropriate content that may show up while I'm running through channels in the presence of my children. It also makes sure my eight-year-old isn't going to change channels to something that's not suitable for him (or his little sister) while I'm in the bathroom. But I'm also fully aware that it is not a substitute for responsible parenting.
Its good you think you're doing a good job. I'm not sure that sheltering kids is a great idea though, and i think it distorts reality for them and leaves them unable to handle pretty much anything. The Don Imas situation is a good example of this. I grew up learning the old "sticks and stones" saying. Now we have college girls crying over a stupid joke. Its no wonder we can't tackel the problems facing us today. If you can't handle THAT, how are you going to handle the really important things in life? It doesn't seem like as a nation we can anymore.
Some channels don't include rating informations for all shows (The Science Fiction channel and HDNet are two notable offenders), and the most questionable content comes from the commercials rather than the programming itself. Therefore, I make sure I'm there to explain behavior that is and is not appropriate. I like the V-chip as a tool, and nothing more. These laws aren't about mandating that people _use_ the V-chip. They are about making sure that it's available for those who _want_ to use it.
You think commercials are offensive?? Good god man. Perhaps you should move to Iran or Israel when you don't have these highly offensive content! Honestly I think commercials today are awful because they ARE so safe and cut down that there's nothing interesting about them at all.
The v-chip is fine, but I don't see why EVERYONE should pay because you want to over shelter your kids. You do what you want in your home, leave me (and my income) out of it.
I didn't use a strawman; I cited an actual case where you can own something and be restricted in its use. I think you should check the definition of the strawman argument, far too many people here use it like you have (which is also part of the definition of strawman).
You really need to go back and read the thread; I was attacking the example of owning a home which itself was a strawman for pro-mod chip argument.
If you only need a few things you should be able to carry them yourself. People are honest; its the dishonest ones that seem to shove things in thier pockets. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that who wasn't trying to steal.
It might not be "less of a standard", but it might be a less useful standard standard anyway, due to restrictions placed on its use (see JPEG2000); Microsoft specifically has a record of trying to pull crap like that.
Out of curiosity, exactly when did MS submit a standard and then sue over patent infringments?
The only reason she needs is that she wants to. But in this case she probably thought the current scene being shown was pretty cool and wasn't necessarily in the trailer, she also just wanted to play with her new camcorder
Filming movies in a theater is illegal, nevermind inconsiderate to others in the theater. If the scene she wanted to show wasn't in the trailer, tough shit. Wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. There are plenty of places to play with the camcorder; in a theater is not one of them.
That's just the thing, you don't have to have a reason to do something legal. If I were to spin around in my chair right now for no reason, should I be put in jail?
Filming a movie in a theater is illegal, so whats you're point? We're not talking about doing something legal, we're talking about breaking a law.
Oh, I don't know, he could have asked them what they were up to. If a kid is walking around a store putting stuff in his pockets how do they know he wasn't trying to steal all of it?
First, its not the managers discresion to ask. His boss told him this is the policy and its to be enforced 100% of the time. Second there's no ligitmate reason to put anything in your pockets in a store.
They law is pretty clear about this, you can't stop the kid until he's past the point of no return, ie. walking passed the register without paying. And even if they were planning on taping the whole movie, they probably would have lied and said it was just for a moment, but now they know they're being watched and wouldn't dare try and record any more, potential crime averted.
The law is clear here as well; you CANNOT record a movie in a theater. Not even one frame. The act of filming ANY of the movie is illegal, so the crime has not been averted its already been committed.
And if the theater manager wanted to be tough about it, he can ask them to leave. It's the theater's property and they don't have to allow them to stay if they break the rules, but since there's also nothing illegal about what they did either he shouldn't be able to take their footage or delete the clip.
Its not the manager's call as I've said. He has a boss that he reports to and is given no discretion in the matter. What they did IS illegal.
The blanket statement that said "I own it, I can do what I want with it" is what I was addressing. Nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't arguing as to the validity of no mod chip policies, just trying to show that even when you do own something there can be limits placed on you (either by a private party or government).
Slashdot Mirror
IIS comes with Windows servers and has an easy configuration GUI?
Are you an MS employee?
No I work for a small medical research company. However I do feel that if I come up with something i should get to decide how or if I license it.
It supports the notion that they are unfriendly to free and open standards, and like to get license fees out of people for trivial patents.
I think the fact that they are trying to publish standards says otherwise. You do whatever you like with your standards, but there's nothing wrong with a firm developing thier own standards for their own systems. There was no reason for anyone that was using FAT w/o a license to do so, as you can use cdfs or ext2/3 on a floppy, and I'm sure there's a host of others. If you have a problem with the patent system thats one thing, but aside from this one case of suing someone that used a patented technology wihtout a license there's no bases to say that MS makes a habit of patenting something, getting it as an approved standard and then sueing implementors.
You're living in a fantasy world. MS has been run by the same two guys since it started--look it up. One of those guys owns so much stock that nothing that shareholders do will unseat him. Shareholder revolts are extremely rare at any company, but MS is the last place they'd ever happen. And anti-trust suits aren't a problem for MS: antitrust is a criminal matter, not civil, and the DoJ has already shown they're not interested in pursuing anti-trust action against anyone, especially MS. MS has nothing to fear in the antitrust department. Even if they did, the cost of the lawsuit is less then the money to be gained by putting competitors out of business.
Sorry, its you thats living in a fantasy world. You cannot come up with any examples of MS submitting something as a standard and then suing over patent infringment. All you have are lame "M$ is the suxx1!!1!" arguments.
You realize that the other 49% (or whatever the % is) of MS shareholders could still sue if the stocks took hit because of a blatently dangerous tactic. You're also a nut if you think that MS couldn't get into anymore trouble with anti trust problems. Get your head out of your ass and join us in the real world.
Actually it was Eve that first at the apple, and the first sin.
Also I don't recall Jesus being sinless; there's at least one part that says he did sin.
I don't consider providing ratings and a method to filter them to be censorship. Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement.
;)
/., the latest update is that TT is appealing the British decision (and probably the US one as well).
;) Just kidding. The only TV the kids have watched recently is from videos, but the next time I see one, I'll let you know. Usually they are advertisements for movies.
On this one I might be able to provide a bit of help. It's not quite out yet, but Amazon.com is taking preorders for $39.99. Release date for the PSP is September 1. Release date for the PS2 and Wii is October 1. Enjoy!
It does seem to be at the center of our disagreement. However, your sources are incorrect. Until the AO rating is overcome (by censoring the game), it will NOT be allowed for sale. Its been specifically banned for sale in the US. Check out the games section for
Erm, the advertisement against pirating at the beginning of movies?
I find that odd, because movie trailers even for R rated movies are pretty watered down. The ratings themselves are rated if shown on a DVD or in the theater.
If you can find a way to get this done without making laws or ended up with only one model of TV that provides the option, please let me know.
You can screen what your kids watch before they watch it. More effort on you, but I assume you knew having kids would be a daunting task.
Ah, so here's the real thorn. And you know what? I support you on this feeling. The public schools around here are so horrible that we don't even use them. We're shelling out extra bucks to send the kids to private school, and yet we're still paying the property taxes to support what I consider a failed system. Worse yet, we have this local earned income tax that partly goes to the education system. Somehow, private school still manages to cost less than public school. So I share your frustration, if for slightly different reasons.
Its another thorn, not the main one. I would love TV, movies, music and video games to push the edge more and more... but this is not possible because of the ratings systems in place. Having people rate things, enforcement and chips to filter rated material costs everyone money too. Maybe games would be just a little cheaper if they didn't need lawyers around because some dopy parent blames the game instead of their parenting, and didn't need to buy approval from the ESRB.
I agree that you shouldn't pay into a system you're not using as well.
Actually, this isn't true, at least not around where I live. Most of the homeowners here have children, and we have consistently voted against property tax increases (at least when given the option). We just recently voted down (with a vengeance) a proposal to increase the local earned income tax to add to the school budget. I personally have never met _anybody_ that thinks the school budget (let alone property taxes) needs to go up. And yet the board of supervisors keeps raising the taxes. We even voted one of the worst offenders of tax increases off the board, but the taxes keep going up. Several off us (all with children) are starting to look at other counties (and states) to move to because of the ridiculous tax burden. The truth is that it isn't the children that are making your taxes go up. It's the politicians, and they are using the children as an excuse. If we didn't have a public school system, the politicians would just find another way to separate you from your money.
Ahh, you see here in Vermont things are a bit different. We actually get to vote on whether or not to increase the school budget. The budget of course comes from property taxes, but who can say no to the children?? (Sorry for the sarcasm.) We also get to vote to close certain schools which are literally less than half full. But even that gets shot down, for some vague "keep neighborhood schools!" rallying cry. Nevermind that you can drive through the city north to south in about 20 minutes... Its not a big city at all, but people seem to think kids taking a bus is a bad thing.
Go re-read my prior post. I never said they did; I said it's a de facto standard, and now they're trying to shake companies down for license fees. It's part of their pattern.
It doesn't support the notion that MS submitted to a standards body and then sued over patent rights. A defacto standard is not a published standard. So if their pattern is sueing people that violate their patent (which they did NOT license anyone to use) then yes, it fits their pattern. It doesn't fit the pattern of pushing for a published standard and then sueing.
It's a prime example of bad business practices (submitting something as a standard and then suing for patent violations). It's the kind of thing MS would do if they got their crap approved as standards.
What RAMBUS did is irrelevent to what MS may or may not do. All you're doing is speculating.. and now its not even what MS has done, its based on what another unrelated company has done.
It's useless for everyone else. If they want to just keep it to themselves for use in MS Office, that's fine; so why are they going to ISO trying to get it approved as an "open standard", when it's anything but open?
If its useless I really doubt it'd get approved. Do you have other ISO approved standards that are useless to everyone but one company?
A covenant not to sue is pretty worthless too, since they can just change their minds at any time.
Not really, especially if they promised in writing. A judge very likely would consider that a binding contract to anyone that implements the standard.
Wrong. MS is a person, actually two people and some henchmen. These two people have been running the company the whole time, so you absolutely can predict the company's future behavior based on its past behavior, just like you can predict a serial killer's behavior. There aren't different political ideas fighting within it; that's utterly ridiculous. Companies aren't democracies, they're dictatorships. Nothing high-level happens without the CEO's approval.
Not true. Go research the internal politics of getting VS Express released as a free download. Its true that decisions need to be approved, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the company is in lock step and cannot sway the decision maker.
If MS ever gets totally different leadership, then it would make sense to give them the benefit of the doubt. But for now, the same two criminals are running the company who have always been running it, and to assume that they might change their behavior at any time is utter lunacy.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. MS is a publicly traded company, so saying two people run it is bull. Shareholders as a rule don't like lawsuits, especially when it can harm their stock. MS also would probably rather spend money on other things than defending itself against more lawsuits. It doesn't make business sense to stir up more anti-trust suits.
As to causes of obesity: I think the worst one is that people don't really know what to do about it. There are so many different books, diet plans, etc. and it's hard to figure out which one works.
No, I'm convienced the cause of obesity are lazy people without any self control. The way to lose weight is to consume less calories. You also should exercise to increase calories burned. It really is that simple. But people are lazy and don't have the self control to tell themselves no.
Every overweight person I've met has filled this criteria, and it was further re-enforced while my wife worked getting precertifications for gastric bypass surgery (which is never needed).
Its probably that belief that keeps them poor and in remedial classes.
This doesn't apply to just blacks... it seems poor and stupid go hand in hand. They're all probably capable of more too, but are just too stupid to realize that being stupid will hold them back..
What smart girl would want to walk around looking like some sort of scantily clad makeup covered blowup doll?
One that actually wants to have a relationship with a man?
I was with you until you started on your sterotyping rant. Preppies aren't the kids that were doing well; they were the ones who had well off parents and never had to work. Kinda like the Paris Hilton you seem to hate.
Hmm, I'd rather have no ESRB and no goverment intervention, aka censorship. Yes, that's what I'd prefer most.
The "our" word referred to those of us who are parents. You should not have considered yourself to be included in that group.
I think you see how the phrase "as adults" would lead me to believe otherwise.
Nor is it _your_ right to own a TV. That has nothing to do with it. I have absolutely no problem with bearing the expense -- I'm even willing to pay the price for the V-chip as an add-on option. If you look at one of my other posts, you'll see that. I don't expect those who have no use for the V-chip to bear the cost of it.
It is my right to have access to art, ideas and entertainment which is free of censorship though. Parents typically believe that these things should be censored to protect their kids. I'm sorry I didn't see your other posts, but I don't really have time to search the thread for your other posts or your posting history.
As one who has publicly confessed that they don't care about any following generations, I'm not sure you would be even remotely qualified to comment on what methods of raising kids are or are not appropriate. Regardless of what you may think, children who have the whole world thrown at them at once may have a very difficult time coping with it. In my opinion, introducing the realities of the world gradually (not withholding them altogether) is a better approach, and definitely isn't the same thing as being completely sheltered from the world until the time you leave home. I have witnessed the effects of "oversheltering", and they aren't good. I have no plans to make the same mistake.
I do care about the following generations, because it is for them that many want to censor and make everyone else responsible for thier choices. What I said I didn't care about was if there were any more generations.
At any rate, caring or not has nothing to do with whether I know what I'm talking about or not. Would you say a doctor that doesn't care about his patients doesn't know anything medically?
Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with restricting media content. This is a completely separate problem in our society that is related to how parents (and schools) treat problems _after_ they happen. When I was in school, there was a bully who kept calling me names. I ignored him until he started pushing me around (physically). After hearing the situation, my Dad told me I'd have to fight back. So, when he started bothering me the next day in Gym class, I pounded him to the floor. He stopped bothering me, and all the school did was give me (and him) a lecture. A similar thing happened to my son. He defended himself, and was threatened with expulsion for it. Apparently, today's society wanted me to call a lawyer and sue the other kid's parents instead of dealing with the issue directly. I feel just as annoyed as you by this sort of emasculation of society.
Sure it does. The same groups that believe we should have censorship are the ones calling to get people fired for what they've done in the context of art / entertainment. As a result more and more conent is being censored for fear of offending anyone. Its detemental to our society as a whole.
And adults don't fall into the ANYONE category?
So where may I purchase Manhunt 2? From what I understand, the game is complete. How many NC-17 or R rated movies are made?
I didn't say I found all commercials offensive, although there are a few that I find to be so. I find that _some_ of them have content not suitable for all ages. The biggest problem is that some of those come on during programming for children, which is something I'll never understand. The children generally aren't interested in the products they are selling, and parents who are watching may be irritated enough by the out-of-place content that they would avoid the product just out of spite.
I can hardly think of any commercial I find remotely offensive, even for kids. Please provide an example.
As I already said, I don't think everyone should pay
Really? I have heard of Israel cracking down on content it didn't approve of before, so I am a bit suprised if this is true.
MS never submitted FAT as a standard.
RAMBUS has nothing to do with MS.
OOXML is what the default format for Office is (or is going to be) so I don't understand your claim of it being useless. I also seem to remember saying they wouldn't sue over it.
MS has done bad things in the past, but to say they'll never change (or haven't, for that matter) is just short sighted. MS isn't a person that you learn not to trust, they're a large company which many different political ideas fighting within it. You really need to learn to take things on a case by case basis.
Lets be clear here, she violated a federal law which happens to be a felony.
I'm not saying its just, or right, or that she doesn't get any leniency. I think she did something very stupid and there really ISN'T any legitmate reason to record a movie in a theater with a camcorder though. But to blame the theater manager or to say she didn't break the law is simply not true. Its also not true that she's totally innocent. As I said, there really doesn't seem to be any good reason to bring a camcorder into a theater.
That's fine and a valid point to argue; you can also try to argue if this is fair use or not. I'm not sure copying something to show someone else is fair use though. Usually fair use would include you do something other than just showing the clip, such as commenting on the scene (ala an editorial or review), using it for some sort of artistic expression, etc.
But copying for the sake of just showing someone else, I don't think that qualifies, and it would be interesting to see if a judge thinks so or not.
I don't believe you. I think recording a 20 second clip is fair use. Prove me wrong.
The the law; it doesn't make any fair use provisions, and the law has not yet been tested in court as to whether this situation is fair use. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think, that's the state of things now.
No, the OP made a blanket statement which is what I was refuting. The statement was that "if he purchased a house, he could [always] do what he wanted with it." [sic] I was pointing out that there are times when that is not true, and one of those times is when a HOA is involved. Ignoring that HOA exist is simply stupid, and the statement is equally as stupid.
In other words, his house example intentially leaves out a concept which does exist in order to prove his point. I was just pointing that out. Omission of facts is not a good way to argue.
Go bid on something at an auction house, and then say 'eh, I dont want it anymore.' See what happens.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is our responsibility as adults to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance.
Let me fix this for you.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is your responsibility as [a parent] to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance.
Its not your god given right to watch or even own a TV. It was YOUR choice to have a child, YOU pay the expense of raising it. I personally don't give a damn if there's another generation after me.
I'm really astounded that people think of the V-chip as censorship. Could somebody explain exactly how a screening tool that can be turned on or off by the owner is censorship? The V-chip is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for good and for bad. Good parents will carefully monitor what their children are watching (either to keep them away from inappropriate content or to explain questionable content). Bad parents will rely solely on the V-chip (a huge mistake) to allow them to shirk their responsibility.
Its very easy to see how v-chip + ratings system is censorship; look no further than the recent Manhunt 2 debacle. Rated AO, suddenly cannot be purchasd by ANYONE. Suddenly, other game developers are taking out content BEFORE they even submit for a rating.
have two children. I use the parental lock-down features on my cable box, but I also monitor what they are watching. The parental lock-down is nice because it cuts down on inappropriate content that may show up while I'm running through channels in the presence of my children. It also makes sure my eight-year-old isn't going to change channels to something that's not suitable for him (or his little sister) while I'm in the bathroom. But I'm also fully aware that it is not a substitute for responsible parenting.
Its good you think you're doing a good job. I'm not sure that sheltering kids is a great idea though, and i think it distorts reality for them and leaves them unable to handle pretty much anything. The Don Imas situation is a good example of this. I grew up learning the old "sticks and stones" saying. Now we have college girls crying over a stupid joke. Its no wonder we can't tackel the problems facing us today. If you can't handle THAT, how are you going to handle the really important things in life? It doesn't seem like as a nation we can anymore.
Some channels don't include rating informations for all shows (The Science Fiction channel and HDNet are two notable offenders), and the most questionable content comes from the commercials rather than the programming itself. Therefore, I make sure I'm there to explain behavior that is and is not appropriate. I like the V-chip as a tool, and nothing more. These laws aren't about mandating that people _use_ the V-chip. They are about making sure that it's available for those who _want_ to use it.
You think commercials are offensive?? Good god man. Perhaps you should move to Iran or Israel when you don't have these highly offensive content! Honestly I think commercials today are awful because they ARE so safe and cut down that there's nothing interesting about them at all.
The v-chip is fine, but I don't see why EVERYONE should pay because you want to over shelter your kids. You do what you want in your home, leave me (and my income) out of it.
If you think so then YOU be in charge of vacuuming it.
I didn't use a strawman; I cited an actual case where you can own something and be restricted in its use. I think you should check the definition of the strawman argument, far too many people here use it like you have (which is also part of the definition of strawman).
You really need to go back and read the thread; I was attacking the example of owning a home which itself was a strawman for pro-mod chip argument.
If you only need a few things you should be able to carry them yourself. People are honest; its the dishonest ones that seem to shove things in thier pockets. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that who wasn't trying to steal.
It might not be "less of a standard", but it might be a less useful standard standard anyway, due to restrictions placed on its use (see JPEG2000); Microsoft specifically has a record of trying to pull crap like that.
Out of curiosity, exactly when did MS submit a standard and then sue over patent infringments?
The only reason she needs is that she wants to. But in this case she probably thought the current scene being shown was pretty cool and wasn't necessarily in the trailer, she also just wanted to play with her new camcorder
Filming movies in a theater is illegal, nevermind inconsiderate to others in the theater. If the scene she wanted to show wasn't in the trailer, tough shit. Wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. There are plenty of places to play with the camcorder; in a theater is not one of them.
That's just the thing, you don't have to have a reason to do something legal. If I were to spin around in my chair right now for no reason, should I be put in jail?
Filming a movie in a theater is illegal, so whats you're point? We're not talking about doing something legal, we're talking about breaking a law.
Oh, I don't know, he could have asked them what they were up to. If a kid is walking around a store putting stuff in his pockets how do they know he wasn't trying to steal all of it?
First, its not the managers discresion to ask. His boss told him this is the policy and its to be enforced 100% of the time. Second there's no ligitmate reason to put anything in your pockets in a store.
They law is pretty clear about this, you can't stop the kid until he's past the point of no return, ie. walking passed the register without paying. And even if they were planning on taping the whole movie, they probably would have lied and said it was just for a moment, but now they know they're being watched and wouldn't dare try and record any more, potential crime averted.
The law is clear here as well; you CANNOT record a movie in a theater. Not even one frame. The act of filming ANY of the movie is illegal, so the crime has not been averted its already been committed.
And if the theater manager wanted to be tough about it, he can ask them to leave. It's the theater's property and they don't have to allow them to stay if they break the rules, but since there's also nothing illegal about what they did either he shouldn't be able to take their footage or delete the clip.
Its not the manager's call as I've said. He has a boss that he reports to and is given no discretion in the matter. What they did IS illegal.
Here's the law: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl109-9.html
The blanket statement that said "I own it, I can do what I want with it" is what I was addressing. Nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't arguing as to the validity of no mod chip policies, just trying to show that even when you do own something there can be limits placed on you (either by a private party or government).