527 groups like Moveon.org have no limitations on how much soft money they can collect from contributors mellon. Moveon may say it's carefull but it doesn't change the fact that Bing and Soros can donate millions to their cause, not just $2000. Those afformentioned gentlemen have not hidden the fact that their contributions are significantly more than that.
I guess I never understood the raised floor as a cooling approach myself. Cold air sinks right back down in to that area anyway. Cool air should be deployed from the top and air intakes should be on the bottom. Right now the design I've seen in most computer rooms is to blow it up from the perferrated flow in to the rack and the in-takes for return air are mounted by the flooring or even in the raised floor itself. Intakes should work like vent systems in modern homes, as close to the ceiling as possible where the warm air is trapped in.
Then again, a lot of these rooms I've seen have wide open plenum areas as well. These companies get all this expensive security enhancements with combination/card entries, video survelence, digital sign in logs and the ceilings are wide open. Getting back to the subject these wide open celing areas just let in more hot air.
This is still done. This does not stop that money. It now gets laundered through other political interest groups like Swift Boat Vets and Moveon.org. A corporation can give unlimited dollars to these groups. Soros for example is not limited to a $2000 individual contribution in this manner. McCain Feingold was feel good legislation that did nothing but limit the transaprency of political contributions directly toward politicians.
All blogs regardless of political leanings were opposed to this (all the major blogs of both sides that I've read. Kos on the left, The Corner on the right and Instipundent on the Libertarian side). It's not so much that either Republicans nor Democrats can spend money on Internet campaign adds anymore. Now, KOS's books can be audited and regulated by the FCC based on the context of what he writes either pro or con for a given canidate. So his freedom of speech is now constricted to the dollar amounts he gets from political parties. The work around is Moveon.org and other organizations like this. Now Soros can give 600 Billion dollars to Moveon and never be subject to McCain-Feingold because he's not giving it to a canidate. Moveon then can fund unlimited spending in any way they see fit. It's the work around to campaign finance reform. The legallity of McCain-Feingold is mind boggling in it's implications. It tries to limit political influence from special interest groups and does not succeed. In the end all it does is limit the political speech of the individual to directly voice their opinions. So instead you create grops like MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans. Now blogs get to be moderated by the FCC if they collect any advertising. Seems a very bad move to me.
520 million is a huge amount of money, especially when it needs to be liquid and not leveraged in assets.
But let there be no doubt that Microsoft doesn't give a rat's butt about the money per se as long as they meet investor revenue growth projections and earnings per share (EPS). If those things happen then stockholders should see growth in their investment which means that the board of directors and the CEO make the bulk of their money on their own stock options. The corporate world hasn't been fuled by dividend revenue for a long time. Income stocks are an endangered species on the Exchange. It's all about growth. Microsoft will run Xbox 360 production at a loss because investors don't care about profit, they care about growth. 520 million dollar judgements are hurtfull because of the Forbes factor when Wall Street fluctuates stocks via some telepathic change in mood at the crasiest of rationalizations. IE, GDP growth greater than expected? Oh that's too bad because housing construction inventories on Tuesdays is lower than expected so the S&P will drop by 150 points because well, we are freeking guessing pundits with really no clue as to what that really means to the economy.
Bottom line is that if Microsoft can get a moderation of the judgement or a new trial the stock will take a positive bump. 1 to 3% upward bumps for stock options worth millions of dollars is a windfall. It's not considered inside trading for excersizing your options after a public announcement unlike selling prior to bad news. This is a mechanism that officers in the company can use to influence stock price directly and take the profit themselves. As I said before it doesn't matter if they spend 20 million on legal fees and the award amount is dropped by 15 million. Expenses aren't really a concern and bottom line profit isn't really a concern as long as minimum expectations are met.
It's the old Socratic question teachers have asked for years. Is it morally wrong to steal if you're hungery? There are two sides to this argument that boil down to jusitifcations about intentions rather than concrete results of your actions. I've never heard a convincing arguement from a cheater that convinced me they have moral jusitifcation.
There's a great razor blade analogy here as well. You know, where life imitates The Onion. Six! yes, that's it SIX BLADES! Just substitute your favorite flavor of ms' below. Marketing for teh win!
Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?
Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.
Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.
Ted: Right. Yes. OK, alright. I see where you're going.
Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?
Hitchhiker: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
[Hitchhiker convulses]
Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
Ted: That - good point.
Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Ted: Why?
Hitchhiker: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!
It's ok that a licensed product of your company would have "low expectations" from it's founder? I understand that game developers probably don't have the same kind of influence over movies as say Rowlings, Grisham etc... but it almost sounds like id have very little quality control.
Is this simply the result of the licensing parent just not having enough muscle power to influence direction?
Costco has a very liberal return policy on all goods including electronics. I returned a defunct cam corder 15 months after purchase. I recieved the full purchase price with out my reciept (they pulled it up in the computer).
7-11s run by Indian guys
Nuclear Power Plants
Catholic or Christian churches with Evangelical stereotypes
Comic book stores
Nursing homes
donuts
Tom and Jerry
American Football, Politics, National Forests, and dive bars?
If not, how is a majority of this humor going to translate? It's a heavy parody of American culture. I'm just not sure how that's supposed to sell.
Unfortunately, the UN doesn't see it that way. They want WAY more than just IP addresses. They really want to govern the Internet. The UN body proposing this is actually called the Working Group on Internet Governance. http://www.wgig.org/index.html
In general they rationalize this decentralized governance by claiming the woes of spam, porn and of all things hardware costs. None of those things have anything to do with some administrative technical controls. Have no doubts representatives of the UN who are clamoring for some sort of control, want that control for only one reason and that reason is power.
The political body of the UN does not want simple administrative controls over DNS servers. They want total control. It's very easy to see because the most vocal of the UN members who want control tell you this themselves. In fact, the UN body that started this mess calls themselves the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)http://www.wgig.org/index.html
For example. In the second meeting of this body that wants to govern the Internet, Brazil had this to say; http://www.wgig.org/docs/Brazil.pdf Madame Chair,
Allow me to focus our discussion on internet governance beyond Principles and towards practical matters that our citizens are in need. Our citizens are demanding cheaper access. This could be translated here by:
a) lower internet interconnection costs;
b) affordable hardware;
c) free and open source software;
c) regional administration of the root server system;
d) national administration of courty code top level domains (ccTLSs);
I'm sure there's a joke in there regarding reasons c & c but the whole flavor of the language is interesting. What even half of that has to do with a hands off administrative control I have no idea. This governing body is somehow going to make all this happen?
As we have had the opportunity to state before, the EU believes that the WGIG should concentrate on the stable and secure functioning of the Internet, by addressing issues related to:
The organisation and administration of naming and numbering, including the operation of the root server system;
The internationalisation of Internet Governance, taking into account public interest concerns and participation of developing countries in the governance structures;
The stability, dependability and robustness of the Internet, including the impact of spam.
Spam? Well, that sounds to me like this new governing body wants to control content (which is evidenced elsewhere by UN reps, this is really no revelation but few people seem to see it or wish to look for the motivations behind this move). If all they want to do is sing Kumbaya and peacefully administer some DNS server then why, pray tell would they have anything to do with spam control? What's spam to Brazil, yet information to another? The great thing about the Internet is what makes the Internet a bad place at the same time, freedom. The examples of UN reps citing issues OTHER than DNS administration are numerous and distrubing. They want to actively participate in governing a rich and wonderfully free form of communication and trade. It's time that some government officials here in US started asking themselves why. We need more libitarian thinkers like Coleman and I don't care which side of the political isle they come from.
Fine by me and perfectly understandable. I understand your point and believe it's a good one. I think there's a laze faire association between fanatical social thought and either side of the isle.
Nice to see the moderation objectivity of my fellow slashdot posters. Well done.
That's a short list. It's been revealed at early 360 tours of live content that there is in fact a checkers game. I would suspect that chess and the like is there as well.
Yeah, it's amazing how someone like Jack can draw broad conclusions based on narrow observations. Kind of like concluding "right-wingers" all rant about games and sex causing social decline. There are conservatives that are social moderate or liberal and there are liberals or progressives that are fisically conservative. I dare say most voting Amercians fall in to a categorie that borrows from both political leanings. So, um yeah carry on. It's Bush's fault... or something.
Exactly! So why, pray tell are the voiced justifications for the UN involvement content control? If all they want is some neutral administrative control then why are they justifying it with complaints of content? More to the point...
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
All these comments and more can be found at http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html at the fourth meeting of this body on Internet "governance". "Governance" by the way isn't my term, it's theirs.
Excellent point, but unfortunately not one that really supports your conclusion. Case in point...
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of.xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
This is an officially prepared statement from Brazil's UN rep during a summit about Internet control. This isn't an off the cuff remark by a public official looking for some political points on a TV show somewhere. With that said, take a look at some of these justifcations for wresting control of the internet from ICANN. The key words are "values", "my country" and an over all naive approach to pornography in that a domain name would encourage porn rather than provide a mechanism to limit it to audiences that want it. Right now, you can find anything on the Internet. Anything from forums on Quilting, twins in latex to political freedom for Taiwan sites. This isn't about fear of the US controlling the Internet for some diabolical purpose, it's about other countries implementing some sort of content control.
Also, don't believe for a second that these countries see this as some public service. There's money to be had. UN administration taxes for the win!
The whole campaign finance reform bill is a complete hack anyway.
Nothing stops a corporation from donating a million dollars to Swift Boat Vets or Moveon.org. They in turn campaign for or against a canidate. There, you've just avoided campaign finance reform. All of that doesn't take in to consideration that trying to limit political speech by anyone, corporations or not should be illegal anyway. If Soros wants to give 3 million to Hillary for President he should be able to. Same goes for Dobson to Gulianni or what have you.
Ok, to clairify Paramount is on board with BOTH formats. They are going to produce HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Like all production companies they will produce whichever product actually sells. Because frankly who cares if it's on an eight track as long as it sells and they keep margins to meet their profit expectations.
According to Toshiba HD-DVD comes to market in Japan at the end of 2005. In terms of developement HD-DVD is well ahead of Blu-Ray according to Toshiba. HD-DVD is supposed to have better cost and productivity advantages over Blu-Ray. In addition it has greater proven capacity to date until Blu-Ray demonstrates a workable prototype of their higher capacity disks.
So if HD-DVD comes out of the gates first and studios like Paramount and Warner Home Video start selling movies to consumers I find it hard to believe that other studios won't jump on board to sell their movies as well. When you sell gasoline, you could care less what car the consumer puts it in.
All you have to do to understand why they want control is simply listen to what they say.
UN partners want content control.
http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of.xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
This is just a way to slashdot a flame war. The submitter nor the poster of this article expected this to be a debate about class action cases. You can fit a square peg in a round hole, you just need a big hole.
Does this help with the issues LCDs have with subtle differences in dark colors?
There is no pain like Doom 3 on an LCD unless you turn the brightness up to where black isn't black. The only complaint I have about my LCD is the color deffinition between the very dark colors.
Actually, those were specific people speaking on behalf of their countries. China didn't actually speak, the appointed UN representative of that country spoke on behalf of China. Representation in some of these governments is really the same as the people that speak for them because they aren't a republic or democracy. They ARE the government.
But the differences between "people" and "governments" is really a semantical arguement here. What is important is what these people/governments are actually saying are the reasons they should have control. The reasons they give are very disturbing. I hate to use the term because it's so overused but any kind of content control is a true slippery slope in the Internet world.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not say Moveon wasn't obeying the law. I'm saying all 527s are a work around for McCain-Feingold.
527 groups like Moveon.org have no limitations on how much soft money they can collect from contributors mellon. Moveon may say it's carefull but it doesn't change the fact that Bing and Soros can donate millions to their cause, not just $2000. Those afformentioned gentlemen have not hidden the fact that their contributions are significantly more than that.
Then again, a lot of these rooms I've seen have wide open plenum areas as well. These companies get all this expensive security enhancements with combination/card entries, video survelence, digital sign in logs and the ceilings are wide open. Getting back to the subject these wide open celing areas just let in more hot air.
This is still done. This does not stop that money. It now gets laundered through other political interest groups like Swift Boat Vets and Moveon.org. A corporation can give unlimited dollars to these groups. Soros for example is not limited to a $2000 individual contribution in this manner. McCain Feingold was feel good legislation that did nothing but limit the transaprency of political contributions directly toward politicians.
All blogs regardless of political leanings were opposed to this (all the major blogs of both sides that I've read. Kos on the left, The Corner on the right and Instipundent on the Libertarian side). It's not so much that either Republicans nor Democrats can spend money on Internet campaign adds anymore. Now, KOS's books can be audited and regulated by the FCC based on the context of what he writes either pro or con for a given canidate. So his freedom of speech is now constricted to the dollar amounts he gets from political parties. The work around is Moveon.org and other organizations like this. Now Soros can give 600 Billion dollars to Moveon and never be subject to McCain-Feingold because he's not giving it to a canidate. Moveon then can fund unlimited spending in any way they see fit. It's the work around to campaign finance reform. The legallity of McCain-Feingold is mind boggling in it's implications. It tries to limit political influence from special interest groups and does not succeed. In the end all it does is limit the political speech of the individual to directly voice their opinions. So instead you create grops like MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans. Now blogs get to be moderated by the FCC if they collect any advertising. Seems a very bad move to me.
But let there be no doubt that Microsoft doesn't give a rat's butt about the money per se as long as they meet investor revenue growth projections and earnings per share (EPS). If those things happen then stockholders should see growth in their investment which means that the board of directors and the CEO make the bulk of their money on their own stock options. The corporate world hasn't been fuled by dividend revenue for a long time. Income stocks are an endangered species on the Exchange. It's all about growth. Microsoft will run Xbox 360 production at a loss because investors don't care about profit, they care about growth. 520 million dollar judgements are hurtfull because of the Forbes factor when Wall Street fluctuates stocks via some telepathic change in mood at the crasiest of rationalizations. IE, GDP growth greater than expected? Oh that's too bad because housing construction inventories on Tuesdays is lower than expected so the S&P will drop by 150 points because well, we are freeking guessing pundits with really no clue as to what that really means to the economy.
Bottom line is that if Microsoft can get a moderation of the judgement or a new trial the stock will take a positive bump. 1 to 3% upward bumps for stock options worth millions of dollars is a windfall. It's not considered inside trading for excersizing your options after a public announcement unlike selling prior to bad news. This is a mechanism that officers in the company can use to influence stock price directly and take the profit themselves. As I said before it doesn't matter if they spend 20 million on legal fees and the award amount is dropped by 15 million. Expenses aren't really a concern and bottom line profit isn't really a concern as long as minimum expectations are met.
It's the old Socratic question teachers have asked for years. Is it morally wrong to steal if you're hungery? There are two sides to this argument that boil down to jusitifcations about intentions rather than concrete results of your actions. I've never heard a convincing arguement from a cheater that convinced me they have moral jusitifcation.
Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?
Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.
Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.
Ted: Right. Yes. OK, alright. I see where you're going.
Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?
Hitchhiker: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
[Hitchhiker convulses]
Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
Ted: That - good point.
Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Ted: Why?
Hitchhiker: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!
Is this simply the result of the licensing parent just not having enough muscle power to influence direction?
Costco has a very liberal return policy on all goods including electronics. I returned a defunct cam corder 15 months after purchase. I recieved the full purchase price with out my reciept (they pulled it up in the computer).
7-11s run by Indian guys
Nuclear Power Plants
Catholic or Christian churches with Evangelical stereotypes
Comic book stores
Nursing homes
donuts
Tom and Jerry
American Football, Politics, National Forests, and dive bars?
If not, how is a majority of this humor going to translate? It's a heavy parody of American culture. I'm just not sure how that's supposed to sell.
In general they rationalize this decentralized governance by claiming the woes of spam, porn and of all things hardware costs. None of those things have anything to do with some administrative technical controls. Have no doubts representatives of the UN who are clamoring for some sort of control, want that control for only one reason and that reason is power.
For example. In the second meeting of this body that wants to govern the Internet, Brazil had this to say; http://www.wgig.org/docs/Brazil.pdf
Madame Chair,
Allow me to focus our discussion on internet governance beyond Principles and towards practical matters that our citizens are in need. Our citizens are demanding cheaper access. This could be translated here by:
a) lower internet interconnection costs;
b) affordable hardware;
c) free and open source software;
c) regional administration of the root server system;
d) national administration of courty code top level domains (ccTLSs);
I'm sure there's a joke in there regarding reasons c & c but the whole flavor of the language is interesting. What even half of that has to do with a hands off administrative control I have no idea. This governing body is somehow going to make all this happen?
The EU reps had this to say; http://www.wgig.org/docs/EU-PrepCom.doc
As we have had the opportunity to state before, the EU believes that the WGIG should concentrate on the stable and secure functioning of the Internet, by addressing issues related to:
The organisation and administration of naming and numbering, including the operation of the root server system;
The internationalisation of Internet Governance, taking into account public interest concerns and participation of developing countries in the governance structures;
The stability, dependability and robustness of the Internet, including the impact of spam.
Spam? Well, that sounds to me like this new governing body wants to control content (which is evidenced elsewhere by UN reps, this is really no revelation but few people seem to see it or wish to look for the motivations behind this move). If all they want to do is sing Kumbaya and peacefully administer some DNS server then why, pray tell would they have anything to do with spam control? What's spam to Brazil, yet information to another? The great thing about the Internet is what makes the Internet a bad place at the same time, freedom. The examples of UN reps citing issues OTHER than DNS administration are numerous and distrubing. They want to actively participate in governing a rich and wonderfully free form of communication and trade. It's time that some government officials here in US started asking themselves why. We need more libitarian thinkers like Coleman and I don't care which side of the political isle they come from.
Nice to see the moderation objectivity of my fellow slashdot posters. Well done.
That's a short list. It's been revealed at early 360 tours of live content that there is in fact a checkers game. I would suspect that chess and the like is there as well.
Yeah, it's amazing how someone like Jack can draw broad conclusions based on narrow observations. Kind of like concluding "right-wingers" all rant about games and sex causing social decline. There are conservatives that are social moderate or liberal and there are liberals or progressives that are fisically conservative. I dare say most voting Amercians fall in to a categorie that borrows from both political leanings. So, um yeah carry on. It's Bush's fault... or something.
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
All these comments and more can be found at http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html at the fourth meeting of this body on Internet "governance". "Governance" by the way isn't my term, it's theirs.
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
This is an officially prepared statement from Brazil's UN rep during a summit about Internet control. This isn't an off the cuff remark by a public official looking for some political points on a TV show somewhere. With that said, take a look at some of these justifcations for wresting control of the internet from ICANN. The key words are "values", "my country" and an over all naive approach to pornography in that a domain name would encourage porn rather than provide a mechanism to limit it to audiences that want it. Right now, you can find anything on the Internet. Anything from forums on Quilting, twins in latex to political freedom for Taiwan sites. This isn't about fear of the US controlling the Internet for some diabolical purpose, it's about other countries implementing some sort of content control.
Also, don't believe for a second that these countries see this as some public service. There's money to be had. UN administration taxes for the win!
Nothing stops a corporation from donating a million dollars to Swift Boat Vets or Moveon.org. They in turn campaign for or against a canidate. There, you've just avoided campaign finance reform. All of that doesn't take in to consideration that trying to limit political speech by anyone, corporations or not should be illegal anyway. If Soros wants to give 3 million to Hillary for President he should be able to. Same goes for Dobson to Gulianni or what have you.
Ok, to clairify Paramount is on board with BOTH formats. They are going to produce HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Like all production companies they will produce whichever product actually sells. Because frankly who cares if it's on an eight track as long as it sells and they keep margins to meet their profit expectations. According to Toshiba HD-DVD comes to market in Japan at the end of 2005. In terms of developement HD-DVD is well ahead of Blu-Ray according to Toshiba. HD-DVD is supposed to have better cost and productivity advantages over Blu-Ray. In addition it has greater proven capacity to date until Blu-Ray demonstrates a workable prototype of their higher capacity disks. So if HD-DVD comes out of the gates first and studios like Paramount and Warner Home Video start selling movies to consumers I find it hard to believe that other studios won't jump on board to sell their movies as well. When you sell gasoline, you could care less what car the consumer puts it in.
UN partners want content control.
http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
Now quickly deploy this in the entrance of every subway tunnel in London, every pizzaria, disco, Bus station in Isreal and Bala.
This is just a way to slashdot a flame war. The submitter nor the poster of this article expected this to be a debate about class action cases. You can fit a square peg in a round hole, you just need a big hole.
There is no pain like Doom 3 on an LCD unless you turn the brightness up to where black isn't black. The only complaint I have about my LCD is the color deffinition between the very dark colors.
But the differences between "people" and "governments" is really a semantical arguement here. What is important is what these people/governments are actually saying are the reasons they should have control. The reasons they give are very disturbing. I hate to use the term because it's so overused but any kind of content control is a true slippery slope in the Internet world.