It's just as possible. For some reason, though, the internet is the one that scares content providers. Maybe it's the democratic nature of the web, as you point out, but I suspect a lot of it's just illogical fear.
Maybe, but one argument against mere "illogical fear" can be seen if you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, where he describes his experience in trying to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act.
The act proposed one small change to current copyright law: that after 50 years, a copyright holder would have to pay $1.00 for each ten years of it's existing copyright protection to maintain copyright protection, otherwise the work goes into the public domain. This would allow old commercially nonviable works to go into public domain after a reasonable period, yet imposes only the most trivial burden on maintaining protect for the tiny minority of works that are still commercially valuable after that period. However, the industry fought the bill tooth-and-nail and defeated it, for stated reasons you can see at the Wikipedia link which sound pretty disingenuous to me.
I tend to favor Lessig's argument, as summarized by WP:
"Proponents, however, have suggested that the real threat this poses to copyright holders is that a huge wave of previously unseen, unused, and forgotten works would spill into the public domain, free for anyone to tamper with. The PDEA would not compromise currently used copyrighted works like Mickey Mouse. Content that is being used, or even content whose owner is aware they 'own' it can be protected for a minimal fee. They suggest there is no reason to oppose it other than the fear of competition from the influx of new content."
And *that* is what I think they really fear about internet radio, not that people will steal their content, but rather *compete* with it.
They want to make royalties not just on the content but also the the broadcasting hardware
What's to stop me from using my choice of broadcasting hardware if I was in the terrestrial radio business?
In the USA, that would be the FCC, which operates its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) "tasked with overseeing equipment authorization for all devices using the electromagnetic energy from 9 kHz to 300 GHz. OET maintains an electronic database of all Certified equipment which can be easily accessed by the public."
No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.
That's an easy one. Cause people use the internet to steal copyrighted material.
People can't "steal copyrighted material" from satellite and broadcast?
I think I've got a better explanation. Broadcast and satellite are channels that require very high initial investment, thus locking out small competitors. Internet radio can be set up by anyone, and thus is harder for an industry cartel to control.
If a potential employer is so anti-X as to consider not hiring a pro-X activist, and the potential employee so pro-X that he/she is an activist, it probably is better to not be hired. First, tension could be created in the office that may be distracting to everyone in the office. Second, the tension between the boss and potential employee would likely lead to the employee's termination. Now, if the potential employee was pro-X 5 years ago, that's a different matter.
Maybe, but in my experience, people generally leave their political opinions at the workplace door for just this reason, and in my opinion that's a good thing. I don't see that as an encroachment on free expression, rather just that there is a time and place for everything. However, if there is even the possibility that an outside-the-workplace expression of political opinions could bias potential employers, I think that does have a very real effect on free expression, one I think we ignore at our peril.
Remember, too, that the person doing this search might not be the company owner or even the applicant's supervisor, but rather some HR person whom the applicant would never even work with.
If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
What if it's something a little less stereotypical? Say you're a political activist of some stripe. If you are publicly active in the pro-X movement, do you want to be dismissed for a job consideration because the guy checking your resume is anti-X?
I agree that anyone who posts truly embarrassing information online is an idiot. However, the idea that one must balance their freedom to express themselves under their own name against the possibility of offending a prospective employer is chilling and repugnant, IMHO. Not that the Web created that dynamic, but it certainly makes it a bit more pervasive.
not me. Ill take 100 mb/sec with a cap of 250 GB a month over 758 kb/sec with no cap.
Never mind your fancy numbers. All I want to know is that my "broadband" is "high-speed". Then when everyone has "high-speed broadband", they can sell me "large-capacity high-speed broadband" which will be even better.
Now excuse me, I must leave for my job at the Department of Redundancy Department, and if I get modded Redundant, I'll take it as a compliment.
I just bought a Fit this year, and for the first few months I diligently tracked the mileage. Noting that my normal commute is 90% on open highway at 70+ mph, it consistently got 36 mpg. During that time I attended a 2 week course in the city over the course of which I used about one tank of gas and still came out at 36 mpg. I was surprised not to see a significant drop, but I didn't.
I'm very happy with my Fit, even if it is one of the stupidest names for a car I've ever heard.
The thing I hated about 8-tracks was that, in my experience, the players were highly susceptible to playback head misalignment as the track change was accomplished by physically moving the head. The result was inevitably that in the silence between songs or in soft passages you could hear faint bleed-over from the adjacent tracks.
You responded to me (not some "other poster") that I was using "flawed logic" because I was supposedly only considering the fact that there is an absence of any evidence that he acted alone. However, as I clearly pointed out, there *is* compelling evidence that suggests that others were involved, as well as that parts of the crime that it is highly unlikely that he could have done himself.
Oh, and by the way, you seem to imply that I am stating with certainty that there were co-conspirators, which I have not. All I have stated is that there is no evidence that he acted alone, and countering evidence that strongly suggest that he didn't ask alone, and that without clearing that up they should not be closing the investigation.
I'm sorry again, but could you help me out here, how does the fact that Ivins couldn't have posted the letters, progress to, there was more than one cuplrit and Ivins was in conspiracy with them.
Hmmmm...let's see....you just proffer as a "fact that Ivins couldn't have posted the letters", which was clearly part of the crime in question, and then ask how that could progress to a suspicion that someone else was involved? How would you submit, O great detector of "flawed logic", that the letters got mailed if he acted alone yet couldn't have mailed them? Telekinesis?
Then again, your utterly ridiculous non-sequitur that a suspicion that someone else could have been involved could somehow be extrapolated to a suggestion that the entire national population was involved speaks volumes about your self-proclaimed grasp of logic.
That's because you seen nothing at all, and how by any rules of logic, can you infer the absence of any 'evidence' that he actied alone, as being evidence that he didn't act alone.
You mean, I've seen nothing other than the information I've cited that contraindicates a lone culprit. It's easy to point out another's logical flaws if you ignore half of their point, I guess.
I don't think placing him in NJ would be a problem in trial.
I'm not talking about what evidence would be needed to convict Ivins. I'm talking about the evidence needed to rule out the possibility of other guilty parties, of which the fact that they can't place him in Princeton is just one rather relevant piece.
And, of course, since Ivins is dead, there will be no trial; assuming, of course, that they don't find any evidence of other complicit parties in their zeal to avoid that very thing.
Well, from the evidence I've seen, whatever may tie Ivins to this crime, I've seen nothing to indicate that Ivins acted alone. The fact that they can't place him in the Princeton, NJ area at the time the letters were mailed is a huge problem in that regard, as is the question of who fed false information suggesting Iraqi involvement to ABC's Brian Ross. These facts are not consistent with the FBI's seeming desire to close this case based upon Ivins being the sole culprit.
My first thought was to wonder whether or not infrared goggles would defeat this or not. The Scientific American article noted "limited spectrum", so my guess is that it would not be infrared invisible as well.
"Why are hemorrhoids called hemorrhoids and asteroids called asteroids? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was the other way around? But if that was true, then a proctologist would be an astronaut." - Robert Schimmel
In that context, nukes do seem like a rather extreme solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sometimes goatse gets here pretty quick.
In a sense, this may be one time when goatse might actually be appropriate, what with the world facing a giant killer fart and all.
Or it could mean 2.71828183 channel surround sound.
It was sarcasm.
It's just as possible. For some reason, though, the internet is the one that scares content providers. Maybe it's the democratic nature of the web, as you point out, but I suspect a lot of it's just illogical fear.
Maybe, but one argument against mere "illogical fear" can be seen if you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, where he describes his experience in trying to pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act.
The act proposed one small change to current copyright law: that after 50 years, a copyright holder would have to pay $1.00 for each ten years of it's existing copyright protection to maintain copyright protection, otherwise the work goes into the public domain. This would allow old commercially nonviable works to go into public domain after a reasonable period, yet imposes only the most trivial burden on maintaining protect for the tiny minority of works that are still commercially valuable after that period. However, the industry fought the bill tooth-and-nail and defeated it, for stated reasons you can see at the Wikipedia link which sound pretty disingenuous to me.
I tend to favor Lessig's argument, as summarized by WP:
"Proponents, however, have suggested that the real threat this poses to copyright holders is that a huge wave of previously unseen, unused, and forgotten works would spill into the public domain, free for anyone to tamper with. The PDEA would not compromise currently used copyrighted works like Mickey Mouse. Content that is being used, or even content whose owner is aware they 'own' it can be protected for a minimal fee. They suggest there is no reason to oppose it other than the fear of competition from the influx of new content."
And *that* is what I think they really fear about internet radio, not that people will steal their content, but rather *compete* with it.
They want to make royalties not just on the content but also the the broadcasting hardware
What's to stop me from using my choice of broadcasting hardware if I was in the terrestrial radio business?
In the USA, that would be the FCC, which operates its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) "tasked with overseeing equipment authorization for all devices using the electromagnetic energy from 9 kHz to 300 GHz. OET maintains an electronic database of all Certified equipment which can be easily accessed by the public."
No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.
That's an easy one. Cause people use the internet to steal copyrighted material.
People can't "steal copyrighted material" from satellite and broadcast?
I think I've got a better explanation. Broadcast and satellite are channels that require very high initial investment, thus locking out small competitors. Internet radio can be set up by anyone, and thus is harder for an industry cartel to control.
"Saddam has incredible weapons. Incredible weapons."
"How do you know?"
"Uh, we looked at the receipt. . . . but as soon as the check clears, we're going in."
If a potential employer is so anti-X as to consider not hiring a pro-X activist, and the potential employee so pro-X that he/she is an activist, it probably is better to not be hired. First, tension could be created in the office that may be distracting to everyone in the office. Second, the tension between the boss and potential employee would likely lead to the employee's termination. Now, if the potential employee was pro-X 5 years ago, that's a different matter.
Maybe, but in my experience, people generally leave their political opinions at the workplace door for just this reason, and in my opinion that's a good thing. I don't see that as an encroachment on free expression, rather just that there is a time and place for everything. However, if there is even the possibility that an outside-the-workplace expression of political opinions could bias potential employers, I think that does have a very real effect on free expression, one I think we ignore at our peril.
Remember, too, that the person doing this search might not be the company owner or even the applicant's supervisor, but rather some HR person whom the applicant would never even work with.
If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
What if it's something a little less stereotypical? Say you're a political activist of some stripe. If you are publicly active in the pro-X movement, do you want to be dismissed for a job consideration because the guy checking your resume is anti-X?
I agree that anyone who posts truly embarrassing information online is an idiot. However, the idea that one must balance their freedom to express themselves under their own name against the possibility of offending a prospective employer is chilling and repugnant, IMHO. Not that the Web created that dynamic, but it certainly makes it a bit more pervasive.
not me. Ill take 100 mb/sec with a cap of 250 GB a month over 758 kb/sec with no cap.
Never mind your fancy numbers. All I want to know is that my "broadband" is "high-speed". Then when everyone has "high-speed broadband", they can sell me "large-capacity high-speed broadband" which will be even better.
Now excuse me, I must leave for my job at the Department of Redundancy Department, and if I get modded Redundant, I'll take it as a compliment.
And is that 34 MPG city or highway?
I just bought a Fit this year, and for the first few months I diligently tracked the mileage. Noting that my normal commute is 90% on open highway at 70+ mph, it consistently got 36 mpg. During that time I attended a 2 week course in the city over the course of which I used about one tank of gas and still came out at 36 mpg. I was surprised not to see a significant drop, but I didn't.
I'm very happy with my Fit, even if it is one of the stupidest names for a car I've ever heard.
Pictures of cats? Why?!
I can haz pie-ratted Win-does?
Google CICS.
The thing I hated about 8-tracks was that, in my experience, the players were highly susceptible to playback head misalignment as the track change was accomplished by physically moving the head. The result was inevitably that in the silence between songs or in soft passages you could hear faint bleed-over from the adjacent tracks.
Who use this buggy, slow Operating System?
George Costanza. That way he doesn't have to work. He just tells his boss that his computer is slow so he can't get much done.
You know, if Vista came with a hideaway under-the-desk bed, I'd probably use it.
The bed, that is, not Vista.
This one goes to 110%. (apologies to Nigel Tufnel)
Where did you ever say to me to produce any evidence? You were simply babbling about "flawed logic" based upon selective reading.
I'd point you to the evidence if it wasn't perfectly clear at this point that you are trolling.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
You responded to me (not some "other poster") that I was using "flawed logic" because I was supposedly only considering the fact that there is an absence of any evidence that he acted alone. However, as I clearly pointed out, there *is* compelling evidence that suggests that others were involved, as well as that parts of the crime that it is highly unlikely that he could have done himself.
Oh, and by the way, you seem to imply that I am stating with certainty that there were co-conspirators, which I have not. All I have stated is that there is no evidence that he acted alone, and countering evidence that strongly suggest that he didn't ask alone, and that without clearing that up they should not be closing the investigation.
Hmmmm...let's see....you just proffer as a "fact that Ivins couldn't have posted the letters", which was clearly part of the crime in question, and then ask how that could progress to a suspicion that someone else was involved? How would you submit, O great detector of "flawed logic", that the letters got mailed if he acted alone yet couldn't have mailed them? Telekinesis?
Then again, your utterly ridiculous non-sequitur that a suspicion that someone else could have been involved could somehow be extrapolated to a suggestion that the entire national population was involved speaks volumes about your self-proclaimed grasp of logic.
You mean, I've seen nothing other than the information I've cited that contraindicates a lone culprit. It's easy to point out another's logical flaws if you ignore half of their point, I guess.
I'm not talking about what evidence would be needed to convict Ivins. I'm talking about the evidence needed to rule out the possibility of other guilty parties, of which the fact that they can't place him in Princeton is just one rather relevant piece.
And, of course, since Ivins is dead, there will be no trial; assuming, of course, that they don't find any evidence of other complicit parties in their zeal to avoid that very thing.
Well, from the evidence I've seen, whatever may tie Ivins to this crime, I've seen nothing to indicate that Ivins acted alone. The fact that they can't place him in the Princeton, NJ area at the time the letters were mailed is a huge problem in that regard, as is the question of who fed false information suggesting Iraqi involvement to ABC's Brian Ross. These facts are not consistent with the FBI's seeming desire to close this case based upon Ivins being the sole culprit.
That's easy. Point your AK-47 at someone else and say "Slice that loaf of bread."
My first thought was to wonder whether or not infrared goggles would defeat this or not. The Scientific American article noted "limited spectrum", so my guess is that it would not be infrared invisible as well.
down the...ummm...drain.
"Why are hemorrhoids called hemorrhoids and asteroids called asteroids? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was the other way around? But if that was true, then a proctologist would be an astronaut." - Robert Schimmel
In that context, nukes do seem like a rather extreme solution.
If the guy brought back a few missing left socks from the mission, he'd be more credible.