Separation of Church and Microsoft 165
theodp writes "Last week, the USPTO published a rather odd Microsoft patent application for Content Ratings and Recommendations, which describes how religious-based communities and other 'subcultures' can use the patent-pending process to prevent their members from viewing undesirable television programs and movies."
Church + Microsoft + Title = drama? (Score:1, Insightful)
FTFA-
"Other groups of viewers may include a parent-teacher association, a religious-based community, or any other subculture wanting to provide standards and boundaries for program viewing selections."
Am I the only one ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I would have to agree. I can understand if you want some website to give you the rundown on what is in a movie so that you as a parent can make an educated decision about whether you child should see it or not. However, I wouldn't (and don't
Someone else's system for raising your own child (Score:3, Interesting)
Also known in the USA as "public school".
Seriously, I've filtered my childrens web browsing through squid since RedHat 7.2 (how long ago is that?). What's with the patent? Usually, restrictions have less to do with inappropriate content, and mor
Re: (Score:1)
That would be screenit.com [screenit.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to raise my kid from birth to be specialized to safe humanity from the robot-uprising in the not too far future, that is my fair right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
To continue your bad analogy: If a child doesn't want to go to school, go wear clothes, to eat vegetables, etc.
Allowing an undeveloped person -- both in mind and body -- to control their life is not parenting, it's the abdication thereof.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what you mean here is "full control" and I'd actually agree with you that children should not have full control. On the other hand, it would also be a huge mistake to give them "no control".
The way I see it, you set boundaries but you allow them freedom within those boundaries. Maybe you let them play outside - but you don't let them play in traffic. Maybe you let them choo
Re:Watch the Movie "Jesus Camp" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Watch the Movie "Jesus Camp" (Score:5, Informative)
I realized, that most of these home schoolers don't fit into the lifestyle of the avg 16-24 yr old who is often on a rampage of discovering their freedoms via teenage years and parent free college. I think many home-schoolers skip this period because they're often granted much greater personal freedom in their studies and responsibilities. They don't have to plunge into excess because they feel as if they've already had freedom.
That said, there are always exceptions. As there are with every demographic. Those home-schooled individuals who were overly sheltered or poorly educated. But from my encounters I'd say this is less the case than what it's made out to be.
Re: (Score:1)
I resemble that post... I was homeschooled until I was 16, then I chose start college (and the first of my fulltime jobs), I never (and still dont) in with most of my "peers" who are/were in my age group... they were (in my mind) acting stupid and immature... that continues today where I am 22 but fit in perfectly with 28-30yo people MUCH better than I fit in with 19-24yo people...
Aaron Z
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative? You want the government to raise them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Giving credit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any argument along the same lines as the one you presented can be boiled down to the same sentiment: "My belief/moral/cultural system is superior to theirs."
In some cases many would agree with you, in some cases not. Isn't what is currently being discussed simply the same argument that you've presented, only with
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
At what point can we say that a certain set of beliefs (not necessarily a whole system, but certain ones) are indeed superior? Stupid ideas in religious have been losing the war ever since the Enlightenment. When can we draw the line on certain things? I mean, for god's sake, even the Pope has excepted evolution, can't we call out people who teach their children otherwise for what they're really doing --- lying blatantly to their children about fundame
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people who raise their children outside of the 'norm' of culture are typically looked down upon and if these people weren't alread
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of all the ways parents fail their children, not teaching them to think has to be one of the worst, yet simultaneously it is one of the most accepted. People are shocked at parents whose emotional abuse of their children leave them emotionally scarred as adults, but are
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with you there, but it isn't limited to small, rural areas. We have problems with minority groups in the area not having a concept of law and legal proceedings. Many times, this mistrust of government leads to the racist and conspiracy cards being played. According to local minority leaders, a local politician got thrown into jail due to the racist white conspiracy. I know the local FBI agent that arrested the politician. Most of the crimes of this minority politician involved ripping off the
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, from my understanding of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths, the basic morals are all pretty much the same: don't steal, lie, or cheat your neighbour; don't kill; treat people the way you would like to be treated; take care of your family (parents and children); don't screw around. My understanding of Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the right and duty of parents to determine the atmosphere most conducive to the development of their children, and moreover to instill values in them. It's not the right or duty of ABC or CNN or Fox or even the Government. Relinquishing the responsibility for your child's environme
Re: (Score:2)
"That is, a parent does not have a "right" or a "duty" to force the children to adopt a particular set of values."
Nor does society have any greater "right" or "duty" to either force or prevent the introduction a part
Re: (Score:2)
[[[
Because...some things increase the likelihood of people being hurt. (ie: "Well Little Johnny, you decide how you want to play with the gun. Afterall, you decided you wanted a gun and who are we to say that you can't have what you decide.")
Children do not have all the cognitive facilities developed to evaluate situations objectively. Most of us adults barely do. Most parents desire to help prevent their children from suffering injuries t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If not...guess what...it wasn't blocked! So no worries. Live your life happily and let others do the same!
Re: (Score:2)
That was a script from the 'Brotherhood of Parenthood' who fight for the right of parents to do whatever they want.
Not surprisingly the 'fortune' from slashdot is, at this very moment; "Never trust a child farther than you can throw it."
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, look what that did for Steve Irwin...
kdawsonfud (Score:5, Insightful)
Labeled as kdawsonfud.
Re: (Score:2)
prior art (Score:2)
The Church of Scientology would want this (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Christian Science are a little bit crazy with their faith healing stuff, but are not pathological bullies, liars and cheats out for money like the COS.
Over-reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
Churches, schools, rec centers, libraries, etc have been applying this kind of technology ever since the internet got popular, I don't see what the big deal is. If you want to watch porn go home, don't do it at your church, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So basically this is NetNanny for TV and it's "censorship?"
If it's voluntary I can't see how it could be classed as censorship. Subscribing to a community with content standards is quite a bit different than some community trying to project their standards on the rest of society. Like that group of religious right freaks who bombard the FCC with content complaints.
If a group or community wants to shield themselves from porn or anything type of content, they should have that right. As long as it's se
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the fun in that?
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I wanna join that church!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
</headexplodes>
I don't know about the patentability of this (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, this type of technology would be immensely useful in DVR devices. Rather than seeing this as a means of restricting your (or your kid's) viewing habits, a rating system that grew to be more appropriate to your particular tastes would mean less time spent channel surfing and more quality time with the boob tube. You would, in an optimal system, only be presented with programs/media that fit your profile which you generate as you watch and rate shows.
The less time spent in front of the TV the better, I always say (seriously, I say it all the freaking time). If you can get your daily dose of porn in a single block of recorded programming, you all of a sudden stop being fat, lazy American porn-loving slobs, and you become efficient Japanese tentacle fetishists. Or whatever kink you're into.
Information overload and underload is the biggest problem with media (mass or otherwise) today. What we need are sources of content that give us the right amount of load so we can be satisfied without getting worn out.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently these systems send reports about internet surfing habits to other members of the community. The idea is to self-censor by willfully allowing another "accountability partner" to see what sites you're viewing. This self-imposed m
Re: (Score:2)
OMG! Slashdot For TV!?! OMG! Crucify someone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Content ratings and recommendations is described in which embodiments provide that a viewer can create a rating system that other viewers can then subscribe to which forms a group, or subculture, that collaborates to identify and rate television programs, movies, and other programming choices for the viewers of the group. This adaptive and flexible approach enables individual viewers to discover like-minded subcultures, benefit from a rating system that represents similar viewing choices, and optionally, participate in identifying media content and rating the viewing choices.
A group of people willingly subscribe to a group that recommends TV shows they would be interested in and blocks those deemed inappropriate/off-topic/irrelevant. It's like Slashdot for TV.
Is there any chance that Slashdot moderators can apply 'Troll' and 'Deliberately Misleading Flamebait' to article titles and summaries?
Re:OMG! Slashdot For TV!?! OMG! Crucify someone! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just found some prior art as well!
Slashdot editors clearly want flamebait. Look at the number of irrelevant religion related stories (see "Will the Pope declare Google evil?", for example, with yet another misleading title), when they know perfectly that the typical Slashdotter will argue passionately about religion from a position of total ig
Can it do the reverse? (Score:3, Interesting)
If so, and it's controlled by the viewer... problem?
A switch to block $naughty_things ( cancel or allow? ) doesn't seem as useful, but if it's user controled content filtering it might be ok.
Re: (Score:1)
If so, and it's controlled by the viewer... problem?
--
Could it censor on content?
I have relatives who'd want any reptiles or spider scenes repelled no matter if it's in movies, news or soaps.
That would be worth a fortune with all the phobics I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're onto something!
Think of the possibilities of dynamically altering incoming video:
Yes, I'm being a bit silly... but does sound like f
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a more useful article summary, from someone who's hatred of Microsoft doesn't get in the way of appreciating a cool new technology:
A user (read: anyone) defines a set of rating guidelines, and anyone else can subscribe to that rating system, and then selectively filter their content based on how it scores on said rating system. It can also IGNORE the "default" rating system imposed by the MPAA.
Despite this editor's Anti-MS vitriol, this is act
Re: (Score:2)
While you are figuring this out, maybe you can find out how the NFL managed to get an exemption on V-Chip blocking of
"So don't watch it" (Score:5, Insightful)
* - just because YOU don't agree with their reasoning doesn't make it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you did mention "rational", and given the submission's title.......
However, TFA as others have pointed out doesn't live up to the hype of the title of the posting.
Prior art (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Can you program it for a minimum level of sex and violence? I only want to see things at least R rated...
Or - With the new process, will we see, "This program has been approved by the Catholic Church but banned by the Episcopalians"
I always knew... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, it must be obvious to everyone why Microsoft is pulling this. We have an American election in which the right-wing conservatives have been "amiable" to Microsoft's continued monopoly and dubious practices (such as buying out standards bodies). It is in Microsoft's interests at exactly this time to be seen to be "friendly" to those same right-wing conservatives and to win support from the very power-base the politicians are relying on. The
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tithed my 640k this month, did you?
(I kid, I kid, although I did buy a Vista laptop this weekend)
Re: (Score:2)
... Like the Fox Blocker? (Score:2)
That wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox Blocker I read about off Daily Kos [timblair.net] now would it?
I know what they're doing. (Score:2)
It's plain as day.
MS's only real money makers are Windows & Office, so they're trying to diversify the L. Ron Hubbard way and are preparing to start their own religion. That's where the real money is.
The most important subculture... (Score:2)
Aum MSFT! Aum MSFT!! Aum MSFT!!!
Become... one... with... MSFT!!!
Aum Nirvana.
Aum Shantih Shantih Shantihhiii
Brilliant ! (Score:1, Interesting)
If you ask me this is just an elaborate excuse for hypocritical pervs watching porn.
"I'm not a porn watching pervert, I was just rating it."
Re: (Score:1)
rating system within a rating system. been done (Score:2)
LoB
Patent the obvious (Score:1, Troll)
Sell your TV, and read a book.
Could help squash the FCC, maybe? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's been done. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is also how other churches have censored things for years, how school boards go about banning books, how large political organizations censor materials, etc.
Basically Microsoft is trying to patent censorship as it has been practiced for centuries.
How exactly do you cite the Spanish Inquisition as prior art?
Actually, it's Brilliant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Personal Censorship" = a very good thing
Patent Pending (Score:2)
And here I was hoping to see how a church could enlist the help of the USPTO by submitting a carefully crafted patent that, by its nature, made it illegal for church members to watch the undesirable shows.
Subculture isn't derogatory (Score:2)
In sociological terms, a subculture is just a subset of a larger culture with its own tailored set of values. For instance, geeks have own our subculture. We're part of where we live, but have our own values and way of speaking and criteria for membership. Certain occupations, such as police, have a subculture. You can also fairly say that a religious group has their own without having to qualify it with irony quotes.
This is starting to drone on and on and on and on (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, with the rate of new show turnover these days combined with the number of channels and shows on TV. There is no way a parent could preview ALL the programming without it being a full time job. So anything that makes that task easier is a plus for caring parents.
Second...shows change. I've been watching Smallville over the years. The early seasons I'd consider a family friendly show. Perhaps a bit flirtatious but nothing too out of bounds. A couple of seasons back Smallville decided to take a turn toward a more adult tack. For example, the Smallville Halloween scene insinuates female vampires biting off a guy's penis and drinking his blood. That might be a fine scene for your children. But I'd rather not have my children watch such a scene. A content rating like the one proposed above could allow people to be alerted to when a show or even a particular episode goes down a track that might not be what you want your 7 yr old watching.
Lastly, we're talking personal screening. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CHOOSING TO CENSOR WHAT THEY OR THEIR CHILDREN WATCH.
"Government Censorship" = evil.
"Personal Censorship" = freedom.
Somewhere along the way we have seemed to confused the two. Look, politics and political views aside. Taking away personal censorship and forcing people to accept content is an extremely bad thing. You have to look at such laws and concepts from an either or view. You may think these parents are wrong for wanting to censor certain content and that they should not be able to edit said content or even avoid it. But I am sure you'd hate the reverse. How many of the people ranting against this personal censorship have the "Foxnews" channel skipped/blocked out of their channel listings? Would it be right if someone told you that you could not choose to do so?
Come on folks...can we have liberty before politics!!!!
Slashdot can we have "News for Nerds" without the political slants. Otherwise, we should consider changing the name to "Slantdot". Which would be a crying shame. I love Slashdot because it's filled with geek news instead of the constant glutt of political news. I don't mind if an issue is inherently political (ie: politics and Diebold voting machines). But I am tired of submissions which have to twist 359 degrees in order to turn the topic into something political.
*blech*
- Saj
Abomination (Score:1)
Can we really afford this kind of Ostrich? (Score:2)
But we are fast approaching a test-taking, brain dead society. Sure there are smart enough people to hire and do work -- but how
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Really? Comedy? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or his Kentucky cousin, "Vice Grips"!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"wawa waa wa wa"
Take That, Nancy Grace!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And from your argument, I guess we can also assume that being vegetarianism is out. Everyone should be forced to have to eat meat!
Re:It's happening already (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing about this is to force you to do so. Nothing says "everyone must join x or y community. It's merely to provide an opportunity for like people help rate and review and approve.
The only ones I hear trying to force someone to live by their rules in this case are the ones decrying this as censorship and saying it must be stopped.