The MPAA doesn't want to keep users from playing DVDs on Linux, they want to keep people from playing DVDs for free. Hardware DVD players and windows / mac software have paid licensing fees in order to be able to play DVDs. I believe Linspire has paid these fees and DVDs can be played legally on a computer running Linspire. Is it that hard to believe that a company that makes their profits by licensing the rights to play DVDs doesn't want to just give it away to people on Linux?
As for your other examples, those are issues of user base and poor distribution methods. It's not that manufacturers don't "give two shits about your rights to use the device" it's that they assume that if a person is not using a compatible operating system, they won't buy their device. Many companies have done research and found that the cost of making and maintaining drivers / software for their devices outweighs the profits that will be made from the creation of such drivers.
You say that enough people use Linux to warrant making these drivers, but where's your evidence? I've seen few statistics that indicate Linux is used by any more than 4% of the population. That's 4% of the market that a manufacturer can't reach, and they'd probably have to spend at least 10% extra to reach out to Linux users. It's simply not profitable.
True, but the ISP can't control the connection of the people they're linking you to. It all comes down to bottlnecks. I connect to my ISP at about 6 mbps. If the website I'm trying to connect to (or any server between my provider and that site) can only upload at 3 mbps, through no fault of my provider, I only download at 3mbps.
Your son gets his third speeding ticket in the six months since he got his license. In general, he's a good kid, he works hard in school, has a steady girlfriend, and has a job to pay for his car, but just can't keep that pedal off the floor. With this latest speeding ticket, he can no longer afford to pay his insurance, and asks you to help him out.
Lots of parents would just say "nope, you're out of luck." But a lack of a car would mean he couldn't get to his job or take his girlfriend out. You decide to give him two choices: he loses his car, or you help pay for insurance, and in exchange he has to accept one of these devices in his car.
In a case like that, I'd be happy to have my parents put one of those devices in my car. I'd be glad that they trusted me enough to help with my insurance, and very glad to still be driving. I'd probably be more cautious of a driver just to maintain my parents trust, regardless of what consequences my parents might put in place for speeding.
Yes, if you put this in your kid's car before they have an opportunity to betray your trust, you have trust issues. But if you know your kid has a habit of speeding, it seems like a nice alternative to not having a car at all.
I think that even with birth defects a cure for AIDS would be useful.
There's a difference between a vaccine and a cure. If you could cure someone of AIDS and give their immediate descendants of some minor birth defects, that might be worthwhile. But a vaccination is something that would be given to everyone in order to prevent them from getting HIV in the first place. This being the case, birth defects are definitely not an acceptable consequence.
I completely disagree. You state that cell phones caused family problems, but you don't support this statement at all. Are you referring to kids who run up huge bills and expect their parents to pay for them? Or parents who use the phone as a leash to keep track of their kids? Or something I've missed entirely?
I got my cell phone shortly before I got a car when I was 16. The car was my responsibility - insurance, maintenance, gas, etc. - I had to pay for. But my parents felt that there was a lot of risk associated with driving and being away from home, and they wanted me to be able to get a hold of them when I needed to, and they wanted to get a hold of me if they needed to. I didn't use my phone much, but it was a nice source of security. When I had a car accident, I called my dad for advice on how to handle everything. When my grandfather died, my mom was able to get a hold of me easily. It was never something they used as a leash and it was never something I overused.
I'm interested to hear more about your position. I'm not aware of cell phones creating many problems that wouldn't have manifested otherwise.
I don't know about the UK, but here in the US many states have what are known as Romeo and Juliette clauses, significantly reducing the severity of the punishment for a 17 year old who sleeps with his 15 year old girlfriend (with variations from state to state). There's still generally a small punishment, but it drops from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Generally people who talk about states rights talk about all the laws the federal government has created without adding them to the consitution.
A few examples:
- The National speed limit: 55 miles per hour might be great in densely populated eastern states, but going from St. Louis to Denver, 75 mph is appropriate much of the way.
- The National drinking age: This one is disputable, but in some places drinking at 18 years old isn't going to be as devistating as it is in others. The federal government would restrict transportation funding if a state refused to comply.
I don't have time to write about the numerous other things that should fall into states rights, but it boils down to this: The federal government makes individuals pay taxes, then hold this money against the states to make them comply with certain laws that aren't supported by the constitution. If the states were to decline the funding from the federal government, they would have to tax their citizens more, and the citizens would become angry that they were being taxed twice for the same thing. Those of us in favor of states rights generally support the US constitution, it's the funding restrictions that drive us crazy.
Hardly. Scientists were very skeptical when it happened. I was ten and remember being really excited by the idea that life may have existed on mars at one point, and being disappointed about a year later when they decided that probably wasn't the case. I'm not even sure why this is in the news now.
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." - Jesus.
If I had a friend come to me asking advice on this subject, I'd loan them one of my copies of Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. That book has helped me resolve quite a few conflicts, and is definitely worth a read.
Suing gets expensive and out of hand. Consulting a lawyer about a public nuissance, and possibly having the lawyer send a letter to the offender would probably be wise, and relatively inexpensive.
I completely agree. People far to often forget history.
To answer the grandparent's question, yes. The first time I can think of that a president rallied support by making exaggerated or false accusations was the civil war. During the depression, fiscal conservatives who opposed government support of the poor and elderly were characterized as inhumane. Today we're still dealing with the consequences of not taking their thoughts into consideration. During the cold war, Senator Joseph McCarthy called anyone who challenged him a communist, devistating the reputations of many innocent people.
These aren't necessarily all the president's actions, but they certainly demonstarte that power has been abused by dishonest accusations.
More on the parent's subject of people forgetting history: I think people have forgotten how significant the recovery process is. After the Civil War, Lincoln was assassinated and the south was left in shambles because the recovery plan was tossed aside. To this day, parts of the south have not recoverred. After the first world war, Germany was punished and fined for the war. This caused them to look for a leader that would help them recover. They found Adolph Hitler. After the second world war we realized our mistake, but recovery was a shakey process. Germany was broken up, half to be helped by the Soviet Union, the other half by the United States and Great Brittain. Germany was a site of conflict for the Cold War, and wasn't reunited until 1990. Japan is the only example I can think of that shows a successful rehabilitation after a war, and that took a long time. Vietnam and the Koreas also struggled after their wars.
My point is, rehabilitation is the most important and costly part of any war. I don't think the current administration thought about that as long as they should have before starting a war, but I certainly think the consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely could be devistating.
You're putting a lot of words in peoples mouths here. The parent post was suggesting that there is a huge difference between finding a cure for HIV/AIDS and marketing an operating system. To argue with that is retarded.
Yes, computers are important. Competition among software vendors is important. Yes, Microsoft has a history of stifling that competition. But the computer industry is business. Businesses try to make money. That's why they're there.
Curing AIDS on the other hand should be thought of as a humanitarian issue. There are millions of people waiting on a cure for AIDS and the longer it takes, more people get AIDS and more people die. A cure for AIDs doesn't need competition, it needs collaboration. Competition provides different options for the consumer, forcing the competitors to create a better product in order to keep or gain consumers. As of yet, there aren't any options for AIDS cures. The companies need to be pooling what they know in order to save millions of lives.
Now, before you call me a Microsoft apologist, I have a few points I'd like to make. There are other options.
For example, I'm writing this post on a Linux box. I've often grown frustrated by Linux developers insistance that everything should be open source. Most companies develope their products to make money, and they can't do that if just anyone can produce the exact same thing. Linux developers often turn down offers that would improve the user's experience because it's not open source. To a degree, this limits the development of Linux.
Another option is the Mac. OSX provides an alternative to Windows that tends to be more complete than Linux, unfortunately it's only available on overpriced hardware, so it can't proliferate as well as Windows can.
Personally, I have two computers. My Linux server, and my Windows laptop. The only Microsoft software I use on my laptop is the operating system. I use Firefox for web browsing, OpenOffice.org for documents, Eclipse for programming, the GIMP for photo editing, iTunes for my music, and the list goes on. In fact, I get more aggrivated at Apple for tying me to Windows than I do Microsoft, because on that list of software I just gave you, iTunes is the only thing not available for Linux.
In short, Microsoft has plenty of competition, but many of the competitors create their own barriers that prevent them from excelling.
I have to agree with everything you've said. Users knew what they were getting into when they accepted iTunes DRM, and I don't see that it's done anything but become less restrictive. Yes, they've reduced the number of times a playlist can be burned, but there's absolutely nothing in place to keep you from making copies of that CD with other software, or even with iTunes. Then, the ability to authorize two more computers to play your music is fairly liberating - I have 4 of my five authorizations used and use three of them regularly, the other on occasion.
I admit, I have felt a bit locked in to an operating system by my iTunes music. My iTunes music is one of two things keeping me from dumping Windows for Linux. But I knew when I started buying music that it had these restrictions, so while I wish Apple would create a version of the iTMS for Linux users, that was never part of the agreement.
This "red box" you speak of isn't exactly going to put an end to windows. It definitely gives Mac a strong foothold when it comes to readily available programs, but the question has been asked numerous times before, "Why develop programs for a Mac if you can just run windows programs on it anyway?" People would develop to hit the widest audience, which would mean using the same, flawed windows API. There would undoubtedly be some people who would still develop for Macs, but I'm guessing it would be even fewer than it is now. It's not that I wouldn't like to see something like that, but I'd be fairly suprised to see it.
What I'd like to see would be some sort of 'red box' for Linux. I've yet to find a program that I want to use that WINE runs well, much less flawlessly. I'd have no problem paying for a Windows installation, I just want to avoid all the problems that go along with it. A Virtual Machine isn't the environment I'd like to be working with, but something like the red box would be pretty cool with Linux. Linux development would keep up because most Linux users wouldn't want to touch Windows if it can be avoided.
Yes, but just because a judge can't figure out how to make thumbnails on a web page that you can click to see a bigger picture doesn't mean it's not an obvious patent. I think it's hard to say what is an isn't an obvious patent. It would need some kind of definition to hold up consistently.
ESRB ratings may be optional, but deceiving ESRB to get a wider audience is still fraud. Take2 could have chosen not to get an ESRB rating, but they chose to, and the FTC believes they deceived ESRB and consequently their customers. I would tend to disagree, since it requires a third party patch to enable, and a third party patch could have created these features as easily as enable ones that are already there (at least as far as the end user is concerned).
I completely agree with your iPod assessment. While some people may just use iPods with headphones, they're barely touching the surface of an iPod's capabilities.
In my room, I have a set of computer speakers next to my bed, not for a computer mind you, but for my iPod. My iPod is my alarm clock as well, allowing me to pick which songs I want to wake up to. This may not sound like much, but being able to wake up to a song that starts peacefully has made getting up in the morning more pleasant than when I woke up to whatever happened to be on the radio at that time.
Being a college student who lives four hours away from his girlfriend, I put a jack in my car so I can plug in my iPod for long trips. This beats searching for a new radio station every 60 miles, and only being able to find country stations for half the car ride (not to offend country fans, if they actually exist).
About the only time I ever used headphones is when I'm mowing the lawn, and for that I have some nice noise cancelling headphones (they were more expensive than the computer speakers or the jack in the car, but well worth the investment). With these headphones I can put my iPod at about 60% volume and hear over the lawn mower.
But to me, the most fascinating use of my iPod is the 20 GB hard drive that I almost always have with me. My dad once paid $500 for a hard drive that was the size of a mid-sized case and with capacity dwarfed by a CD-ROM. He would have been thrilled by a 20 GB hard drive at $299, and ecstatic by the fact that it played music and fit in his pocket. And if he'd had one of those new-fangled video iPods he'd have been in heaven. Before someone comments about watching T.V. on a tiny, handheld screen, I'd like to point out that the video capabilities are much like the audio - you can plug in an RCA adapter and watch your show on a Television.
Since this will be my only comment to this thread, I'm going to touch on a few other points. I must confess that I am one of those people with a camera phone and a Bluetooth Headset. The camera phone doesn't need to be great, but I enjoy having a camera with me all the time. If it weren't for the camera phone, I just wouldn't be taking pictures. The Bluetooth headset is another convenience, though far from being a necessity. I use it to talk on the phone while I'm at my computer and occasionally when I'm in my car (a stick). It's hardly a permanent fixture on my face, but it is convenient.
I'm struggling to find Dvorak's point (as I usually do with his articles). Was he suggesting that we shouldn't have portable music players that can hold an entire music collection? Was he trying to say we shouldn't use digital cameras because we hold them funny? I don't understand his point about smoking outdoors at all, and I have to wonder what his objection is to the convenience of technology.
Yes, you are definitely stereotyping. I'm an agnostic. I don't go to church anymore, but I went when I was growing up and almost nothing you mention appeared in my church.
I was never told not to do something simply because it was against god's will. During my confirmation, I asked my preacher why the church had a problem with pornography (in context with the lesson) and he gave me a very logical answer. He didn't punish me for questioning the beliefs of the church, and he didn't answer with "Because god says so." He was trying to help me understand with hopes that I might be a more considerate, caring person when I entered adulthood.
And what hipocrasy do you speak of? I really didn't see much at my church. People interpreted what the bible said into logical advice. It gives perspective to issues people might otherwise struggle with.
I'm not sure what you're next point is supposed to mean.
Yes, their are leaders who use religion to brainwash their followers. There are also leaders who wrap themselves in the American flag and call anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic. This doesn't mean anyone who considers themself to be patriotic agrees with those leaders. Just because some leaders abuse religion does not mean religion exists solely to control people.
The church I grew up in asks only for enough to keep the church going. The minister leads a very modest lifestyle, and while I saw political discussion at my church, I never saw anyone be told who to vote for.
And my church is not alone. I've known Christians, Jews and Muslims who take advice from their religion, and I mean logical advice, not manipulative propaganda. This can help lead to enlightment, and it's certainly not just saying "it's god's will."
The blatant stereotypes you're spreading are propogated because of what I believe is a loud minority. People like Fred Phelps lead others to believe that all Christians hate homosexuals and non-christians, but this is simply not the case. People like Osama Bin Laden make muslims appear to be bloodthirsty and anti-american. Again, this is generally not the case.
I think religion has a lot to offer the world, and I think it's a pity that it gets abused as often as it does. Personally, I don't go to church because I find it boring. I don't necessarily believe one faith is any more "correct" than another, but I do think religion can be a valuable asset to a person as they mature and grow, and as a result, it can help make the world a better place.
And to think, I read into the comments on this article because I was intrigued by the fact Canadians pay a tax on blank media to help compensate artists.
I have to agree with the guy who got modded down to zero, but I don't think you're completely ignoring his last line:
If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.
This piece of legislation is not the problem. If it were really going to be used in the ways they claim it will be used, it would be a decent piece of legislation (although an inconvenience to ISPs). It would help put predators behind bars, and potentially disrupt terrorist attacks. The problem is, as JonTurner suggested, much bigger than this legislation. The problem arises when AT&T gives the NSA any information they ask for without going through proper channels. The problem is that we can't trust our government not to use things like this against people who disagree with them politically. We shouldn't sit here and oppose small pieces of legislation like the one in question, we need to be looking at the bigger issue.
I could give you a list of bumps I've experienced with Linux. I ran into a bunch trying to install MythTV, and I'm running into even more trying to upgrade it. Lately, I've been trying to make my Ubuntu desktop connect to my Windows Laptop wirelessly to share the internet connection, but I've yet to get more than 1.0 mbs. A while back, I tried to install ZoneMinder on a friend's computer to help them do security at their farm. Zoneminder was a pain to get installed, and I later found out the card I had purchased didn't have Linux drivers (despite claims I'd seen before purchasing the card). Finally I decided to use the windows software that came with the card, and I had it up and running in under an hour. I'll grant you that most of these things stem from inexperience, but everyone has to start somewhere, and I've known people who gave up because it was difficult.
Yes, there are lots of things that are easy to get running on Linux. Getting a LAMP webserver setup takes minutes. A samba server is a quick and easy way to interact with a windows network. I've found lots of tools that are cheaper and easier to use in Linux than they are in windows, that's why I have a Linux desktop, but there are certainly enough challenges for it to be a bit disconcerting.
Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.
It does not say that his name became infamous on October 19th, he said it became tied to the case on October 19th. He didn't even know about it for two days after that. When dealing with legal issues, it generally isn't wise to rush out and publicly attack people who you're going to be seeing in court. He waited to see if the issue could be resolved peacefully before speaking out. Speaking out early on may have hurt his chances of a peaceful resolution when they still existed. At this point it seems a nasty court battle is inevitable, so the letter won't do much harm.
Slashdot Mirror
I give it a month after it comes out before there's a project dedicated to running linux on it.
As for your other examples, those are issues of user base and poor distribution methods. It's not that manufacturers don't "give two shits about your rights to use the device" it's that they assume that if a person is not using a compatible operating system, they won't buy their device. Many companies have done research and found that the cost of making and maintaining drivers / software for their devices outweighs the profits that will be made from the creation of such drivers.
You say that enough people use Linux to warrant making these drivers, but where's your evidence? I've seen few statistics that indicate Linux is used by any more than 4% of the population. That's 4% of the market that a manufacturer can't reach, and they'd probably have to spend at least 10% extra to reach out to Linux users. It's simply not profitable.
True, but the ISP can't control the connection of the people they're linking you to. It all comes down to bottlnecks. I connect to my ISP at about 6 mbps. If the website I'm trying to connect to (or any server between my provider and that site) can only upload at 3 mbps, through no fault of my provider, I only download at 3mbps.
Lots of parents would just say "nope, you're out of luck." But a lack of a car would mean he couldn't get to his job or take his girlfriend out. You decide to give him two choices: he loses his car, or you help pay for insurance, and in exchange he has to accept one of these devices in his car.
In a case like that, I'd be happy to have my parents put one of those devices in my car. I'd be glad that they trusted me enough to help with my insurance, and very glad to still be driving. I'd probably be more cautious of a driver just to maintain my parents trust, regardless of what consequences my parents might put in place for speeding.
Yes, if you put this in your kid's car before they have an opportunity to betray your trust, you have trust issues. But if you know your kid has a habit of speeding, it seems like a nice alternative to not having a car at all.
There's a difference between a vaccine and a cure. If you could cure someone of AIDS and give their immediate descendants of some minor birth defects, that might be worthwhile. But a vaccination is something that would be given to everyone in order to prevent them from getting HIV in the first place. This being the case, birth defects are definitely not an acceptable consequence.
So far the **AAs have been able to have their cake and eat it too. Why on earth would they want to make a decision about what they are selling?
I got my cell phone shortly before I got a car when I was 16. The car was my responsibility - insurance, maintenance, gas, etc. - I had to pay for. But my parents felt that there was a lot of risk associated with driving and being away from home, and they wanted me to be able to get a hold of them when I needed to, and they wanted to get a hold of me if they needed to. I didn't use my phone much, but it was a nice source of security. When I had a car accident, I called my dad for advice on how to handle everything. When my grandfather died, my mom was able to get a hold of me easily. It was never something they used as a leash and it was never something I overused.
I'm interested to hear more about your position. I'm not aware of cell phones creating many problems that wouldn't have manifested otherwise.
I don't know about the UK, but here in the US many states have what are known as Romeo and Juliette clauses, significantly reducing the severity of the punishment for a 17 year old who sleeps with his 15 year old girlfriend (with variations from state to state). There's still generally a small punishment, but it drops from a felony to a misdemeanor.
A few examples:
- The National speed limit: 55 miles per hour might be great in densely populated eastern states, but going from St. Louis to Denver, 75 mph is appropriate much of the way.
- The National drinking age: This one is disputable, but in some places drinking at 18 years old isn't going to be as devistating as it is in others. The federal government would restrict transportation funding if a state refused to comply.
I don't have time to write about the numerous other things that should fall into states rights, but it boils down to this: The federal government makes individuals pay taxes, then hold this money against the states to make them comply with certain laws that aren't supported by the constitution. If the states were to decline the funding from the federal government, they would have to tax their citizens more, and the citizens would become angry that they were being taxed twice for the same thing. Those of us in favor of states rights generally support the US constitution, it's the funding restrictions that drive us crazy.
Hardly. Scientists were very skeptical when it happened. I was ten and remember being really excited by the idea that life may have existed on mars at one point, and being disappointed about a year later when they decided that probably wasn't the case. I'm not even sure why this is in the news now.
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." - Jesus.
If I had a friend come to me asking advice on this subject, I'd loan them one of my copies of Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. That book has helped me resolve quite a few conflicts, and is definitely worth a read.
Suing gets expensive and out of hand. Consulting a lawyer about a public nuissance, and possibly having the lawyer send a letter to the offender would probably be wise, and relatively inexpensive.
To answer the grandparent's question, yes. The first time I can think of that a president rallied support by making exaggerated or false accusations was the civil war. During the depression, fiscal conservatives who opposed government support of the poor and elderly were characterized as inhumane. Today we're still dealing with the consequences of not taking their thoughts into consideration. During the cold war, Senator Joseph McCarthy called anyone who challenged him a communist, devistating the reputations of many innocent people.
These aren't necessarily all the president's actions, but they certainly demonstarte that power has been abused by dishonest accusations.
More on the parent's subject of people forgetting history: I think people have forgotten how significant the recovery process is. After the Civil War, Lincoln was assassinated and the south was left in shambles because the recovery plan was tossed aside. To this day, parts of the south have not recoverred. After the first world war, Germany was punished and fined for the war. This caused them to look for a leader that would help them recover. They found Adolph Hitler. After the second world war we realized our mistake, but recovery was a shakey process. Germany was broken up, half to be helped by the Soviet Union, the other half by the United States and Great Brittain. Germany was a site of conflict for the Cold War, and wasn't reunited until 1990. Japan is the only example I can think of that shows a successful rehabilitation after a war, and that took a long time. Vietnam and the Koreas also struggled after their wars.
My point is, rehabilitation is the most important and costly part of any war. I don't think the current administration thought about that as long as they should have before starting a war, but I certainly think the consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely could be devistating.
Yes, computers are important. Competition among software vendors is important. Yes, Microsoft has a history of stifling that competition. But the computer industry is business. Businesses try to make money. That's why they're there.
Curing AIDS on the other hand should be thought of as a humanitarian issue. There are millions of people waiting on a cure for AIDS and the longer it takes, more people get AIDS and more people die. A cure for AIDs doesn't need competition, it needs collaboration. Competition provides different options for the consumer, forcing the competitors to create a better product in order to keep or gain consumers. As of yet, there aren't any options for AIDS cures. The companies need to be pooling what they know in order to save millions of lives.
Now, before you call me a Microsoft apologist, I have a few points I'd like to make. There are other options.
For example, I'm writing this post on a Linux box. I've often grown frustrated by Linux developers insistance that everything should be open source. Most companies develope their products to make money, and they can't do that if just anyone can produce the exact same thing. Linux developers often turn down offers that would improve the user's experience because it's not open source. To a degree, this limits the development of Linux.
Another option is the Mac. OSX provides an alternative to Windows that tends to be more complete than Linux, unfortunately it's only available on overpriced hardware, so it can't proliferate as well as Windows can.
Personally, I have two computers. My Linux server, and my Windows laptop. The only Microsoft software I use on my laptop is the operating system. I use Firefox for web browsing, OpenOffice.org for documents, Eclipse for programming, the GIMP for photo editing, iTunes for my music, and the list goes on. In fact, I get more aggrivated at Apple for tying me to Windows than I do Microsoft, because on that list of software I just gave you, iTunes is the only thing not available for Linux.
In short, Microsoft has plenty of competition, but many of the competitors create their own barriers that prevent them from excelling.
I admit, I have felt a bit locked in to an operating system by my iTunes music. My iTunes music is one of two things keeping me from dumping Windows for Linux. But I knew when I started buying music that it had these restrictions, so while I wish Apple would create a version of the iTMS for Linux users, that was never part of the agreement.
Forget the part about developing for macs, I just read the article the parent links to.
What I'd like to see would be some sort of 'red box' for Linux. I've yet to find a program that I want to use that WINE runs well, much less flawlessly. I'd have no problem paying for a Windows installation, I just want to avoid all the problems that go along with it. A Virtual Machine isn't the environment I'd like to be working with, but something like the red box would be pretty cool with Linux. Linux development would keep up because most Linux users wouldn't want to touch Windows if it can be avoided.
Yes, but just because a judge can't figure out how to make thumbnails on a web page that you can click to see a bigger picture doesn't mean it's not an obvious patent. I think it's hard to say what is an isn't an obvious patent. It would need some kind of definition to hold up consistently.
If he's leaving in July 2008, does this mean he won't be seeing Vista all the way through?
ESRB ratings may be optional, but deceiving ESRB to get a wider audience is still fraud. Take2 could have chosen not to get an ESRB rating, but they chose to, and the FTC believes they deceived ESRB and consequently their customers. I would tend to disagree, since it requires a third party patch to enable, and a third party patch could have created these features as easily as enable ones that are already there (at least as far as the end user is concerned).
In my room, I have a set of computer speakers next to my bed, not for a computer mind you, but for my iPod. My iPod is my alarm clock as well, allowing me to pick which songs I want to wake up to. This may not sound like much, but being able to wake up to a song that starts peacefully has made getting up in the morning more pleasant than when I woke up to whatever happened to be on the radio at that time.
Being a college student who lives four hours away from his girlfriend, I put a jack in my car so I can plug in my iPod for long trips. This beats searching for a new radio station every 60 miles, and only being able to find country stations for half the car ride (not to offend country fans, if they actually exist).
About the only time I ever used headphones is when I'm mowing the lawn, and for that I have some nice noise cancelling headphones (they were more expensive than the computer speakers or the jack in the car, but well worth the investment). With these headphones I can put my iPod at about 60% volume and hear over the lawn mower.
But to me, the most fascinating use of my iPod is the 20 GB hard drive that I almost always have with me. My dad once paid $500 for a hard drive that was the size of a mid-sized case and with capacity dwarfed by a CD-ROM. He would have been thrilled by a 20 GB hard drive at $299, and ecstatic by the fact that it played music and fit in his pocket. And if he'd had one of those new-fangled video iPods he'd have been in heaven. Before someone comments about watching T.V. on a tiny, handheld screen, I'd like to point out that the video capabilities are much like the audio - you can plug in an RCA adapter and watch your show on a Television.
Since this will be my only comment to this thread, I'm going to touch on a few other points. I must confess that I am one of those people with a camera phone and a Bluetooth Headset. The camera phone doesn't need to be great, but I enjoy having a camera with me all the time. If it weren't for the camera phone, I just wouldn't be taking pictures. The Bluetooth headset is another convenience, though far from being a necessity. I use it to talk on the phone while I'm at my computer and occasionally when I'm in my car (a stick). It's hardly a permanent fixture on my face, but it is convenient.
I'm struggling to find Dvorak's point (as I usually do with his articles). Was he suggesting that we shouldn't have portable music players that can hold an entire music collection? Was he trying to say we shouldn't use digital cameras because we hold them funny? I don't understand his point about smoking outdoors at all, and I have to wonder what his objection is to the convenience of technology.
I was never told not to do something simply because it was against god's will. During my confirmation, I asked my preacher why the church had a problem with pornography (in context with the lesson) and he gave me a very logical answer. He didn't punish me for questioning the beliefs of the church, and he didn't answer with "Because god says so." He was trying to help me understand with hopes that I might be a more considerate, caring person when I entered adulthood.
And what hipocrasy do you speak of? I really didn't see much at my church. People interpreted what the bible said into logical advice. It gives perspective to issues people might otherwise struggle with.
I'm not sure what you're next point is supposed to mean.
Yes, their are leaders who use religion to brainwash their followers. There are also leaders who wrap themselves in the American flag and call anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic. This doesn't mean anyone who considers themself to be patriotic agrees with those leaders. Just because some leaders abuse religion does not mean religion exists solely to control people.
The church I grew up in asks only for enough to keep the church going. The minister leads a very modest lifestyle, and while I saw political discussion at my church, I never saw anyone be told who to vote for.
And my church is not alone. I've known Christians, Jews and Muslims who take advice from their religion, and I mean logical advice, not manipulative propaganda. This can help lead to enlightment, and it's certainly not just saying "it's god's will."
The blatant stereotypes you're spreading are propogated because of what I believe is a loud minority. People like Fred Phelps lead others to believe that all Christians hate homosexuals and non-christians, but this is simply not the case. People like Osama Bin Laden make muslims appear to be bloodthirsty and anti-american. Again, this is generally not the case.
I think religion has a lot to offer the world, and I think it's a pity that it gets abused as often as it does. Personally, I don't go to church because I find it boring. I don't necessarily believe one faith is any more "correct" than another, but I do think religion can be a valuable asset to a person as they mature and grow, and as a result, it can help make the world a better place.
And to think, I read into the comments on this article because I was intrigued by the fact Canadians pay a tax on blank media to help compensate artists.
If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.
This piece of legislation is not the problem. If it were really going to be used in the ways they claim it will be used, it would be a decent piece of legislation (although an inconvenience to ISPs). It would help put predators behind bars, and potentially disrupt terrorist attacks. The problem is, as JonTurner suggested, much bigger than this legislation. The problem arises when AT&T gives the NSA any information they ask for without going through proper channels. The problem is that we can't trust our government not to use things like this against people who disagree with them politically. We shouldn't sit here and oppose small pieces of legislation like the one in question, we need to be looking at the bigger issue.
Yes, there are lots of things that are easy to get running on Linux. Getting a LAMP webserver setup takes minutes. A samba server is a quick and easy way to interact with a windows network. I've found lots of tools that are cheaper and easier to use in Linux than they are in windows, that's why I have a Linux desktop, but there are certainly enough challenges for it to be a bit disconcerting.
It does not say that his name became infamous on October 19th, he said it became tied to the case on October 19th. He didn't even know about it for two days after that. When dealing with legal issues, it generally isn't wise to rush out and publicly attack people who you're going to be seeing in court. He waited to see if the issue could be resolved peacefully before speaking out. Speaking out early on may have hurt his chances of a peaceful resolution when they still existed. At this point it seems a nasty court battle is inevitable, so the letter won't do much harm.