Janet Jackson's boob.... on a show that was understood to not have that kind of content.
She doesn't have to be on the football show. The football show doesn't have to have naked breasts.
I love naked breasts myself. But if people agree "this show is a family safe show" and then you start flashing naked breasts you broke the agreement you made with people. If the NFL wants to put naked breasts on the superbowl, I'm all for it! And I'm also for restricting them from stations and hours inappropriate for family viewing. Oh but wait.. they want to make the money from selling adds to a wider family audience.
Guess that's a problem for them isn't it? No one is stopping them from putting the superbowl on the NFL cable network and doing whatever they want. But the audience is smaller.
I'm not religious-- but churchgoers have an agreed upon behavior for their given church. You don't have to be a member of the church-- you can go to strip joints sunday morning. But if you go into a church and insist in being foul or simply naked, they will be in their rights to have you arrested and hauled out.
There is support for female naked breasts in day to day society (darn those equal rights and all). Personally I think people overreact to breasts.
We were founded on the idea of personal responsibility and freedom.
Note the word "responsibility".
Today people feel they have the "freedom" to do or say anything they want. What made things work before was that people exercised appropriate self-restraint.
It's the same thing that used to make capitalism work. If you toss out the social contract (religious based- and no I'm not religious) then freedom is really just anarchy and a lot of people being incredibly rude to each other.
So you either think that * "good" ideas can sway people to behavior while "bad" ideas have absolutely no power over people or * no ideas have any power-- so why even respond to me since your argument would have no effect on me or others since we are unchangeable in the face of new ideas or arguments.
Either people are changed by the things they see and learn or they are not. You can't logically hold both positions.
No some people who always saw children just as children and then saw a picture of them having sex would now have a new way of thinking of children.
With regard to women you have two competing memes here: 1) A female should be able to go without clothing and those sexually attracted to her will only feel sexual attraction when she desires it. If they act on that sexual desire because they have power and she is vulnerable then it is not her fault that she placed her self in a vulnerable position and acted in a way that lead them to think of her sexually.
2) Females sexuality should be entirely suppressed so everyone is safe.
The reality is somewhere in the middle. You can't entirely suppress sexuality. It is a very powerful drive. You can behave responsibly and, oh, I don't know-- not go to a frat house well known for slipping mickeys to girls and raping them-- not get yourself so drunk or stoned that you black out and then disclaim all responsibility when something bad happens to you.
If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, you can be ticketed for creating an attraction to crime. It is just human nature. You tempt people and let them think they can get away with it, and they will do just about anything (including torturing other humans).
I'm one of those folks that plunge into life and experience. I have relatives however who did the same thing and died before they were 21 (drinking and driving is really stupid- but we really think it may have been as much suicide as anything).
I'm not sure I agree with being afraid of exposure-- it's about being exposed to them before you are ready for them. They can corrupt you, poison you, destroy you. Or if you are ready, you turn them over and go "hmm" that's interesting.
Once the idea of shooting bullies got into the mainstream, the number of bullied children who decided to shoot people increased. The idea can be suppressed in some countries. It can't in america.
Once the idea of killing your pregnant wife got out- we also seemed to have a spate of pregnant wife killings.
It is part of the reason the police are vague on details sometimes to avoid inspiring copycats.
And then I see a movie by hollywood that is pretty much a manual on how to do some of these things and I wonder what the hell they are thinking. When they are advancing a liberal agenda, they hold ideas and words have power. When they are slumming in the sewer, suddenly is harmless entertainment.
I want my freedom to slum in the sewer. But I also want my freedom to watch a family rated show or website without being spammed with porn. I want to be able to open my email inbox and not have porn come up. And in the legal environment, I sure as hell don't want illegal porn sent to it. As a side note, I often say that given under 5 minutes, in today's legal climate, i could put enough illegal stuff on anyone's computer to get them put away for a few years. Our laws have not caught up with our technology.
I completely agree- some people are predisposed to be deer in the headlights for kiddie porn, cocaine, sex, booze, cigarettes. In most cases it is a minority- 1% for some, 5% for others. Most people can see kiddie porn, snort a line of coke, have sex reasonably often, drink socially, and even take a few puffs without developing strong addictions quickly.
Be the ideas religious, political, sexual (and the list goes on).
Many people convert to a religion after they hear of it that would never have done so otherwise. Many a country had lots of people die after the populist was exposed to particular ideas. Many a marriage had issues once one of the partners was exposed to a particular sexual fantasy and many people acted out and even changed their entire lives to suit fantasies they would never have thought up on their own.
So it is only logical that some people will develop a taste for kiddie porn once they see some of it.
You can't be come innocent again after knowing certain things.
I have seen it and liked it. I remember laughing at them eating leaves I think.
Back in the period I was referring to, people started inventing a lot of things and not sharing them (and before-- think of damascus steel).
So society promised reasonable compensation to idea creators who shared their ideas.
Say I have an idea for how to make gasoline out of snicker's bars that makes the gasoline at my cost of 60 cents per gallon. I can share that idea (knowing I will be compensated) or I can keep it secret and make a reasonable amount of money. When I die, the knowledge will be lost- for a long time like damascus steel.
It's not fair to ask an author to spend 3 years of their life writing and then give them nothing. It's not fair to ask a singer to spend a few weeks writing and mastering a new song and give them nothing (current compensation rates are ridiculously high- at least 2 orders of magnitude to high).
It's a balance. The RIAA and others lost sight of their side of the contract when they were powerful. Now that the masses have the power to easily copy things, a lot of them are losing sight of their fair side.
Read up on your history. That is exactly what happened for centuries.
Patents were created as a way to keep secret knowledge from being lost. Copyrights were created as an inducement for writers and musicians to create.
Copyright is not bad per se because we can easily see that people will steal everything they can get their hands on if unchecked by society and not compensate the person that did the work (be it creating a car, a fire, a pile of fire wood, a pie on a windowsill).
Part of the reason our society has advanced so quickly is because legal structures were put in place to force society to reward creators a reasonable amount.
However, creating a 3 minute song does not justify a lifetime income of millions. Disney and other large corporations invested a lot of money in politicians to get copyright grossly overextended. So society is routing around them. Also while there is only one "mickey mouse", there are 99 other entertaining things we can choose from today. If they raise the price of mickey mouse to high, we go elsewhere (of course wealthier people continue to consume mickey mouse at those higher rates).
And as we can see from the spate of female teacher sex offenders, society gives females a "by" when they abuse younger less powerful males.
And I would have loved to have been abused by Ms Havey in 9th grade-- I certainly abused myself enough thinking about her every night. Man-- those a-line skirts still strike a chord in me 30 years later.
VHS was not as good as Betamax. I had a Betamax and they were a superior product.
Often the best product gets pushed out of the market because a similar product is "good enough" at a lower price point.
Openoffice is not as good as Word (I use both) either. I might buy a future copy of Word for $20 (which I can through the widely available corporate discounts in america). However, I will never pay over $100 for word again.
>The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right
Not at all.
Copyright is an inducement for creators to create things and make them available for others to use. The targeted benefit was to society- not to a select individual.
It was rightly set for a short period of time and there are many other kinds of creations which people do not get to keep the rights too.
A tiny subset of humans has asserted additional rights- but the fact is that society is beginning to route around them because there is such a huge glut of inexpensive entertainment.
I think it will mostly sell to new people tho. It will be three years before these people buy another PC. Perhaps word of mouth with their friends tho.
I'm moving towards linux and yet i still support your point that for most people the true price of vista is almost free. As a former scratch builder, I can no longer build a system (without an OS) as inexpensively as I can buy an assembled system with Vista. Add in the $199 for a retail copy and 3 days of my time (to install OS and download all drivers) and I stopped scratch building and instead buy a box and have them add a hot video card to it.
I only play one windows game now-- and when I'm done with that, I'm off of windows. Every other product on my windows box is now also on linux (audacity, open office, azureus, gimp (which I still hate for now but I'm a picture publisher fan - not adobe), etc.).
Google apps not only could disappear but over a 10 year life span, they are extremely likely to disappear.
How many software companies in business in 1998 are still around? There are web sites with tons of "abandonware".
I played a "mmorg" called "earth and beyond". It was nice. It had about 10,000-20,000 users so it was grossing about 150,000-300,000 a month ($1.8 to $3.6million a year). EA shut it down. They didn't even put it in steady state on one server.
Google will shut this down if it is not profitable. Maybe not today's management-- but it is a publicly held company. At some point, cost cutting and bean counters are going to enter the picture and focus the business on the 20% which is most profitable.
Okay-- the linux PC SOLD OUT. How can you argue with a product selling out? It may be a 1.5 rating compared to a new whizbang box (that sells for $1800) but at $200, a lot of people felt it was a 4.0 rating.
This is like when the PS3 people were saying Wii sucked-- while PS3's were sitting unsold and Wii's were rare as hen's teeth. Oh wait... that's still true after 14 months.
Microsoft gives tons of money to these magazines- a magazine recently fired a reviewer for giving a bad review to a paying advertiser (like 40 days ago-- big scandal).
Hmm.
The key is this... Microsoft's "network effect" is fading. Vista sucks so developers can't count on it being installed and more and more linux boxes are out there creating an increasingly large market for hardware and software that works with linux. And the more "consumers" who buy linux (and do not install it and are not gear heads) the friendlier developers of hardware and software are going to make their linux products.
For the first time since 2000- I'd say we are really approaching a tipping point. Microsoft will always be big in the market but very soon there will not be an assumption that it is the market.
I want to retreat to within our borders. Pay fair prices for goods. Remove our provocative AND expensive military bases from around the world.
I want to STOP paying for the cost of protecting oil companies equipment. If they want it protected, let them pay for it. If the "real" price of oil is $200 a barrel and $8 a gallon for gasoline, I want to see it instead of paying $3 at the pump and $5 in taxes for the military.
I want to STOP giving money to corrupt tiny countries for aid that removes pressure on their local elites. Instead I want those countries to revolt and kill their elites and either become decent countries or collapse into irrelevance.
That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul because he's the only guy that is for these things (along with other goofy stuff like reducing the power of our federal government and returning power to the states).
Ike predicted this situation. We were unable to prevent it. I think we are doomed.
But perhaps, destroying IP rights and the growth of other economies will stop it since there just won't be money available to spare to frak with everyone else around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Janet Jackson's boob.... on a show that was understood to not have that kind of content.
She doesn't have to be on the football show. The football show doesn't have to have naked breasts.
I love naked breasts myself. But if people agree "this show is a family safe show" and then you start flashing naked breasts you broke the agreement you made with people. If the NFL wants to put naked breasts on the superbowl, I'm all for it! And I'm also for restricting them from stations and hours inappropriate for family viewing. Oh but wait.. they want to make the money from selling adds to a wider family audience.
Guess that's a problem for them isn't it? No one is stopping them from putting the superbowl on the NFL cable network and doing whatever they want. But the audience is smaller.
I'm not religious-- but churchgoers have an agreed upon behavior for their given church. You don't have to be a member of the church-- you can go to strip joints sunday morning. But if you go into a church and insist in being foul or simply naked, they will be in their rights to have you arrested and hauled out.
There is support for female naked breasts in day to day society (darn those equal rights and all). Personally I think people overreact to breasts.
We were founded on the idea of personal responsibility and freedom.
Note the word "responsibility".
Today people feel they have the "freedom" to do or say anything they want. What made things work before was that people exercised appropriate self-restraint.
It's the same thing that used to make capitalism work. If you toss out the social contract (religious based- and no I'm not religious) then freedom is really just anarchy and a lot of people being incredibly rude to each other.
So you either think that
* "good" ideas can sway people to behavior while "bad" ideas have absolutely no power over people or
* no ideas have any power-- so why even respond to me since your argument would have no effect on me or others since we are unchangeable in the face of new ideas or arguments.
Either people are changed by the things they see and learn or they are not. You can't logically hold both positions.
No some people who always saw children just as children and then saw a picture of them having sex would now have a new way of thinking of children.
With regard to women you have two competing memes here:
1) A female should be able to go without clothing and those sexually attracted to her will only feel sexual attraction when she desires it. If they act on that sexual desire because they have power and she is vulnerable then it is not her fault that she placed her self in a vulnerable position and acted in a way that lead them to think of her sexually.
2) Females sexuality should be entirely suppressed so everyone is safe.
The reality is somewhere in the middle. You can't entirely suppress sexuality. It is a very powerful drive. You can behave responsibly and, oh, I don't know-- not go to a frat house well known for slipping mickeys to girls and raping them-- not get yourself so drunk or stoned that you black out and then disclaim all responsibility when something bad happens to you.
If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, you can be ticketed for creating an attraction to crime. It is just human nature. You tempt people and let them think they can get away with it, and they will do just about anything (including torturing other humans).
Blu-Ray/HD, $29
Same on DVD $16
Three to six months later
Blu-Ray/HD, $25
Same on DVD $10
I not only get him, I agree with him.
I'm one of those folks that plunge into life and experience. I have relatives however who did the same thing and died before they were 21 (drinking and driving is really stupid- but we really think it may have been as much suicide as anything).
I'm not sure I agree with being afraid of exposure-- it's about being exposed to them before you are ready for them. They can corrupt you, poison you, destroy you. Or if you are ready, you turn them over and go "hmm" that's interesting.
Once the idea of shooting bullies got into the mainstream, the number of bullied children who decided to shoot people increased. The idea can be suppressed in some countries. It can't in america.
Once the idea of killing your pregnant wife got out- we also seemed to have a spate of pregnant wife killings.
It is part of the reason the police are vague on details sometimes to avoid inspiring copycats.
And then I see a movie by hollywood that is pretty much a manual on how to do some of these things and I wonder what the hell they are thinking. When they are advancing a liberal agenda, they hold ideas and words have power. When they are slumming in the sewer, suddenly is harmless entertainment.
I want my freedom to slum in the sewer. But I also want my freedom to watch a family rated show or website without being spammed with porn. I want to be able to open my email inbox and not have porn come up. And in the legal environment, I sure as hell don't want illegal porn sent to it. As a side note, I often say that given under 5 minutes, in today's legal climate, i could put enough illegal stuff on anyone's computer to get them put away for a few years. Our laws have not caught up with our technology.
I completely agree- some people are predisposed to be deer in the headlights for kiddie porn, cocaine, sex, booze, cigarettes. In most cases it is a minority- 1% for some, 5% for others. Most people can see kiddie porn, snort a line of coke, have sex reasonably often, drink socially, and even take a few puffs without developing strong addictions quickly.
Sorry but ideas have power.
Be the ideas religious, political, sexual (and the list goes on).
Many people convert to a religion after they hear of it that would never have done so otherwise.
Many a country had lots of people die after the populist was exposed to particular ideas.
Many a marriage had issues once one of the partners was exposed to a particular sexual fantasy and many people acted out and even changed their entire lives to suit fantasies they would never have thought up on their own.
So it is only logical that some people will develop a taste for kiddie porn once they see some of it.
You can't be come innocent again after knowing certain things.
I have seen it and liked it. I remember laughing at them eating leaves I think.
Back in the period I was referring to, people started inventing a lot of things and not sharing them (and before-- think of damascus steel).
So society promised reasonable compensation to idea creators who shared their ideas.
Say I have an idea for how to make gasoline out of snicker's bars that makes the gasoline at my cost of 60 cents per gallon. I can share that idea (knowing I will be compensated) or I can keep it secret and make a reasonable amount of money. When I die, the knowledge will be lost- for a long time like damascus steel.
It's not fair to ask an author to spend 3 years of their life writing and then give them nothing.
It's not fair to ask a singer to spend a few weeks writing and mastering a new song and give them nothing (current compensation rates are ridiculously high- at least 2 orders of magnitude to high).
It's a balance. The RIAA and others lost sight of their side of the contract when they were powerful. Now that the masses have the power to easily copy things, a lot of them are losing sight of their fair side.
Okay- you got me on the "fire"/pre-history.
I was talking more about the 1500-1850 period which wasn't directly addressing your point.
Read up on your history. That is exactly what happened for centuries.
Patents were created as a way to keep secret knowledge from being lost.
Copyrights were created as an inducement for writers and musicians to create.
Copyright is not bad per se because we can easily see that people will steal everything they can get their hands on if unchecked by society and not compensate the person that did the work (be it creating a car, a fire, a pile of fire wood, a pie on a windowsill).
Part of the reason our society has advanced so quickly is because legal structures were put in place to force society to reward creators a reasonable amount.
However, creating a 3 minute song does not justify a lifetime income of millions.
Disney and other large corporations invested a lot of money in politicians to get copyright grossly overextended. So society is routing around them.
Also while there is only one "mickey mouse", there are 99 other entertaining things we can choose from today. If they raise the price of mickey mouse to high, we go elsewhere (of course wealthier people continue to consume mickey mouse at those higher rates).
Personally, I hate you and think your father mated with hamsters and your mother smelled of elderberry wine.
Oh yes.. and I agree with you 100%.
And as we can see from the spate of female teacher sex offenders, society gives females a "by" when they abuse younger less powerful males.
And I would have loved to have been abused by Ms Havey in 9th grade-- I certainly abused myself enough thinking about her every night. Man-- those a-line skirts still strike a chord in me 30 years later.
They are driving sex offenders to murder by making conviction of a sex offense an eternal punishment.
A lot of innocent people (like 18 year olds having sex with 16 year olds) get swept up in this net.
My ex-mother in law would have had me up except her daughter was older than me.
Sexual crimes are bad-- okay. But inappropriately touching someone does not approach murder, blackmail, beating someone nearly to death, etc.
Good point.
VHS was not as good as Betamax. I had a Betamax and they were a superior product.
Often the best product gets pushed out of the market because a similar product is "good enough" at a lower price point.
Openoffice is not as good as Word (I use both) either. I might buy a future copy of Word for $20 (which I can through the widely available corporate discounts in america). However, I will never pay over $100 for word again.
>The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right
Not at all.
Copyright is an inducement for creators to create things and make them available for others to use. The targeted benefit was to society- not to a select individual.
It was rightly set for a short period of time and there are many other kinds of creations which people do not get to keep the rights too.
A tiny subset of humans has asserted additional rights- but the fact is that society is beginning to route around them because there is such a huge glut of inexpensive entertainment.
adblock... no dice.
I see your point.
I think it will mostly sell to new people tho. It will be three years before these people buy another PC. Perhaps word of mouth with their friends tho.
I'm moving towards linux and yet i still support your point that for most people the true price of vista is almost free. As a former scratch builder, I can no longer build a system (without an OS) as inexpensively as I can buy an assembled system with Vista. Add in the $199 for a retail copy and 3 days of my time (to install OS and download all drivers) and I stopped scratch building and instead buy a box and have them add a hot video card to it.
I only play one windows game now-- and when I'm done with that, I'm off of windows. Every other product on my windows box is now also on linux (audacity, open office, azureus, gimp (which I still hate for now but I'm a picture publisher fan - not adobe), etc.).
Google apps not only could disappear but over a 10 year life span, they are extremely likely to disappear.
How many software companies in business in 1998 are still around? There are web sites with tons of "abandonware".
I played a "mmorg" called "earth and beyond". It was nice. It had about 10,000-20,000 users so it was grossing about 150,000-300,000 a month ($1.8 to $3.6million a year). EA shut it down. They didn't even put it in steady state on one server.
Google will shut this down if it is not profitable. Maybe not today's management-- but it is a publicly held company. At some point, cost cutting and bean counters are going to enter the picture and focus the business on the 20% which is most profitable.
Anything I would say would be redundant...
Hmmm...
Purple Chicken.
No..
Hmm.
Okay-- the linux PC SOLD OUT. How can you argue with a product selling out? It may be a 1.5 rating compared to a new whizbang box (that sells for $1800) but at $200, a lot of people felt it was a 4.0 rating.
This is like when the PS3 people were saying Wii sucked-- while PS3's were sitting unsold and Wii's were rare as hen's teeth. Oh wait... that's still true after 14 months.
Microsoft gives tons of money to these magazines- a magazine recently fired a reviewer for giving a bad review to a paying advertiser (like 40 days ago-- big scandal).
Hmm.
The key is this... Microsoft's "network effect" is fading. Vista sucks so developers can't count on it being installed and more and more linux boxes are out there creating an increasingly large market for hardware and software that works with linux. And the more "consumers" who buy linux (and do not install it and are not gear heads) the friendlier developers of hardware and software are going to make their linux products.
For the first time since 2000- I'd say we are really approaching a tipping point. Microsoft will always be big in the market but very soon there will not be an assumption that it is the market.
And I got confused and had the 239 bushels at $10 per pound. OOPS.
You are right- $2390 MAX today-- Back then- it looks like prices were about $3.50 a bushel.
and THIS got the supreme court involved?
First the facts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
"Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess area 239 bushels. "
That's about 15,000 pounds of extra wheat. Even at today's prices ("prices soar to $10 per bushel" http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/news/economy/wheat_prices.ap/index.htm) , that's about $150,000 dollars worth of extra wheat today so assume similar purchasing power back then.
Looking over daily consumption for cattle: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Html/Table1_agriculture.cfm I see about 20 pounds a day of grain. 15,000 pounds of extra grain would last about 750 "cow days". So two cows for a year. A lot of pigs or sheep.
That is a minuscule amount of wheat to throw away the constitution and state's rights for.
The camel's nose came through the interstate commerce clause.
The ruling was that
your wheat which you are going to use privately on your own farm impacts the state market.
your state trades wheat with other states.
So your all your private wheat are belong to us.
Once that was ruled, if they could argue something would have even a secondary affect on interstate commerce, they could regulate it.
That is an interesting point.
I thought of online gambling as just flat out illegal in some areas.
So why can't a cannibis shop sell mail order through the internet to the US and make the same complaint.
I want the US to not matter.
I want to retreat to within our borders. Pay fair prices for goods. Remove our provocative AND expensive military bases from around the world.
I want to STOP paying for the cost of protecting oil companies equipment. If they want it protected, let them pay for it. If the "real" price of oil is $200 a barrel and $8 a gallon for gasoline, I want to see it instead of paying $3 at the pump and $5 in taxes for the military.
I want to STOP giving money to corrupt tiny countries for aid that removes pressure on their local elites. Instead I want those countries to revolt and kill their elites and either become decent countries or collapse into irrelevance.
That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul because he's the only guy that is for these things (along with other goofy stuff like reducing the power of our federal government and returning power to the states).
Ike predicted this situation. We were unable to prevent it. I think we are doomed.
But perhaps, destroying IP rights and the growth of other economies will stop it since there just won't be money available to spare to frak with everyone else around the world.