Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pei on November 16, 2004, 07:15:01 PM
-
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html
So basically you will be legally required to watch commercials?
-
Originally posted by Pei
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html
So basically you will be legally required to watch commercials?
how so?
-
Regarding "nanny states" and seeing as you're from Australia... maybe you can shed some light on this:
"Hard hats may not be the cowboy way in Alberta, but Down Under, helmets are the new fashion statement. The protective gear has become compulsory for Australians working with horses in the state of New South Wales in the wake of the 2001 death of 23-year-old Daniel Croker.
Croker suffered massive head injuries after being trampled in a fall from a horse while rounding up bulls.
As a result, the New South Wales state government brought charges against the ranch owner, which resulted in a conviction for breaches of safety.
"I can't believe those Australian cowboys wouldn't tell (the lawmakers) to get stuffed," said Jim Nevada, a 40-year-old Alberta cowboy and retired professional chuckwagon driver.
"You can only protect people from themselves so much," added Sterling Clayton, a long-time farmer west of Airdrie.
"Why can't people be responsible for their own actions?"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Regarding "nanny states" and seeing as you're from Australia... maybe you can shed some light on this:
"Hard hats may not be the cowboy way in Alberta, but Down Under, helmets are the new fashion statement. The protective gear has become compulsory for Australians working with horses in the state of New South Wales in the wake of the 2001 death of 23-year-old Daniel Croker.
Croker suffered massive head injuries after being trampled in a fall from a horse while rounding up bulls.
As a result, the New South Wales state government brought charges against the ranch owner, which resulted in a conviction for breaches of safety.
"I can't believe those Australian cowboys wouldn't tell (the lawmakers) to get stuffed," said Jim Nevada, a 40-year-old Alberta cowboy and retired professional chuckwagon driver.
"You can only protect people from themselves so much," added Sterling Clayton, a long-time farmer west of Airdrie.
"Why can't people be responsible for their own actions?"
I'm not from Australia, I merely live here.
-
Originally posted by Pei
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html
So basically you will be legally required to watch commercials?
LOL would love to see someone try to stop me from going to the bathroom.
guess what gonna happen to them :rofl
-
Originally posted by NUKE
how so?
Basically one of the bills states that while it is legal to use technology to skip offensive, violent or sexual content in a broadcast it will not be legal to use technology to skip commercials or promotional messages in a broadcast. So the state is trying to interfere to prevent a perfectly legal use of technology in order to shore up the bottom line of the broadcasting companies.
Shouldn't companies be adapting to new technologies rather than relying on the government to restrict them?
-
Whatever... This can't be for real can it? Was in today's paper. Did you hear about it?
-
so where does it say that people are legally required to view comercials?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
so where does it say that people are legally required to view comercials?
"The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed language, viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture," like the previews on a DVD."
-
In other words, your whole premis that people are being legally required to view commercials is easily dismissed as false, so you simply ignore it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
In other words, your whole premis that people are being legally required to view commercials is easily dismissed as false, so you simply ignore it.
"viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "
Seems pretty clear to me: you won't be legally allowed to use your TiVo (or similar) to skip commercials. Of course you can turn off the TV or walk out of the room which is what makes this proposed law so ridiculous: why should the state be regulating what I do and do not watch in the privacy of my own home.
-
Pei, I have been hearing about similar measure for years and years and nothing has ever come of them.
One good reason to not allow automatic or systematic blocking of commercials would be to protect the advertisers who help bring you the programming in the first place.
You think add companies are going to buy time if they know everyone is just blocking them? No commercials, no free TV.
Commercials are the price we pay for having the most diverse and talented entertainment industry on the planet.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
One good reason to not allow automatic or systematic blocking of commercials would be to protect the advertisers who help bring you the programming in the first place.
You think add companies are going to buy time if they know everyone is just blocking them? No commercials, no free TV.
Commercials are the price we pay for having the most diverse and talented enterainment industry on the planet.
So if new technology destroys a business model it is the State's job to restrict the technology rather than the company's job to find a new business model (or if it can't then collapse)?
So the Henry Ford should have been kept out of business to protect Horse-breeders and trainers?
If new technology or business models threaten my job is it the State's job to restrict them so I can keep on getting paid rather than having to find a new job?
It all sounds so... socialist to me.
-
Originally posted by Pei
If new technology or business models threaten my job is it the State's job to restrict them so I can keep on getting paid rather than having to find a new job?
Depends, how good are your lobbyists?
-
Originally posted by Pei
So if new technology destroys a business model it is the State's job to restrict the technology rather than the company's job to find a new business model (or if it can't then collapse)?
So the Henry Ford should have been kept out of business to protect Horse-breeders and trainers?
If new technology or business models threaten my job is it the State's job to restrict them so I can keep on getting paid rather than having to find a new job?
It all sounds so... socialist to me.
nobody is being kept out of business and no one is being forced to view the commercials. ( which is what you claimed)
-
I think TiVo will think differently about it: one of their main selling points is the ability to control what you watch and this bill will restrict that.
But anyway you are avoiding my point: why should the state interfere with what I can and can't do solely to prop up some companies business?
I thought you were a good convservative and believed in free markets? Or is State interference only bad when it is for individuals?
-
Tivo would hardly go out of business because of this. How would it affect them? You saying nobody would buy Tivo anymore?
Pei, the only reason I'm arguing with you is because you made a stupid statement: "people are legally required to view the commerials" and then became stubborn in admitting it was a fabrication.
I agree that government should no regulate what you can and cannot "edit" from your own home.
Like I have said, this issue has been coming up for at least 20 years and nothing has ever come of it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Tivo would hardly go out of business because of this. How would it affect them? You saying nobody would buy Tivo anymore?
Pei, the only reason I'm arguing with you is because you made a stupid statement: "people are legally required to view the commerials" and then became stubborn in admitting it was a fabrication.
I agree that government should no regulate what you can and cannot "edit" from your own home.
Like I have said, this issue has been coming up for at least 20 years and nothing has ever come of it.
Look Nuke,
You have chosen to interpret my statement absolutely literally, in a way that it was obviously never meant, which is why I haven't bothered arguing that point with you. There can be three main reasons for this
a) You are being deliberately argumentative.
or
b) You are incredibly credulous.
or
c) You don't want to examine or argue about the main point of my post but would rather try and warp what I said and so hijack this thread.
I personally beleive c) or possibly a), though if it is b) I have Nigerain ex-general friend who needs a foreign bank account to deposit some diamond money into.........
No back to the point: do you believe the state should be interfering in this matter?
-
I answered you. End of argument.
I must add... Pei, you are the one who chose a poor statement to represent what you *really* wanted to discuss. I mearly addressed what you said. I'm not a mind reader.
Maybe next time you could just come out and say what you actually mean and this would have been a different discussion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I answered you. End of argument.
I must add... Pei, you are the one who chose a poor statement to represent what you *really* wanted to discuss. I mearly addressed what you said. I'm not a mind reader.
Maybe next time you could just come out and say what you actually mean and this would have been a different discussion.
I thought it was obvious that I what I meant. Maybe it was not and if so I apologize but I really think you will have to get used to people not talking literally all the time: it's actually quite common (especially in English).
However you have taken what could have been a quite interesting debate on general governance and ruined it by deliberatly focussing on pointless specifics. This is a tactic I normall associate with proffessional politicians who cannot or will not try and make a logical argument or will not state thier real point of view.
You have not answered point you have merely said you don't think the law will come to pass. You have not said whether you think it is good thing or not: take a stand Nuke!
Be brave - tell us what do you really beleive!
-
Pei, I HAVE answered. I said that I do not think the government should be able to regulate what you can or cannot edit from your home. I was basically agreeing with you.
YOU are the one who dragged this out. You could have answered my first question and told me you did not mean to be literal, but instead chose to stoke it.
In fact, your whole original post contained NO CLUE as to what you were *really* interested in discussing. Based on the title of the thread and the content of the first post, I believed you were just looking for an argument.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Pei, I HAVE answered. I said that I do not think the government should be able to regulate what you can or cannot edit from your home.
Thank you!
Originally posted by NUKE
YOU are the one who dragged this out. You could have answered my first question and told me you did not mean to be literal, but instead chose to stoke it.
I'm not sure how my first reply to you could not have made what I meant obvious. Again if it didn't I apologize.
Originally posted by NUKE
In fact, your whole original post contained NO CLUE as to what you were *really* interested in discussing. Based on the title of the thread and the content of the first post, I believed you were just looking for an argument.
I thought the article made it obvious? Maybe I should have rip 'n' pasted it...
I can't say I was looking for an argument - I was certainly looking for a discussion. That it turned into an argument is not surpising though - that's the way BBS go (especially this one). We could have had this conversation in real life (tm) and it would have been perfectly civil and more to the point.
-
Now what about them hard-hat wearing cowboys? :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now what about them hard-hat wearing cowboys? :D
It's probably because drinking Casltemaine XXXX lager increases your chances of falling off a horse or possibly that Aussie cowboys (or "jackaroos" as they are known) are all poo-punching nancy boys who are only in the business so they can wear leather chaps in public.
-
Nash, maybe you could whip up a nice picture for us, hehe. The whole concept is funny to me.
-
Can you imagine John Wayne rolling up to the Saloon, tipping his ten-gallon crash helmet and saying "Hello, pilgrim"?
-
Does the hard hat wearing cowboy stand next to the biker or the indian chief?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now what about them hard-hat wearing cowboys? :D
Bullriders have been wearing helmets for years. Flak jackets, too. You try and call an American Cowboy a wuss because he's wearing a helmet and I guaraGolly-geeTEEya you will get your igloo melted, Kanukian.
"Nash, maybe you could whip up a nice picture for us, teeheehee."
-NUKE
And maybe you two could get a room where you could look at the picture together.
I'm still PO'd over that EVE comment, Nuke. You thought it slipped under the radar, but it didn't.
I will go Ripsnort on your ass- I will stalk you. :mad:
-
lol Airhead
You and Nash are probably the most humorous people on this BB.
I rememberate you in Air Warrior........you be funny on the radio and make me laugh much.
You quit the squad in AW though........so you're a big dik.
-
The technology for skipping commercials already exists, if you have a DVD recorder (DVR) with time slip. If I watch something on Ch5 (which has a lot of commercials) I'll slip in a DVD and record it. Then I'll start watching it after it's been on about 15 minutes. Unlike VCR, no need to wait till recording is complete to start watching it. I skip through the commercial slots in about 10-15 secs.
Hehe Pei, fancy someone thinking you're Australian - with a Ringwood Old Thumper avatar!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hehe Pei, fancy someone thinking you're Australian - with a Ringwood Old Thumper avatar!
You can't expect these heathens to recognize the pump label of one of the finest beers in the World!
-
I dunno Beetle.... check under the avatar... right beside where it says "location:".
-
nash... once your women and government get together to take away your firearms.... there is no end to the things they will think up "for your own good".
lost a lot of respect for the aussie people but I gotta realize it was probly the blue areas that jam that crap down the throats of the red areas...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
I dunno Beetle.... check under the avatar... right beside where it says "location:".
No. You said Regarding "nanny states" and seeing as you're from Australia...
He may be IN Australia, but that doesn't mean he's FROM Australia.
-
Red is the color of rage. Why are Republicans so angry? I don't trust angry people with guns.
-SW
-
we aren't mad we are just sunburned and.... we don't trust blue people no matter what their mood. We certainly want to be armed when blue people start telling us what is best for us.
lazs
-
Blue is the color of depression. I don't trust depressed people with anything other than Prozac... and even then you have to keep an eye on them.
-SW
-
Myself, I have no problem with people having guns. I just think that gun owners oughta be wearing hardhats.
-
wulfie.... either way... it is best to be armed.
nash... that is the beauty of being armed... you get to decide if you want to wear a hard hat.
lazs
-
do you have to wear the hard hat only when your carrying the gun or do you have to wear the hat all the time?
i saw the rodeo "cowboys" wearing hard hats and flack vests, bunch of wussies. whats next , seat belts so they don't fall off the horsie?
-
Originally posted by john9001
do you have to wear the hard hat only when your carrying the gun or do you have to wear the hat all the time?
All the time, unless you get a concealed carry permit for your hardhat. Or, unless you take it off for the purposes of waxing it.
-
How come we have to wear hard hats but we aren't allowed to wear bullet proof vests? :confused:
-
How come we are forced to wear ear protection on the job but silencers for guns are illegal?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
All the time, unless you get a concealed carry permit for your hardhat. Or, unless you take it off for the purposes of waxing it.
What if I have a hard hat with a concealed gun built into it?
-
It's been done...
(http://patentpix.com/pics/ba002e.jpg)