Well, I can open the cans with all that ammo I have stocked up.
Unless, of course, I forget to get a gun! :eek:
Anyone remember DIVX DVD players? This too shall pass.
Oh I love the irony of what divx now means.
Far more likely, you get a disc with the latest update on it, put it in the drive, and it reads the updates off of that. No need to dick around with modems or extra cables. They’ve already got a data-in port: the DVD player itself. I assume the disc would be available by subscription with Clearplay. Now, I’m far from certain, but I don’t even think this requires any hardware that your standard DVD player doesn’t already have, except perhaps for more storage memory for the list.
Once they do- please come back here and open a PIT thread. Until they do- the market speaks- and this is a lame pitting.
I want to play porno, they want a squeeky clean film. Both of us have that right.
Seems to me the OP has a healthy level of paranoia.
Well yeah…choice is BAD.
Choice = “thought police”
Or something…
Okay, now, everybody run about in circles, wave your arms, and shout, “THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!”
Porno, as played through a Clearplay DVD player -
[doorbell sound]
Big-chested blonde in a bathrobe: “That must be the cable repairman.” [opens the door]
Hunky (yet vaguely slimy in a porn guy fashion) cable guy: “How can I help you?” [runs his eyes up and down her figure]
Big-chested blonde in a bathrobe: “Well, you could…”
[Screen goes blank, audio is cut off; wait 15 minutes and the picture comes back in time for the credits to roll]
There are excellent reasons to hate Wal-Fart. This ain’t one of 'em.
Then don’t buy the fucking DVD player, you friggin lunatic! You’re entire speech made absolutely no sense. You’re worried about Big Brother then don’t buy the DVD player with this option. And if you do, then don’t connect it to the internet. See, it’s very easy to avoid. However, some people will want this service and don’t mind people knowing what they watch, so why can’t they have it?
You’re paranoid because you’re worried about your viewing habits being monitored by someone who would have no access to them unless you went out of your way to allow it.
My inclusion of Mall-Wart was that of accessory to the crime. They have already refused to carry certain artists/CDs owing to content. Binarydrone picked up on where I was going with the OP. Individual rights rarely vanish overnight, but are instead eroded, diluted or abrogated without one noticing until it is too late.
I’m no fan of Howard Stern-I’ve listened, and found him to be interesting for about 5 minutes. His shtik is well-worn, yet I found it disappointing that Clear-Channel has dropped his program from 200+ markets, because he is obviously popular with enough listeners to enjoy the market share he has.
If I don’t like what I see, hear, or read, I change my selection, but will fight to the death in defense of what was produced or written, because it may appeal to someone else. The Thought Police want to limit that to which I have access, and their actions should concern you.
Would you be up in arms if it was determined that SDMB contained inappropriate material and was shut down? The leap is not incomprehensible.
So Wal-Mart are the Thought Police because they choose not to carry certain CD titles?
As far as I know, Wal-Mart can carry or not carry any damn thing they want to without infringing anybody’s rights.
On the other hand, you think that Wal-Mart must carry certain CD titles, even though they don’t want to.
You sound more like the Thought Police than Wal-Mart…
Logjammin’ ?
As someone posted, where there’s a desire there’s a market, and it was only a matter of time before modern technology gave us the power to edit out or delete that which we find distasteful in our art. I don’t have anything to add on the “black helicopter” end of this debate - I think the only real tragedy is nicely illustrated by the following:
Sure, sure, who really cares if Lethal Weapon IV is cut from 1.75 hours to 10 minutes once the gratuitously violent scenes are skipped. And if that’s the case, then surely there’s no harm in putting David in some nice, conservative slacks, right?
But in some cases the language, violence, and/or nudity actually serves an artistic purpose. For the sake of argument, supose that “The Passion” was run through that filter? Get rid of the blood and gore, and you’re left with about 20 minutes of flash-backs. But it kinda loses some of its power without the blood, no?
How about Huck Finn, with its patina of ethnic slurs and racial callousness, which is actually an magnificent indictment of the same. It does not have the same effect if you edit out the distasteful bits.
I think that any kind of censorship, even if the choice is left to the “consumer”, goes hand and hand with narrow-mindedness, denial, and escapism. I think it’s sad that a large group of people seem determined to got through life with their eyes tightly shut. But hey, we should all respect everyone’s unalienable right to stick their fingers in their ears and go “La La La!!!” - we really respect that reaction here on the SDMB. . . [sub]that stuff dripping onto the floor is sarcasm[/sub]
Let me ask you something; do you feel that your response to me here is appropriate? Have I somehow offended your sensibilities, or did you just get up cranky today? Do you need a hug and a nap?
I realize that this is the Pit and all. To me, that has always meant that it is a place where people can rant about things and a place where specific posters can be called out. I don’t think that it means that you have some sort of a duty to be rude.
I am guessing that the next post will be something along the lines of “grow thicker skin”, or some other nonsense. Understand that your personal opinion of me matters not one bit.
However, when I get accused (in as many words) of being some sort of a conspiracy theory paranoid when I raise reasonable objections to something, I think that some explanation is in order (not that you have provided any, BTW).
I get that some folks (and I an not sure if you are one of them) worship the free market and think that a demand for a particular good or service is all of the justification needed to bring it in to the world. All that I am doing is pointing out some potential unintended consequences.
Frankly, my dear, I love you and want you back.
[Film edited for seniors]
Hey, wasn’t there a war in that movie?
I doubt this will lead to Big Brother, but it is kinda silly. Soon it’ll be a quiant relic mocked on the Simpsons.
Ned: Hey, kids! Let’s watch the safe “A Clockwork Orange.”
Rod and Tod: Yay!
The beaver picture?
Are any of you people who are making fun of the “paranoid” people here the same people who were screaming “violation of my privacy!” two days ago when a poster said he hated compromising his principles by taking a drug test to get a job? I see two different, conflicting standards here - on the one hand, support the free market and let it do anything it wants, even if what it wants is to censor what you see and hear. On the other hand, Big Brother must not know what kind of drugs you take and interfere with your god-given right to endanger other people by being stoned on the job because that’s an invasion of privacy.
The people in this thread who are concerned with the level of censorship and invisible monitoring that United Statesians are comfortable embracing don’t sound very paranoid or crazy to me. It sounds more like they are following this trend to a logical conclusion. (Notice I said “a” logical conclusion, not “the” logical conclusion.)
I’m not. Can you point to any specific examples of someone having the dreaded double standard? Or are you just throwing this out here for funsies?
I think a healthy level of paranoia is fine, perhaps even needed. But some people take it too far, becoming Mulder-like in their ability to point out what is painfully obvious to them evn though the other 99.999% of the populace doesn’t see it.