Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
I'm assuming that this is what you are refering to correct? This basically states that because something such as a cd burner enables a user to violate copyright law does not mean that the cd burner itself is in violation of copyright law. Essentially guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's stating that the act of copyright infringement is what is illigal, not the tool's used to commit that act. It does not in any way condone copying your cd's and giving them away, that still falls under copyright infringement.
pipes.com would only be less likely to contain porn if providers vacated their.com's in favor of.xxx's, I don't think this is very likely, I believe providers are more likely to keep both domains.
If one is specifically looking for porn and guesses www.something.xxx, one still has to land on a website that exists. When looking for porn you're going to use porn related keywords like sex, lesbian, amatureAnal, gayInsestuousDonkeyRape and the like. Those keywords with a.com are just as likely to bring up porn now as they are with a.xxx if the xxx is instigated. Look at it this way, the question is do we find porn, the answer is a boolean yes or no. If there are x number of porn sites across the internet and you choose one keyword out of y possible keywords, your probablility of success is x/y. The number of possible keywords (y) and the number of porn sites (x) does not change with the TLD or without, only the location of those sites changes. The only change that does occur is that an incorrect guess under the xxx TLD would land you on a 404 error, while at the moment an incorrect guess could land you on a 404 or it could land you on a non-porn site. But it's irrelevent what it lands you on because whatever it is it's not what your looking for.
Now your argument about the xxx helping to group content is perfectly valid. That is a fine reason for adding in new TLD's, but the article was discussing mandating that TLD for adult content. I don't object so much to adding a new TLD as I do forcing people to host on that TLD.
1. a) Circular logic. If the TLD is there then people will guess.xxx, if it's not then people will guess.com, either situation is exactly the same for the guesser. You can't use the TLD being in place as a presumption to you argument about why the TLD should be in place. And besides, because of the enourmous amount of sex on the net any argument that it would make porn easyer to find is bad logic.
b) www.whitehouse.com and especially www.disnye.com are examples of websites that will never volentarily switch to a.xxx TLD. The entire purpose of those sites are to trick people.
c)... definitly porn... lol. But seriosly, what if the porn sites move to xxx, then conservatives decide, hey, your breast augmentation site shows pictures of breasts, it should be hosted in.xxx to protect our children. And again, any argument based on the pretense that porn is hard to come by is inherently false.
As for the harm, the artice was about the harm it would cause. If a.xxx TLD is opened plenty of porn sites will flock there. But that doesn't mean they will leave the.com, more then likely they will just occupy both and get more hits. There is incentive to be in the.com area because of the fact that many people will just block xxx. As for comparing it to.org and such,/. is itself an org, but slashdot.com also sends me here. That's what's likely to happen. There will be a grab for the most obviose xxx sites like sex.xxx or porn.xxx and they will just redirect to the appropriate.com's. The material would remain on the.com server because that's where it is now and would be a pain to move when the.xxx can just point to the.com, and again, the.com isn't going to be blocked by alot of computers.
1. Why would guessing bigtits.xxx with the new TLD's be easyer then guessing bigtits.com without them? It's still a guess, and either way your still going to get the bigtits website.
2. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that, but let's assume your right and that most providers do agree to comply. The problem is not all of the sex sites are going to agree. The ones that do agree are going to be the same sites that cooperate by regestering with all the diffrent filters and such. Using one of those filters would be just as effective and we wouldn't have to institute any changes. Why complicate things unnecessarily?
Why would it make someone easy to find?? You would still have to know the domain name or find a link or whatever just like if it was a.com; in fact, because.xxx is likely to be blocked by many computers being in the.xxx would make you harder to find. You are right in that people interested in being good netizens will happily switch over, but do you really think the vast majority of porn providers are interested in being good netizens?
That's the main reason I think a.sex is a bad idea. You should never be liable for something because someone doesn't agree with where you said it. That would open up a huge can of worms.
There's no up side for a porn site. Freeloading doesn't cause them any burden, it just uses up a little of their bandwidth. They haven't wasted any time of the people that run the site, the sites profits are no diffrent, the people running the site aren't even aware of any freeloaders, it's just a part of having an internet site. But now their site is statistically less likely to be reached because the entire point of the TLD is it being easy to block. Other then getting conservatives off their back (which in the long run this won't do) there really isn't any incentive to comply with this volentarilly.
That's why I think the.xxx or.adult sites are a bad idea, cause for them to be effective you would have to force all "obscene" content to go under that domain. But I really like the kids.us idea, it can still work even when it's entirely volentary. There's still gonna be issues about grey area, maybe this is appropriate, maybe it isn't, but all in all I think the idea has merit.
The Super Bowl, on the other hand, is a sporting event, and it isn't automatically the exclusive domain of adults.
I don't entirely disagree with you on that. But with any live broadcast there is always the possibility of something happening, even the most conservative/responcible/cautious induvidual couldn't stop or even predict half of it. If your kid isn't old enough to handle it then he shouldn't be allowed to watch it live. Tape it for him, that way you can make sure nothing on there is inappropriate. I've known several parents that did that for shows they weren't entirely sure their kid should be watching.
And btw, previews are never R. The movie advertised may be R but even before an R movie the previews themselves are rated G. It's also worth noting that I've been to a couple G movies and I've never seen an R movie advertised. It's always more kids movies or a toy or something, but I guess that could vary depending on the theater.
But anyway, back to the issue. You think the cadre of pole-dancing pseudo-pornstar-cheerleader skanks should be taken off the air? I guess you don't want to see that and I'm sure you don't want your kid to see that, that's perfectly understandable. But I want to see it, I like watching cadre's of pole-dancing pseudo-pornstar-cheerleader skanks. And I'm sorry but your kid is not a good enough reason to deprive me of that. We don't live in a candy coated world, I don't want to live in a candy coated world and while your welcome to candy coat it for your son you can't expect everyone else to put up with it also. And why is it not realistic to teach children about what they might see on TV before you let them turn it on? In britan they show breasts on tv all the time, in japan the only taboo is pubic hair, as long as the girls are shaved you can show full on porn. Those countries don't seem to have any more or less a problem raising their youth then we do.
The world as a whole is not 5 year old safe nor should it be. If you don't want your kid to hear it don't let him watch it, or maybe you should teach your kid about it, he's gonna hear it eventually.
Because I have a right to fly there. Who says they can take the time off to drive out to see me? What if I want to see their house, and not some hotel in bfe. What if I want to take a trip to europe? What about hawaii? Be serious. The original post was about the fundamental right to travel, there are some trips/schedules that simply aren't realistic or even possible without air travel. So air travel is certainly covered in my fundamental right to travel.
The men from 9-11 had valid IDs and appeared normal
Neither of those is true, they're ID's were not valid and they certainly didn't appear normal. After 9/11 a bunch of people came foreward about seeing the hijackers on other flights and being suspicious/nervous about them, but they didn't report it because nothing had happened.
And also you could just as easily say no to the question 'are you muslim/islamic?' as you could 'are you a radical islamic?'. Middle eastern heritige does not say anything about religion. There are countless converted christians with dark skin and names like Abdul or Ali.
I must have missed that one... anyway, in all fairness:
if you are a recent immigrant, your visa has expired, you have a brother-in-law in the Bath party, spent 6 months in Yeman
..none of those have anything to do with being arab. It's easy to define the criteria to pick out suspicious people without including race as a factor.
The whole planet was settled without a single airplane, air travel merely makes it more convenient to reach far off places.
That's ridiculus. I live in virginia, I have family in california. My 2 options are then to take a boat through the panama canal or a week long road trip? Let's be realistic.
I think the approach we've got right now is just fine. I've flown quite a bit sense 9/11 and I feel perfectly safe. Sometimes I get searched, sometimes I don't, it's random as far as I can tell and that's fine by me. The above posts illustrate that this doesn't necessarily make things safer, and could even make things worse. It does go against the right to privacy and considering it probably wont even do any good it's just not justified.
There are some places you either physically or reaslitically can't travel to without flying; so it does actually limit your right to travel.
The association between flying and driving a car or owning a gun is a little off. Both those objects require you to operate them. If you don't operate them correctly your could kill people. I don't have to operate the plane, it's certainly not gonna crash if I recline my seat wrong. A gun permit does require a background check to make sure your not gonna go kill someone with it, but thats reasonable considering a guns only purpose is to cause damage to another living creature. But a drivers liscence isn't meant to show that you're not going to hit someone with a car, it shows you know how to drive. The only waiting period for an adult to get a drivers liscense is the ungodly line at the dmv. If they can proove that they reside in the state and can operate the car they get a liscence.
I don't think he's talking about people with warrants out on them. Obviosly they need to be arrested. I think he's talking about what if a criminal served his time and was released legally.
how would you explain the increase in noise level if the speaker wasn't pointed at the snore source (an abrupt, noticeable increase) ?
If you point the speaker at him then you are hearing reflections coming directly from his head. Your brain can diffrerentiate sounds based on their locations, it's called the cocktail party effect; if the music and snoring are coming from the same location then your brain has a harder time seperating them making it easyer for one to overshadow the other. As for it being an "abrupt, noticible" diffrence, I'm inclined to believe that your brain is tricking you into hearing something you want to hear.
I meant the number to represent amplitude with a negative number being the inverse phase of that amplitude. Like I said, it's not the best way of explaining things, I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. You are right in that music is many diffrent frequencies at many diffrent phase coherencies with respect to the snoring. But cancellation only occurs if the phase is 180 degree's out of sync and the amplitudes are equal, the more you deviate from that the less it cancels at an exponentially increasing rate. You have to be so close your effectively equal for the sound to be audibly canelled. Otherwise your only cancelling part of the sound and your brain can add in the missing pieces, it'll just sound a little phasy, it won't be audibly lower. Your right in that some cancellation is probably occoring because of the music, but it's purely random, statistically rare, and practically speaking cannot be enough to cause an audible difference.
I can't press on you enough that the sounds have to be as close to an exact inverse as possible. Just think about it man, if sounds didn't have to be so close we couldn't have music because the instruments would all be cancelling each other out, we couldn't talk to people in a room because more then one voice at a time would cancel out. Your brain automatically weeds out alot of what your hear, you need to seperate that type of psychological cancellation, that takes place inside your head, from the physical cancellation that can occur with the sound waves. This article is talking about the latter, your technique employs the former. I can understand how it can appear to be the same, but it's not.
I didn't say sound can't cancel sound, I said music can't cancel snoring, because they're not the same sound. Your not grasping the physics behind this. For sound to be able to cancel sound you have be playing an exact copy of the original sound with the phase inverted.
Look at like this. Think of sound as a number, your roomates snoring is a 3, your music is a 400. When you add them together you get 403, your brain is just rounding to 400, which is why you hear the music and the snoring doesn't bother you. What this article is talking about is playing a -3 over the 3, so you get 0. That's probably not the best way to explain it but I'm not sure how to simplify it more.
Reread the article, this is why they mention small microphones. The sound has to be captured so an inverted copy can be fed to the speakers. If what your saying worked them technically if you point a speaker and play music at my head it will cancel out my voice, this just isn't true, people talk over music all the time, just think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming that this is what you are refering to correct? This basically states that because something such as a cd burner enables a user to violate copyright law does not mean that the cd burner itself is in violation of copyright law. Essentially guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's stating that the act of copyright infringement is what is illigal, not the tool's used to commit that act. It does not in any way condone copying your cd's and giving them away, that still falls under copyright infringement.
If that happens the EU should just confiscate MS products and give them out for free untill it totals the amount owed.
It also means the lawsuit can be brought up again at a later date. Kinda a double whammy huh?
If one is specifically looking for porn and guesses www.something.xxx, one still has to land on a website that exists. When looking for porn you're going to use porn related keywords like sex, lesbian, amatureAnal, gayInsestuousDonkeyRape and the like. Those keywords with a .com are just as likely to bring up porn now as they are with a .xxx if the xxx is instigated. Look at it this way, the question is do we find porn, the answer is a boolean yes or no. If there are x number of porn sites across the internet and you choose one keyword out of y possible keywords, your probablility of success is x/y. The number of possible keywords (y) and the number of porn sites (x) does not change with the TLD or without, only the location of those sites changes. The only change that does occur is that an incorrect guess under the xxx TLD would land you on a 404 error, while at the moment an incorrect guess could land you on a 404 or it could land you on a non-porn site. But it's irrelevent what it lands you on because whatever it is it's not what your looking for.
Now your argument about the xxx helping to group content is perfectly valid. That is a fine reason for adding in new TLD's, but the article was discussing mandating that TLD for adult content. I don't object so much to adding a new TLD as I do forcing people to host on that TLD.
b) www.whitehouse.com and especially www.disnye.com are examples of websites that will never volentarily switch to a .xxx TLD. The entire purpose of those sites are to trick people.
c) ... definitly porn... lol. But seriosly, what if the porn sites move to xxx, then conservatives decide, hey, your breast augmentation site shows pictures of breasts, it should be hosted in .xxx to protect our children. And again, any argument based on the pretense that porn is hard to come by is inherently false.
As for the harm, the artice was about the harm it would cause. If a .xxx TLD is opened plenty of porn sites will flock there. But that doesn't mean they will leave the .com, more then likely they will just occupy both and get more hits. There is incentive to be in the .com area because of the fact that many people will just block xxx. As for comparing it to .org and such, /. is itself an org, but slashdot.com also sends me here. That's what's likely to happen. There will be a grab for the most obviose xxx sites like sex.xxx or porn.xxx and they will just redirect to the appropriate .com's. The material would remain on the .com server because that's where it is now and would be a pain to move when the .xxx can just point to the .com, and again, the .com isn't going to be blocked by alot of computers.
2. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that, but let's assume your right and that most providers do agree to comply. The problem is not all of the sex sites are going to agree. The ones that do agree are going to be the same sites that cooperate by regestering with all the diffrent filters and such. Using one of those filters would be just as effective and we wouldn't have to institute any changes. Why complicate things unnecessarily?
Why would it make someone easy to find?? You would still have to know the domain name or find a link or whatever just like if it was a .com; in fact, because .xxx is likely to be blocked by many computers being in the .xxx would make you harder to find. You are right in that people interested in being good netizens will happily switch over, but do you really think the vast majority of porn providers are interested in being good netizens?
That's the main reason I think a .sex is a bad idea. You should never be liable for something because someone doesn't agree with where you said it. That would open up a huge can of worms.
There's no up side for a porn site. Freeloading doesn't cause them any burden, it just uses up a little of their bandwidth. They haven't wasted any time of the people that run the site, the sites profits are no diffrent, the people running the site aren't even aware of any freeloaders, it's just a part of having an internet site. But now their site is statistically less likely to be reached because the entire point of the TLD is it being easy to block. Other then getting conservatives off their back (which in the long run this won't do) there really isn't any incentive to comply with this volentarilly.
That's why I think the .xxx or .adult sites are a bad idea, cause for them to be effective you would have to force all "obscene" content to go under that domain. But I really like the kids.us idea, it can still work even when it's entirely volentary. There's still gonna be issues about grey area, maybe this is appropriate, maybe it isn't, but all in all I think the idea has merit.
I don't entirely disagree with you on that. But with any live broadcast there is always the possibility of something happening, even the most conservative/responcible/cautious induvidual couldn't stop or even predict half of it. If your kid isn't old enough to handle it then he shouldn't be allowed to watch it live. Tape it for him, that way you can make sure nothing on there is inappropriate. I've known several parents that did that for shows they weren't entirely sure their kid should be watching.
And btw, previews are never R. The movie advertised may be R but even before an R movie the previews themselves are rated G. It's also worth noting that I've been to a couple G movies and I've never seen an R movie advertised. It's always more kids movies or a toy or something, but I guess that could vary depending on the theater.
But anyway, back to the issue. You think the cadre of pole-dancing pseudo-pornstar-cheerleader skanks should be taken off the air? I guess you don't want to see that and I'm sure you don't want your kid to see that, that's perfectly understandable. But I want to see it, I like watching cadre's of pole-dancing pseudo-pornstar-cheerleader skanks. And I'm sorry but your kid is not a good enough reason to deprive me of that. We don't live in a candy coated world, I don't want to live in a candy coated world and while your welcome to candy coat it for your son you can't expect everyone else to put up with it also. And why is it not realistic to teach children about what they might see on TV before you let them turn it on? In britan they show breasts on tv all the time, in japan the only taboo is pubic hair, as long as the girls are shaved you can show full on porn. Those countries don't seem to have any more or less a problem raising their youth then we do.
Gee.... nothing controvercial has ever happened at an awards show before.....
The world as a whole is not 5 year old safe nor should it be. If you don't want your kid to hear it don't let him watch it, or maybe you should teach your kid about it, he's gonna hear it eventually.
Because I have a right to fly there. Who says they can take the time off to drive out to see me? What if I want to see their house, and not some hotel in bfe. What if I want to take a trip to europe? What about hawaii? Be serious. The original post was about the fundamental right to travel, there are some trips/schedules that simply aren't realistic or even possible without air travel. So air travel is certainly covered in my fundamental right to travel.
Neither of those is true, they're ID's were not valid and they certainly didn't appear normal. After 9/11 a bunch of people came foreward about seeing the hijackers on other flights and being suspicious/nervous about them, but they didn't report it because nothing had happened.
And also you could just as easily say no to the question 'are you muslim/islamic?' as you could 'are you a radical islamic?'. Middle eastern heritige does not say anything about religion. There are countless converted christians with dark skin and names like Abdul or Ali.
As far as I'm concerned Bush losing the election is by definition a change for the better.
That comment has a slightly more then passing resemblance to the no true scotsman fallacy.
I must have missed that one... anyway, in all fairness:
if you are a recent immigrant, your visa has expired, you have a brother-in-law in the Bath party, spent 6 months in Yeman
muslims.... no
"radical Islamists".... yea
That's ridiculus. I live in virginia, I have family in california. My 2 options are then to take a boat through the panama canal or a week long road trip? Let's be realistic.
I think the approach we've got right now is just fine. I've flown quite a bit sense 9/11 and I feel perfectly safe. Sometimes I get searched, sometimes I don't, it's random as far as I can tell and that's fine by me. The above posts illustrate that this doesn't necessarily make things safer, and could even make things worse. It does go against the right to privacy and considering it probably wont even do any good it's just not justified.
The association between flying and driving a car or owning a gun is a little off. Both those objects require you to operate them. If you don't operate them correctly your could kill people. I don't have to operate the plane, it's certainly not gonna crash if I recline my seat wrong. A gun permit does require a background check to make sure your not gonna go kill someone with it, but thats reasonable considering a guns only purpose is to cause damage to another living creature. But a drivers liscence isn't meant to show that you're not going to hit someone with a car, it shows you know how to drive. The only waiting period for an adult to get a drivers liscense is the ungodly line at the dmv. If they can proove that they reside in the state and can operate the car they get a liscence.
I don't think he's talking about people with warrants out on them. Obviosly they need to be arrested. I think he's talking about what if a criminal served his time and was released legally.
If you point the speaker at him then you are hearing reflections coming directly from his head. Your brain can diffrerentiate sounds based on their locations, it's called the cocktail party effect; if the music and snoring are coming from the same location then your brain has a harder time seperating them making it easyer for one to overshadow the other. As for it being an "abrupt, noticible" diffrence, I'm inclined to believe that your brain is tricking you into hearing something you want to hear.
I meant the number to represent amplitude with a negative number being the inverse phase of that amplitude. Like I said, it's not the best way of explaining things, I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. You are right in that music is many diffrent frequencies at many diffrent phase coherencies with respect to the snoring. But cancellation only occurs if the phase is 180 degree's out of sync and the amplitudes are equal, the more you deviate from that the less it cancels at an exponentially increasing rate. You have to be so close your effectively equal for the sound to be audibly canelled. Otherwise your only cancelling part of the sound and your brain can add in the missing pieces, it'll just sound a little phasy, it won't be audibly lower. Your right in that some cancellation is probably occoring because of the music, but it's purely random, statistically rare, and practically speaking cannot be enough to cause an audible difference.
I can't press on you enough that the sounds have to be as close to an exact inverse as possible. Just think about it man, if sounds didn't have to be so close we couldn't have music because the instruments would all be cancelling each other out, we couldn't talk to people in a room because more then one voice at a time would cancel out. Your brain automatically weeds out alot of what your hear, you need to seperate that type of psychological cancellation, that takes place inside your head, from the physical cancellation that can occur with the sound waves. This article is talking about the latter, your technique employs the former. I can understand how it can appear to be the same, but it's not.
Look at like this. Think of sound as a number, your roomates snoring is a 3, your music is a 400. When you add them together you get 403, your brain is just rounding to 400, which is why you hear the music and the snoring doesn't bother you. What this article is talking about is playing a -3 over the 3, so you get 0. That's probably not the best way to explain it but I'm not sure how to simplify it more.
Reread the article, this is why they mention small microphones. The sound has to be captured so an inverted copy can be fed to the speakers. If what your saying worked them technically if you point a speaker and play music at my head it will cancel out my voice, this just isn't true, people talk over music all the time, just think about it.