Slashdot Mirror
Candidates' Positions On Internet Filtering
VirtualAdept writes: "The candidates' views came out in the debate last night on the issue of Internet content. Essentially it boils down to the fact that Bush favors putting a filter on all computers paid for by public money (libraries, schools, etc) and Gore favors ISPs having a 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up' as well as 'a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.' The relevant quotes are on the third page of the Posts's debate coverage, about 1/4 of the way down on my window. Here is the start of the Washington Posts's debate coverage." Very few issues hit as close to home as this one.
And if any such laws are made, I would like them, as a citizen of the federation, to be uniform accross all states. I think it *is* a federal issue because it affects citizens everywhere, regardless of state.
Just because something affects everyone doesn't mean the federal government legally can or should address it.
The Constitution is quite explicit on this; anything not specifically granted to the federal government is the purview of the states, period.
I won't address your horrible misconceptions about Libertarianism; it's obvious that you haven't read anything of consequence on the subject. There are four times as many Libertarians working with the system as there are Greens, if measured by people in elected and/or appointed government positions who are members of the associated party.
-
Maybe he limits his earnings to keep below a limit that he considers morally palatable. This is a guy, after all, who has refused all kinds of donations outright because he felt they violated his sense of propriety...
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
I don't see it as unreasonable to let people choose what public school they want their kid to go to right now.
That's nice. It's unfortunate that most school boards would disagree with you, but we shouldn't let reality get in the way of our fantasies.
Public schools should be fixed.
Why?
They should all provide at least a minimum level of quality education.
How?
I'm not just going to give up and say, "Ok, we failed, sorry."
It depends on what you mean by "failed". If the goal is to have an educated population, then vouchers are the way to go. If the goal is to have a state run training centers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H schools, then vouchers are an admission of failure.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
So why didn't god lay his wrath on the rest of the Roman empire? Pompei is just the best preserved example.... thanks god, for preserving this for all to see. If it was destroyed by some spitefull and petty deity he did a shitty job of it.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
This "solution" still doesn't account for parental neglegence. We cannot rely on the government to give raise our children.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Our laws, our government, much of our art and philosophy are all Greco/Roman in origin. Christianity gave us the dark ages until Greek and Roman literature and art were rediscovered (from the arabs) lighting off the reinessance.
"They wiped themselves out through their own excesses and the error in their ways."
Funny that they didn't get wiped out until they had converted to christianity... talk about 'error in their ways'. Also, germanic tribes had a bit to do with it.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
Anytime someone begins a speech with "friends" I know I'm about to get a load of BS. This time was no exception. Where do you get the idea that we HAVE to choose either a republican or a democrat when both sides are full of it? I've heard this kind of crap before from those who would maintain the status quo. The only way a person can waste their vote is to not vote at all. Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Yes, there is a LOT of "grey" issues here. There is a big difference (IMHO) if a parent sees their kids sending "I hate science" emails to their classmates (when they tell mom they love science). Or maybe they see their kid corresponding with some "friend" that lives far away (think internet abduction possibility). How about corresponding with a counciler asking how they can tell their parents they are gay?
:)
These examples are all (IMHO) examples of things that should and should not be seen by ones parents. It's definately a grey issue, not black and white by any means
And I would expect Libertarians would be less afraid of Greens than the other two parties, because putting the political system back in the hands of the people could also allow the system to be changed the way they like it.
That's how Libertarians would feel if the Greens were indeed wanting to put political power "back in the hands of the people".
However, the Greens want political power in the hands of the people about as much as the Bolsheviks did.
Remember that when Nader says he wants control of various "societal assets" taken away from those who control them now and returned to "the people", what he is saying is that he wants property and businesses taken away from private companies and given to the government. I.E., Socialism, pure and simple.
When he says our "18th Century Democratic Rights need retooling for the proper exercise of our responsibilities as citizens in the 21st century" he means the Bill of Rights can't be allowed to get in his way.
Read their "Ten Key Values" and remind yourself that they're talking about THE GOVERNMENT controlling these things, not the people.
These people want to take complete control over all education in the US, eliminating the voice of even the states in their own public school systems, much less the community school boards.
The Greens have some occasional language in the US that is a sop to folks disgusted with the Democrats and the Republicans, but when you take their writings on the whole instead of looking at just a paragraph, you see a scary repeat of history that's already played out elsewhere.
-
I'd give you karma points if I could!
Anyway, I find out I match with one Harry Browne, and am a liberal libertarian ^^
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I think he means from an intelligence point of view. If someone is willing to make the same stupid mistake (albeit minor) three times in a row when the result is long term imprisonment, it's quite likely that they are complete idiots and will only get worse later on.
I'm not sure I agree with it, but I don't think it's as simple as "a minor making three minor offenses".
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I agree completely my friend, and why should my kids even be supervised by me at all? First we must conquer the libraries then we can move on to robot nannies and send them off to a boarding school run by militant robots with drives jam packed with censorware.
The we can sit around with our wives and get back to enjoying 'Friends.' Damn those question-asking, need guidance, little midget wannabes.
Given that parents are too lazy to spend time looking after their children on the internet, as shown by desire to use magical filters to babysit for them, what makes them think the same parents would spend any time going thru a list of URLs to check whether their children have been bad?
---
(assuming rational parents)
You assume too much.
Take a clear-headed, calm, rational person. Now make them a parent. About 95% of the time the result will be someone who is anything but rational, at least where their children are concerned.
The same appearent genetic trait that temporarily turns off a person's common sense before and during the act of conception must also be hard at work during the years that the resulting child lives with the parent. Some of the most ludicrous and ideas and hateful lies I've ever heard have been said by parents to their children. The average parent is demeaning, manipulative, dishonest, and often abusive. That is why I say that expecting parents to be rational is expecting too much. I'd expect a politician from New Orleans to be honest before I'd expect a mom to be able to think straight where her children are concerned.
And no I'm not a kid, I turn 29 in November.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I don't see any reason why there need to be ANY public access terminals. People can surf porn sites on their own dime.
There should be public access terminals for the same reason there are public libraries and public schools. It is in everyone's best interest that we have an educated populace. Right now, this means exposing them to the Internet, as well as the books in a library and compulsary education until the age of 16.
This is why the school voucher nonsense pisses me off so much. If we want to give money to parents to send their kids to private schools, then fine, do it from some other source of revenue other than the funds targeted towards public education. Or (gasp) raise taxes to pay for vouchers. But taking away from the public schools because your kids aren't going to go there is mean-spirited. Can the childless get voucher money back? And if I promise not to call the police or fire department, can I get my share of their funding back? The death of the concept of the common good is the curse heaped on us by conservatives in the US.
And, no, public terminals shouldn't be used for porn, but I've yet to hear of a system that doesn't throw the baby (non-porn) out with the bathwater (porn), and I don't think it can be done. And if we filter for porn, do we filter for abortion? How long before some cracker starts making noise about the government aiding and abeting abortions because they aren't filtering out information on it?
If you think abortion is too extreme, how about drug legalization? Research on far-out political parties?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
My guess is that they started contributing to the GOP _after_ the democrats started the anti-trust stuff.
Not to defend Microsoft, democrats, or Janet Reno, but...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
The number of people working for the federal government has gone DOWN under Clinton/Gore and went UP under Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle
---
True, but the total spending (which is the important part) went the other way around.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
You're correct. Felons can't vote - but fequently their friends and family can. Imagine how many mothers there are that could cast a vote to free their sons from jail.
Now that's pushing it. One may as well credit high energy physics with developing the internet.
Gore's personality quirk may be meaningless but it's definitely there.
And perhaps you should "opt out" of using roads and ask for your money back? Maybe you don't use the public park, you should ask for your money back? Hey, you've never used welfare, ask for your money back?
If I didn't use the roads, it would absolutely be appropriate to give me that money back.
If I don't use the park, it's absolutely appropriate to give me that money back.
If someone else is too lazy to get a job, and too unfriendly to get help from their family or friends or church or whatever, why the hell should I be forced to pay for their upkeep? Especially to pay half my income to a system that wastes the vast majority of it on paying high government salaries and other crap instead of using it to help the needy?
If I want to help the needy, I'll give my money to an organization that will use most of it to help them, not an organization that will use 10% of it to give them food stamps, that are then used to buy a little bit of food and a lot of cigarettes and beer.
Welfare doesn't exist to help the needy; welfare exists to make as many people as possible dependant upon the government, so that they'll continue to vote for the folks who gave it to them.
-
Who forced your mother into taking that job? Unless she made a mistake (in which case she has only herself to blame), she probably took that particular job because of some kind of appeal to her — cheaper or easier to gain the qualifications for it, better hours, not having to take her work home with her, friendlier work environment, not having to be creative or make decisions on her own, employee benefits, etc.
This is going to get more personal than I'd intended, but what the hell. My mom took that job because she had to. My father was becoming increasingly abusive to my brothers and her so she left him taking me and my brothers with her. She had to provide for us ***immediately***. She only had some sort of business certificate - she's a bookkeeper - and had been out of the workforce for over 15 years. She didn't get to go to university because she worked to put my father through university (on the condition that the favour would be returned when he finished). Additionally, we live in one of the most economically depressed areas in Canada.
So, she certainly made mistakes - marrying my father was a huge one, and I'm not denying that. I am disputing the claim that salaries are reflective of how hard a person works, which is what the previous poster claimed. In fact, in my experience, it's almost inversely proportional. I should point out that none of what you said is true - she works horrible hours, takes her work home with her all the time, a terrible work environment, - she's not allowed to be creative or make decisions on her own - (I'm not sure how you could consider creativity and autonomy bad things), and zero employee benefits. She stays in the job because she isn't qualified for much else, is over 60 and has bills to pay.
For the most part, people make >$100K because there is a greater demand for them, because fewer people have the ability to do it, whether it's because of longer hours, higher costs to gain the qualification, more stress, cutthroat environment, decision-making ability,
Hmmm. Duh. I'm aware of how capitalism works. In this case, the most important thing is "higher costs to gain the qualification" - she didn't have rich parents to put her through school while she was raising 3 kids on her own. She worked her ass off, and has nothing to show for it. And it's not because she didn't work as hard as anyone making a six figure salary.
Why was my original post moderated down as flamebait? Because you didn't agree with me?
Depends -- some are paid for with city funds, some with state funds, some are paid for with federal funds. Regardless, all those funds started in the pockets of taxpayers. Again, taxpayers pay for the military. The only people who object to this are people with strong pacifist leanings or people who prefer a Swiss-style citizen army.
How should we pay for roads or army then?
My health insurance is provided through my employer who deducts a portion of my check to pay for my group plan subscription. Medicare/medicaid is paid for by taxpayers. So, I'm not only paying for my healthcare (with help from my employer), I'm helping to pay for the healthcare of elderly Americans without any other coverage.
Damn elderly, they've lived long enough. It only prolongs the inevitible. Fuck helpng them, lets help ourselves!
Corporate welfare (*cough* Chrysler *cough*) Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
Ya, lets risk starting a chain reaction. We don't really need people working in this country. They don't need jobs. Public broadcasting??? Only those with money should be heard! Art? Who needs it! Any good are has been created by now, and i'm sure its more to your taste.
Does it really take 1/3 of my income to provide for roads and national defense? It didn't cost my parents that
much. It certainly didn't cost my grandparents that much. How is it the cost of these services as a percentage of
personal income keeps going up? The real answer is that we keep adding nonessential services to the ledger
because they serve increasingly smaller special interests. We then force everyone to pay for them.
Oh, so you know how much it costs to administer the interstate system? And the DOD, and the DOE, and the EPA, and the FBI, and CIA, and FTC. You know where to get the massive amount of paper needed for a good price, and all the other supplies you need. Well, thank you for adding this all up for everyone, i'm glad finally someone who knows everything about this has done it and can step in and fix everything. So how long will your new plan take to implement?
If your Mother's job is so miserable, why does she stay?
She's over 60 years old, and there are no jobs in our city. She has a mortgage to pay, and she's putting my two brothers through university. What choice does she have?
I spend an equal amount of time in front of a computer screen at work. So what?
I really doubt you spend as much time at work as my mother does. But assuming you do, you aren't looking through 60 year old eyes that give her migraines trying to read what's on the screen.
It doesn't have anything to do with luck.
It has everything to do with luck. Assuming you are a geek, you were lucky enough to be born to parents and an environment that allowed you to be aware of technology and pursue it. Everyone doesn't get dealt the same hand of cards. Perhaps your parents even paid for your school.
I'm not saying I'm not self absorbed. I don't find it to be my most appealing attribute. However, I don't see what it has to do with my income.
One of the main contributing factors to people making big salaries, is that big salaries are important to them. This is invariably because they are self-absorbed - they want to buy toys for themselves, or they want status, or whatever. If my mom were more self-absorbed she might have put herself through university, or left me and my brothers with my father.
What exactly does that mean? What is childhood supposed to be in his estimation and how could some outside influence "rob" a young person of it?
Since I've heard this kind of baloney before, even back when I was a kid, I've had time to contemplate what it means and I've come to the conclusion that types like Nader think childhood is ignorance. Purposeful ignorance created and maintained to facilitate the brainwashing of the child by his or her parents. How many people do you know whose outlook on life and views on various issues are merely what their parents told them to think? How many people do you know who know how to think for themselves and who come to their own conclusions about the world based upon what they see with their own eyes? If we had fewer of the former and more of the latter the world would be a better place. The former are sheep for the slaughter.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I think that's a euphemism for giving back extra money that was mistakenly taken from people to begin with.
Rich people pay, percentage wise, a proportionately high amount in taxes. Therefore, they probably have a lot more coming back to them.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
The rights we're not going to get back if Bush, Gore, or Nader are elected.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Note that almost none of this is due to governmental assistance.
How much of it was due to parental assistance? Be honest - how much of you and your sister's education was paid for by your family? What's the effect of growing up in a middle class neighbourhood with good schools and no gun fights? That's luck.
My point: There is no such thing as making 'too much'
I realize that you weren't replying directly to me, but I never advocated an maximum wage. I don't really understand how that could work. I haven't really thought about it much, but it seems to me that capitalism, the game, is the problem, not winning at it.
In the end, I hope that I can provide for my kid(s) in such a way that they do better than I. Please don't chastise or look down upon me if I end up being pretty successful at it...
I just hope your kids realize that YOU provided for your kids in such a way that they do better than you. All three of us kids will do better than my mother did (financially, that is), and that is in very large part due to what she did for us. We are lucky to have a mother like that. Hell, I'm on scholarship right now and I make more money than she does. I don't for a minute believe I got where I am because I'm smarter or work harder than people who didn't get here. I'm just lucky.
Congratulations. You've seen through the crap that the Democratic Party puts out ("A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!") and decided to vote for the candidate whom you believe to be better.
I'm a Nader supporter, too. I believe that the US Government has the potential to be a powerful force for good, and I also believe, very strongly, that things will only get worse under Gore-Bush.
Though unaffiliated, I used to consider myself a Democrat. Thanks to Gore, and his money-grubbing, pandering ilk, that's all over with. As we head toward Election Day, I can only hope for a mass defection of *true* liberals to Nader. If Gore loses, it's fine with me.
--
Freeper Logic
Look, I have no doubt that innocent people have been put to death in Texas. But you still can't tell me who they were. And to suggest that more than a small fraction of those on death row are innocent is ludicrous without evidence.
Once your child is a teenager, you should have tought them enough that they should be able to decide for himself what sites he should see.
Trying to prevent your teenager from viewing things that you don't want him to view is both bad parenting and a waste of effort.
Trying to prevent a teenager from viewing a .jpg of a woman's nipple will harm the teenager signifcantly more than seeing the .jpg possibly could.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Even if you could demonstrait that it was usefull to throw a kid in prison for life for three offenses of minor vandilism, it still doesn't take into account the fact that *any* felony counts twards the three strikes, and it's perfectly possible to commit three unrelated non-obvious felonies. Do you think someone should be thrown in jail for life for:
I sure as hell think not. Especially if someone can get away with raping and murdering two people with only 10 years of jail time.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
--
Until such a time as the constitution is modified to allow the fedral government to pass laws on arbitrary topics, it doesn't matter if you think they should. They can't. It's not legal. Any such law is invalid.
The purpoise of the constitution is to restrict the power of government. Our government becomes pointless if these restrictions are ignored.
How is it, exactly, that the government *is* the people? The way the US goverment currently works is that a system similar to popular vote selects a few top officials. These officials then raise taxes on everyone but themselves so as to allow them to appoint their friends to newly created government positions. The officials then stay in their elected offices through bread-and-circuses tactics. (Welfare, Medicare, etc - We tax you so that you don't have to pay yourself, err - yea.) How this is anywhere near "the governent is the people" I don't see.
If politicians and appointed officials could be trusted to always do what's best for everyone, and to preserve everyone's freedom, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it isn't realistic.
Look how much our constitution is ignored already by our elected officals. As long as they can continue passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws to stay in office - they will. This isn't right. It seems that our governemnt isn't even capible of enforcing it's own laws. We need to get rid of and restructure it so that it does what it must, and no more, because goverment by nature cannot be trusted with more than that.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Ignorance. Ignorance of that "new fangled thing," the glorified word processor. Many people, I'd go so far as to say most, of the over-thirtyfive bracket, are uncomfortable with computers and anything more technologically advanced than their CD players, their microwaves, their VCRs. They ask their kids to reprogram the universal remote. So the kid humors Mom or Dad and reprograms that damn clicker and moves on. Then the kid realizes that s/he has more knowledge in certain areas than the parents. When the kid gets older, the parents need the kid to install MS Office so they can bring work home, and, in theory, spend more time with the kid and bring back Family Values. Now the kid is clicking around on the computer, entirely understanding that the parents will never understand what this kid knows at ten years old. This, folks, is power. The more time the kid spends on the computer, the more s/he learns about how it works and how to get around the parents, the filters, the "kids only" lock on AOL *sorry, AOL is big in the technologically-impaired crowd.* The parents lost, the minute they asked the kid how to reprogram the clicker. The parents showed the white feather and all hell's broken loose; now they've gotta pay up. But how? The internet is not the evil. The computer isn't the evil; we all know that. The evil lies in parents letting the kids know that the kids know more than they do. When the parents don't learn about the internet, so they can, god forbid, talk about it, or use it together, that's where evil lies. How unreasonable is it to ask parents to be knowlegable? Enough not to be afraid of it? I didn't think so. Point Two. So parents are uncomfortable with the glorified word processor; they feel a certain victory when the "email sent" screen pops up, they panic when the screen minimizes and scream for the nearest kid to "just get my paper back, I didn't touch anything, I swear!" The last thing these parents want is their kids to be as technologically inept as they are. They're petrified their kids might be behind in society if they don't let their kids play with the computer. Some parents are even convinced that computer games are so much better than video games, they let their toddlers peck at the keyboard for an hour or so. Just so their kids will be familiar with it. I suppose it all goes back to general ignorance, and ignorance breeding fear; the fear of the unknown. And not making the time to fix that.
And please, folks, don't forget to see the numerous posts above which quote Nader as quite often coming out in favor of legislating morality, specifically in terms of the entertainment industry.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Slashdot Cruiser, Slashdot candidate for the 2000 election, would like to formally announce his new plan for punishing the rich, redistributing the wealth, and giving a free ride to the hitchhikers left behind on our high-speed economic expressway.
Step one: Confiscate all the assets of one William Gates.
Step two: Take out a small portion for administrative overhead and a bitchin' rave.
Step three: Pay off the national debt with Mr. Gates' money.
Step four: Use the rest of the money to fund after-school prescription hot grits programs for the children and the elderly.
This is a program that will work. This is a program the Slashdotters will support. This is a program that the people want -- except for Mr. Gates, of course, and who cares what he wants? I didn't want his OS on my computer but I got it anyway, dammit.
No other proposal so successfully combines the principles proven by focus groups and polls to win votes. No other proposal appeals so directly to the thousands of disaffected geeks in America. No other program gives your lazy ass something for nothing so efficiently. Just look at all this program has to offer:
1) Instead of unfocused class-warfare against some nameless, facless, vaguely-defined "upper class", it focuses the collective tyranny of the majority against a SINGLE PERSON. We're not violating the rights of a minority, we're violating the rights of ONE GUY -- a guy nobody even likes! What's he going to do about it?
2) This one guy has more than enough money to solve our problems. Why pick the pockets of all the semi-rich when we can comment wholesale robbery against one person? Why spread the misery when we can focus it against the one person who was spread so much misery amongst Slashdotters?
3) The program is certain to be an instant hit among Slashdotters. Let's face it -- these people are basing their votes on what kind of web server the candidates use on their campaign sites! They don't care about the Constitution (other than the First Amendment's protection of their pr0n). They don't care about taxation (unless it's a tax on e-mails). All they care about are geek issues. And they hate Bill Gates. Lord, how they hate Bill Gates!
Do the Democrats take a stand against Bill Gates personally? Hardly -- he's one of their contributors. Do the Republicans? Excuse me while I laugh. Only Slashdot Cruiser is offering a plan to focus the suffering back on the one man who has caused us so much suffering. Only Slashdot Cruiser's plan will provide for a healthy, robust economy, universal petrification, and hot grits for the children WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.
Certainly there are extreme elements in the Slashdot Party who do not think this platform goes far enough. Some think we should not only take all Bill's stuff, but that we should torture and kill him. To these people I can only suggest patience -- we must bring the moderates with us one step at a time.
Maybe you're against it right now. You won't be after your next bluescreen. Think about it.
Slashdot Cruiser -- seeking justice, settling for revenge.
Got a full tank of hot grits and a penis bird in the glove box.
well they're both scum bags...does this really surprise anyone?
Oh boy, and how well will Gore's approach work for spouses? "Honey, are you visiting the Whitehouse online again? What is this Whitehouse.com site? I'm going to see why you are so interested in politics all of a sudden...click!"
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Industrial Strength Usability
How to Download YouTube Videos
This is good for a laugh. My 6 year old niece can bypass filter software. I wonder who gets the contract for this "high quality" content restriction software?
I guess we could make the observation that Gore now wants to filter and regulate his own invention, but that'd be a bit redundant, don't you think?Personally, rather than vote for those morons, I'm going to vote for my Darth Vader Lego Keychain. He's done a bang-up job guarding my keys, and I doubt we'll notice much difference voting a hunk of plastic into office rather than a block of wood or a coke whore. Sharkey
www.bamf.com
...The winner of the prestigious "Most Impeachable President Award"...
Like Nixon wouldn't have hung if the full extent of his depravity had become known? It's no wonder he resigned. He'd likely'd been lynched.
19%. 19% that could have prevented WhiteWater, impeachment trials, shoestringing the military, Vice President Hillary and her sidekick Al, the power of the "StarFucker" (i.e., Lewinsky), and all of the other carnival fun-ride events of the Clinton administration.
I read somewhere (feel free to challenge spurious stats) that only 25% of the US elected Reagan. What did we get? 200+ dead Marines in Lebanon, arms sales to Iran (sworn enemy) and Iraq (soon-to-be sworn enemy) drug sales to us (thank you Ollie) and the whole PROMISLAW debacle (which involved stealing software from developers, then attempting to fuck them when they tried to stand up for themselves.) Face it, these "rule of law" GOP'ers wiped their wrinkled, tiger-tattooed asses with the Constitution. You're still hung up about a blowjob?
go team go.
--
Freeper Logic
Then again, I live in Middlesex County, so it might be comparatively easy for me to convince local government that the filters block things they shouldn't.
Seriously, some local governments are going to be interested, and some are going to resent having this forced down their throats. The federal government can claim that it's being useful if it offers grants to state and local governments to help pay for filtering software, but madating it serves nobody, especially considering how badly broken the whole concept of filtering software is.
If I ever have kids, I'll just run a proxy server (I'd probably have one in any event) and let them know that I'm going to be keeping an eye on the logs. If I find what they're browsing disturbing, I can sit down and have a chat with them about it. That's all that really needs to happen.
---
Taxation generally isn't robbery, its collecting on a debt.
---
And the moment that the high income earners need social security, welfare, etc. then it will be a valid debt. Otherwise it's them paying for debts that others incur.
Robbery? Maybe not. It's still not something we should tolerate, IMHO.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I've never understood our society's anxiety and concern over controlling what children see and don't see. In fact its always struck me as a demeaning attitude born from animosity and ignorance.
Kids aren't tape recorders. They are human beings. As such they are continuously struggling to make sense of the world in which they live. Each day they learn new things and compare them to that which they already know. They make decisions and form conclusions which shape the way they look at the world as well as who they are as a person. As time goes by and their experience with life grows, they re-examine their conclusions and modify them to account for new information or form new conclusions altogether. In case this sounds familiar to you it is because this is not what it means to be a child, this is what it means to be a thinking human being.
So I ask you, what on earth is there to gain from censoring the information they have available to them? Is there anything in this world that is so dangerous as a thought or idea that they will be unable to deal with it and reject it if it proves to be untrue? What lies are there in this world that are that difficult to unmask for someone able to think and examine the evidence?
But what if we are the source of lies? What if we are the ones who are trying to unduly influence what our children believe? If we see children as clay in our hands to be molded into whatever our own personal neuroses say they should be, then censoring what they see and hear would be an important first step in that direction. If we hide knowledge of human reproduction from them we will be better able to instill our own obsessions and compulsions concerning the subject. If we hide other information which contradicts our own opinions and beliefs then we will be all the more able to manipulate their view of the world and ensure that their biases and prejudices are copies of our own.
Is this what we really want our children to be? Unthinking drones whose only thoughts and feelings are the ones we sanction or implant? I certainly don't want that for my children. If I felt that I would put a child through that sort of psychological and intellectual abuse then I would not dare have children as I would be a threat to their wellbeing.
Instead of trying to teach children what to think, we should work to teach them how to think. A mind trained to think logically and critically is difficult to fool and is more likely to find good answers to life's questions and problems. A mind not so trained can be mislead by every logical fallacy and rhetorical trick in the book as well those that haven't even been written down yet.
The mass stupidity which is continuously exploited by every group and faction imaginable largely exists because people do not know how to think. If they did the world might be a better place with less bullshit to have to deal with from both the right and the left. I can think of no better time to learn logical and critical thinking skills than as a child.
No child of mine will ever be the victim of censorship by me. Anything and everything which they might wish to read or see will be available to them. My role as a parent will be to teach them how to successfully think for themself and deal logically witht the thoughts and ideas they encounter, not to try and hide things from them that I might find personally offensive or believe to be untrue.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You say 'me and everyone else to pay for it' when I may have paid for it too.
Extend your argument. I, as a taxpayer, go to my local library to borrow a book to find that they dont 'like' books about Darwinism or whatever. How do I get my money back??
Exactly. Don't vote for any idiot that suggests that censorship is ok really because it only affects the poor and others who dont pay taxes and cant afford their own pc etc..
Gore actually used the word plutocrat? And he wasn't referring to himself?
He isn't the only one who tries to get the lower and middle class to rally against the rich. Nader and his ilk frequently remind us that over half of this nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population.
If this were truely a democracy, could we vote to increase the taxes of a super-high tax bracket (like $50 million and above) to 75% or even 90%?
Unfortunately, the plutocrats are the ones making the laws...
Seriously, does anybody need that much money?
I understand that you might find 39% a bit high. That's a lot of money for the government to take. But how much are you making? What if we could double the value of ZZ, so you won't have to pay so much until you make a lot more? And in order to facilitate that, we could increase taxes for the super-rich?
Oddly enough, I find myself happy to see such an empassioned discussion on something so (relatively) mundane as the statistical/qualitative importance of the party for which one's vote is cast.
;->
You state a perfectly legitimate logical conclusion that votes cast for any other than the 'mainstream' parties will not be included in determining the elected party. However, you have one inaccurate statement that ruins much of what you have proposed: "...the electors subscribe to the 2 party system."
The electors (I am assuming you mean electorate) 'subscribe' to whatever party achieves the majority of the popular vote in that state. Indeed, this system DOES make it more difficult for a 'third' party to gain footing towards being elected, however it is important to note that IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. Remember the Whigs? They were big shots in the 1800's. Then along came the Republicans, a piddling political minority of the time, considered too radical to be legitimate...
Votes cast for alternate political parties are indeed an important and necessary method by which the voting populous makes it's wishes known. Any significant (5%+) number of votes for an alternative party will indoubtedly have an affect on how other elected officials handle political issues. If the small guys can't win then at least they can yap at the heels of the bigger dogs.
Also, one can assume that one vote for an alternative party may be one vote less for a mainstream party. Anybody out there program assemby? You can understand how that works... when bringing new operands in, the others will be replaced!
I hope I've been constructive in some fashion...
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
and you can ofcourse only find educational resources in those 2 domains. You can't make a distinction based on TLD, since the TLD says virtually nothing about content. a restriction to edu and gov would REALLY be censorship, since this would restrict accessible sites to US only.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
---
I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and...
---
Good. Don't.
Case settled.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Personally I think Nader's a bit over-enthusiastic; I'd like to see a balance where we have some government regulation to keep this from becoming Time-Warner-AOL-Microsoft-Pepsi-world, but not the Greens' gung-ho death-to-capitalism.
One thing I wonder is why all the third parties have to be so extremist. Is it because they wouldn't get any press otherwise? Because they can only get support from people who would rather die than vote Republican or Democrat?
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
It's actually hard to read all these comments and not think I sound whiny. But, I also think the middle class sounds whiny.
While it's nice to think that we could solve our tax problem by shifting the burden to someone other than *me*, I don't think merely moving the brackets is a viable solution. Unfortunately, there will never be a good solution. It is unfair to tax the poor. It is also unfair to overtax the rich.
I wouldn't mind taxation nearly as much if I felt like I had some control over where my money went. There are a lot of programs that I don't my money going towards. Did you know that Hillary Clinton has spent over a million taxpayer dollars flying around to campaign for her Senate seat?
We are definitely governed by the wealthy, but it wouldn't be any better if we were governed by the poor. Laws would be made out of envy, and that's not any good. A lot of support for the Greens and the like comes from envy. Whether or not people realize it, much of it is envy. There are, however, many who have money and yet believe in those ideals.
I dissent :-)
Sex makes babies. Not all of the time, but enough to be a major social issue. Violence, on the other hand, makes black eyes, which go away. In terms of safety, more people get herpes than get shot, and more people die from sex (HIV), then die from wars.
If we could all learn to make war, not love, the world would be a much safer place.
This is my sig.
But assuming you do, you aren't looking through 60 year old eyes that give her migraines trying to read what's on the screen.
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, you can force your employer to make accomodations for you. Larger monitor with larger text and less flicker.
One of the main contributing factors to people making big salaries, is that big salaries are important to them. This is invariably because they are self-absorbed - they want to buy toys for themselves, or they want status, or whatever.
I wish you wouldn't have such a narrow view here. When I was 12, my parents were forced to make a decision which cost my Dad his job. We were very unstable for years while I was growing up, and my parents didn't achieve stability again until my brother and I were supporting ourselves. My parents did everything they could to try to shield us from their lack of money. My Dad barely ate. The bills were only paid when the utility was shut off. When I got home from school and found no electricity, I knew to call my Dad and ask him to pay the electric bill on the way home. Several times they sold many of our belongings to pay the mortgage and not lose the house. Eventually, they declared bankrutpcy.
So, I try to make a large salary. But, I don't do it to live a fancy lifestyle. I do it to save as much money as I can while I am young. I do it so that when I have children, no matter what befalls me, my family will be financially stable. I'm also going to make damn sure that we have enough money for my wife to be at home with our children (she won the argument here - I want to stay home with them myself).
I worked after school to buy my own computer. I paid my way through college with loans and a job. I'm still paying for those loans. I have paid out of pocket for technical training. I spend well over 50 hours a week at work and more at home learning.
So what you're saying is, "I don't support censorship. We shouldn't force the companies who make this stuff to stop, but rather beat the living shit out of them until they submit.
On a separate note, I just discovered that my school's T3 is running SurfWatch blocking software (I'm trying to find a workaround to it, we'll see) and it hasn't yet blocked /. (I'm posting this from my programming class now). Anyone wonder how long it will be before they do get around to filtering this out?
It's funny ... 7 years ago, when I was ten and started using a computer, I was treated by both teachers and fellow students like some sort of god for my "advanced knowledge" (my 7th grade mythology project was a simple text-based game I programmed in QBasic). Now I'm treated by teachers as a subversive, like I'm some sort of evil cancer that's going to destroy their sensibilities ... my fellow students still treat me like a god though =)
-Forager
student of animation and the fine arts
Yes, I did mean electorate (members of an "orate" are "ors", ergo: electorate, electors). When did the Republicans come to the forefront, though? What were the social conditions? Who was informed?
I agree with you by and large, and am honestly not a proponent of a two party system. I love German politics. I really do wish that a 5% vote for JimBob's Country Party meant that they got 5% of the seats in the house/senate. Unfortunately, our forefathers did not foresee a time when the people would have immediate access to the information necessary to make intelligent decisions for themselves (often we still don't). They chose to empower a small group of chosen voters to "represent" the populace. They also chose to have pre-determined numbers of senators from each state who campaign independently, but who are nominated by their individual parties.
I agree most of all with the views of the Libertarian party. I would NEVER vote for the libertarians, though. Let me tell you why: I have an intense fear of Al Gore. The man is unstable. He pouts when he doesn't get his way, and he wants to take credit for everybody else's work. He doesn't want you to be able to drive a car. Freak! I don't agree with Bush's opinions on abortion or gay rights, BUT only one of them is going to win. So I'm telling my electors (members of electorate in VA) that. No Gore. Dried snail innards are better than Gore. Just can't have 'im.
That being said, I do agree also that bringing attention to alternatives will eventually replace the failed mainstreams (Linux, Be, Amiga, whatever v. MS, Novell). Perhaps in a future election, when candidates are more moderate in their beliefs, I will feel safe using a protest vote. This is simply not the election in which to use (waste) a protest vote. The prospect of Al Gore signing laws into effect is simply too harrowing for words.
By the way, does anybody remember the guy who started the Libertarian party? Lynden LaRouche (sp?). Yeesh. I need to shake the memory of that guy from my head before I could ever conscionably vote for them.
Can you imagine: You're sitting at the public library, trying to do some research because (God forbid) your computers are down at home. You look up from your screen to make sure the world is still there, and you notice that the guy next to you is discretely jerking off while watching the Pam & Tommy video? Or maybe the 13yr old has discovered some farts.com type site and keeps playing all of the sound bytes over and over again.
Public money for filtering? What does that mean? One guy spending 5 minutes a day typing off-limits domain names into Proxy Server? Big deal. This is not rocket science. We should not get our panties in a wad.
From the Green Party's platform website
C. LIVABLE INCOME
1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.
3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a "living wage" campaign and "living wage" standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.
4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the "American dream" by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.
5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a "floor" of wage protections and worker's rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of "free" international trade.
You know, my dad says the same things.
But you know what else? Every race is going to be a close race. Every election is going to have alot at stake. So the question is: when are you going to get around to supporting the principles you believe in? That's the question I asked myself, and decided that, in good conscience, I couldn't not vote for Phillips (and whatever other CP candidates that happen to be running in my district, which is unfortunately none).
Constitutionally Correct
I still say that the standard response to each of these is "don't do that then!" I know scads of people that have absolutely no felony convictions. It is a trivial manner to live your life in such a way as to avoid them. Even if you are a pot smoker it is a trivial manner to never carry or sell a "felony" level of marijuana. Every pot smoker in the entire United States is probably aware what a "felony level" amount of pot for their jurisdiction is.
You have a good point about the murderer/rapist only getting 10 years in jail. Of course the "fix" for this is simple. Throw the murderer in jail forever (or, better yet, make sure that the murderer has full access to the legal system and when due process has run out execute him).
The fact of the matter is that people do not have the right to do stupid things and get away with them. People with a felony conviction should be especially careful not to drive 95 on the freeway, they should stay away from spray paint, and they should be careful not to carry too much dope around. People with two felony convictions should probably reconsider the people they hang around with. If not, they are going to end up in jail with their so-called friends for a very long time.
Seriously, how in the world do you rehabilitate someone that continues to act irresponsibly despite the fact that they know that they could go to jail for the rest of their lives? If you can't get the clue light to come on by the third felony I would submit that it is relatively safe to conclude that they are criminally stupid and should be locked up for their own protection. These laws are not arbitrary, and they were created by you and your fellow citizens. If you don't like them, work at getting them changed (though I doubt you will have much luck, most people frown on vandalism, reckless driving, and felony quantities of weed). Just don't come crying to me when you get caught three times committing a felony. It's not like it's a big secret that breaking these laws could land you in jail for a long time.
Mike
Actually, the biggest thing the government did to foster the current economic environment is the developement of the internet. And no polition has been more important than Gore when it comes to that. You can make fun of him all you want, but as early as the 80's he was talking about a nationwide commercial internet. Most people in technology didn't think about that at the time; even Bill Gates didn't see the importance of the internet until over 5 years later.
Mike
And perhaps you should "opt out" of using roads and ask for your money back? Maybe you don't use the public park, you should ask for your money back? Hey, you've never used welfare, ask for your money back?
I think my point is that the government is there to provide some baseline. Now you can use that or not...your choice. But the government is not a set of options which you can redeem for money. Giving your public school funding money back is admittingly failure and an unwillingness to solve the problem. I do not agree with that. It is beyond my comprehension why one of the richest, most prosperous, most powerful, countries in the world cannot even create a quality education system. No, I don't think we should bail out. I think we should fix it.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The goal is to have a certain *minimum* level of education for all citizens. Hey, if you don't want to use public education, or public roads, or public parks, don't...it's your choice. But the government should provide a standard minimum level of education for everybody. Your opinion of the role of government may differ. But in my opinion vouchers are admission of failure of that task and a cop out.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, I think in the most fundamental ways that government is needed, we are very much a "central" people.
;)
We all should have a *minimum* level of education.
We all should have a *minimum* level of health.
We all should have at least a very *minimum* means of subsistence.
These fundamentals don't change according to what state you're in. It is these few fundamental things that I think make sense to be federally sanctioned.
And while I was growing up I lived most of my life outside the United States in foreign countries. Now back in the states, I can't help but see, that *yes* we are a very "central" people. The world has gotten so much smaller since 1776...the "federation" doesn't even really make sense any more. Every little 200-person county has its own tome of archaic and peculiar laws. To a programmer that just doesn't make sense. Abstract, standardize, modularize, reuse
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I think you miss the point (as many regulation-fearing "netizens" do). Nader is not about censoring, or government telling you what is right and wrong. Nader's *one* problem with entertainment is with corporatizing consumerizing culture it espouses. His complaint is that we are giving free reign to corporations to brainwash our kids, over our airwaves, from the time they are able to watch tv, until death. His complaint is that we are *letting* corporations pollute our schools with propaganda, *forcing* students to participate in a diet of their advertisement during *our* school ours. He is arguing that *we* as a people should take control back. Yes, I realize that it is up to parents to control what their kids what and do. However, we have allowed corporations to hold us hostage, to the point that there is *no* way to avoid their advertising and propaganda. Nader is for reclaiming this control over our own airwaves and our own schools. He is not telling you what you can and can't watch, other than saying that you should have *control* over what you can watch. Is there any geek around here, that, for instance, is *for* DVD controls that *force* you to watch advertisements? Many of us filter out ads in our browsers. That is control.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Yes, which is why we have to *fix* government, not an excuse to let corporations have free reign.
E.g., we should replace the robber with a trusted guard, not just say "oh well, the robber is a crook too, so, hey, everybody, let's grab some dough"
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
So all we have to go on are the *two sentences* that is in the debate transcript. According to that line,
From this quote, it sounds like he is trying to get ISP's to offer this as a feature. Note that hs is negotiating with them. He did not say anything like "I am supporting the McCain-whoever bill..." or "As president, I will require all ISP's..."If you actually go read Gore's response, he wants to give parents the responsibility to control their own kids. This ISP-based history list is just a tool towards that end.
Bush, on the other hand, wants mandatory filters. He wants "character education" in schools. He doesn't want parents to be responsible; he wants the government to be responsible.
Mike
I think your argument needs some work.
I dissent :-) Sex makes babies. Not all of the time, but enough to be a major social issue.
Mostly true. I am gay, so I don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancy. (It's the *wanted* pregnancy which is a problem.)
Violence, on the other hand, makes black eyes, which go away.
You make it sound as if black eyes are the only outcome of violence, and we both know that this is not the case. Violence causes some damage that can be as trivial as what you claim, but can also bring about much more chronic and damaging things. Take death, for instance. Or disability. Or psychological damage (what happens to the innocent children who see their parents engage in violence).
In terms of safety, more people get herpes than get shot,
And more people engage in domestic violence than get herpes. I think domestic violence is a much larger problem than herpes will ever be. Herpes is non-fatal. We can't say the same thing for domestic violence, which can have long-reaching and long-lasting destructive effects.
and more people die from sex (HIV), then die from wars.
This is simply not true. 20 million Russians died in World War II. It's going to be a while before AIDS can claim that many. Besides, people die from AIDS because due to a virus, not due to sex. Yes, I know that the virus is transmitted sexually, but you also have to admit that other viruses are transmitted by much more innocuous human contact (e.g. tuberculosis). By your argument, all human contact causes death.
We need to learn how to stop disease, not human contact.
If we could all learn to make war, not love, the world would be a much safer place.
Unless you are the one who happens to get raped, pillaged, or killed in said war, right? I can't see how you have come to this conclusion.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
He says corps don't pollute? That a new one for me. I do recall him saying that they will avoid it if there are tough penalties available. But the Libertarian way is to have it dealt with in the courts rather than a government buracracy. Laws would have to be changed before this worked, and he has stated that. The fact is, most pollution occurs on government land. Yes, much of it is by corps. A detailed page on this from the Harry Browne website is at:
m
/. ... I think the problem here lies in how you look at things. Perhaps it's just a phillosophical difference. Libertarians believe that a "Monopoly" cannot exist without government help. The market will not allow an abusive monopoly because if large profits are available competition will come in. The company that is acting like a monopoly will have to compete with challengers and will be forced to provide a good product at a fair price. Does M$ do this? Arguably not. However, Linux is gaining ground. BeOS is here, Apple is gaining ground. Even Novell is attempting to get into the game again. Competition is heating up for M$ and it shows. Win2K is actually a reasonably good product for M$. It's pricey, IMO, but compared to the commercial offerings from Novell and Apple it's not out of line by much.
;) Know your enemy and all that. I've read up on Bush, Gore, Nader, Buchanan, and Browne. Along with some info on the Constitution, Natural Law, and a few other parties in lesser detail. Be informed, please. Ignorant voters are the biggest problem in the US today, IMO. And don't just take anyone's oppinion for granted, do the homework for yourself. This includes me. ;)
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/stands/enviro.ht
Microsoft. A touchy issue on
What was M$ sued over? Offering a browser with thier OS. That appears to be the extent of the charges. That is insane. Linux comes with a browser. BeOS and MacOS come with browsers. Why should M$ be held to a different standard? Because they are the market leader? Because they refuse to include competitors products with thier own? Is Coca-Cola a monopoly because they are the market leader and they refuse to include a can of Pepsi with every 6 pack of Coke? Do they deserve to be sued? I used to like the idea of the M$ trial too. Then I researched anti-trust law and what, exactly, M$ was being sued over. I was appalled.
Perhaps you don't like that you can't buy a computer without Windows. Fine, don't buy it at the local electronics store. Go buy parts and put one together yourself. True, not everyone is able to do this. But that is the nature of the beast. Small computer shops will build custom boxes and not include Windows if you look arround. It's a little harder, but not impossible. And it's not M$'s fault. Computer makers do it, some are under contract, but they signed so it's thier problem.
Do I like M$ or it's tactics? Nope. But I don't think anyone has a right to go after a company becuase they are hurting thier bottom line. And that's about the extent of the M$ trial. Antitrust laws exist for the sole purpose of sticking it to the successfull companies.
Nader is hardly a good choice. The man is a socialist. Universal health care, "excess profits" on gas, loads of envoirnmental regulations, the list goes on and on. He also would increase the size of government to unheard of levels if he got his way. Got to enforce all this stuff somehow... I like the enviornment as much as the next guy, but the Greens are up in the night.
Extremist? Okay, deffine that. Is freedom from government opression extreme? Then yes, I suppose Libertarians may qualify. Personally, I find Nader, Bush, and Gore extremeists. But it is probably a personal oppinion. Libertarians base all thier planks on a principle. That is that people should be free to do as they please as long as they are not causing harm to another person. This includes moral, ecconomic, and personal freedoms. You can find details on www.lp.org. Weather you agree or not, I would urge you to investigate the Libertarian Party and find out for yourself why we feel the way we do about things. You may find yourself learning a few things. If nothing else, you will be able to debate Libertarians better.
No. A popular vote is the most democratic answer, not the only representative answer.
It is fundamental to the design of our system that some things are counted by state, and others by population. There would *be* no ratified constitution without providing this type of protection to the small states.
If you want to remove our protection, go form a separate union of large states, or we'll leave and form our own. But you're not going to get us to go along sith stripping us of the constitutional prerogatives that were used to get us to join.
The U.S. is *not* the goverment. *The* government is the set of state governments, which delegate their power to the feds--and can withdraw this.
Quite simply, to submit the small states to the tyranny of the majority by the large states violates our most fundamental principle, government by consent of the governed.
hawk, a displaced Nevadan
I agree with that statement, I just don't think that putting them in prison is the way to help them, and therefore, the rest of the world. It's not like they're going to stay in prison forever, and we don't have spice mines to send them off to...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
--
-- SIGFPE
The problem, is, they don't work.
Really udnerstanding what is on a page is a very difficulty AI problem and none of the available technolgoies coem anywahere close. All they do is look for keywords.
There's a great site that had a stupid filter tricks contest. It was reported on Slashdot about a month ago, if you look back you might find the link. The winner (out of thouisands of exampels sent in as entires) was the high school student who couldn't reach his own high-school's web page from his high-school's library-- it objected to the word "high". An honorbale mention (for irony) is Representative Richard "Dick" Armie's page, a big proponent of ceonsorware, which ALL current filter programs block because of his nick name.
If you really want to control this then what you need to do is
(1) make students log in.
(2) keep logs of all web activity
(3) check those logs regularly for violations of
school poicies.
(4) Permenantly take away the accounst of
violators.
American's are in love with the idea of easy fixes, but there is no such beast in this case.
It's actually hard to read all these comments and not think I sound whiny. But, I also think the middle class sounds whiny.
On the contrary, I think you are offering some very intellegent discussion. I, on the other hand...
Hillary Clinton has spent over a million taxpayer dollars flying around to campaign for her Senate seat
Slut.
We are definitely governed by the wealthy, but it wouldn't be any better if we were governed by the poor. Laws would be made out of envy, and that's not any good. A lot of support for the Greens and the like comes from envy. Whether or not people realize it, much of it is envy. There are, however, many who have money and yet believe in those ideals.
Like me. I'm pretty well off (not making $100K, yet), so I don't think my support for the Greens comes from envy. I believe that people are getting fucked by stupid and greedy politicians and the system they support.
Watching the debates makes me think that most of the people in this country have had the wool pulled over their eyes. We live in a world of corporate controlled media, and (I imagine) that most people don't keep that in mind when they subject themselves to its memes. The fact that most people seem to accept our limited choices (as most of the media presents) for president, one complete moron and one almost complete moron, neither of whom can get a point across clearly (do they do that on purpose?), shows that the inbred fuckfest going on between corporate media giants and politicians has suceeded in convincing people that they don't have any other choice. Even the polls are stupid: "Who are you going to vote for?" is asked a lot more frequently then "Who do you think should be the next president?"
Sorry if I sound whiny. I'm not complaining, I'm just worried. Worried that corporate dominance of the most powerful institutions on the planet is going to kill us all. I'm know there's a lot more to it than Internet censorship and fair taxes. There are tons of generally sane, intellegent citizens such as yourself that would probably disagree with me, but I see corporate greed as one of the most serious problems in the U.S.
Christ, I'm beginning to sound like an evangelist.
Nuke a gay communist baby seal for Christ
I consider myself a small "L" libertarian who doesn't want to waste his vote in such a close election. so i'm going with Bush, however if it looked like it wasn't such a close election i think i'd have to vote for nader. Why? because i can only hope that his party gets their "= billing" in the next election and is able to split the vote of the democrats in two for a couple years, giving the republications a greater majority than they have, so if you like what nader has to say AT ALL, please vote for him. (my first post on /. ever, although i've read it nearly every day for 2 years.)
Isn't that just View - Explorer Bar - History (ie IE) or Communicator - Tools - History (in netscape) ?
/. again?"
Netscape: about:global, save it, and grep it for {jpg|gif|png|pr0n|Portman|CmdrTaco}.
> "Honey, what are all these files? cmdrtaco_and_natalie_portman.jpg? real_penis_bird.jpg? Have you been on
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
Gore's plan seems to be really horrible... it puts a huge responsibility on ISPs. They have to intercept web requests and insert their own parent-blocking-thing. Most ISPs don't have this infrastructure. They also don't have the infrastructure to keep track of what pages you've visited. And that's a lot of stuff for them to keep track of, not to mention that there are other barriers (encryption).
Bush's idea to put blocks on public computers may be a bad idea, but at worst you won't be able to get to some sites you need to get to at your library. With Gore's plan, suddenly ISPs have a huge responsibility to keep track of everyone's usage, and when they do that they open themselves for (A) lots of lawsuits and (B) now the gov't can subpeona your browsing history from your ISP that they have to keep. There goes all your privacy.
Not only that, we've seen recently that many ISPs back down from big corporate pressure... since your ISP now has a list of everywhere you've visited some corporation can sue your ISP ``unless you tell us everyone who has downloaded an mp3'' or something.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I think I'm voting for Bush, if only for the lesser of two evils.
I was struck by the comments generated when one Joyce Klinger asked about morality and Hollywood and violence, and children.
He talks about character education in schools, filters in the public libraries(as you alluded to), after school programs etc.
But what 'impressed' me was his voice against censorship. Yes, you can talk to Hollywood and such, and ratings would be helpful, and controls would be helpful, but, he says:
"I'm going to remind mothers and dads: The best weapon is the off-on button, and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them..."
So, unless you're just reading sound bites or something, Bush qualifies as a candidate.
Gore, on the other hand, wanted ISPs to have "parents' protection page every time 95% of the pages come up. And a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately."
Which sounds like a privacy nightmare for kids and families. Who gets access to this information *other* than parents?
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I'm just tired of seeing Slashdot news items under this topic that are fairly unbalanced. Could we please see some items that at least give the conservatives a fair shot? It's irresponsible to be skewed like this...
It has to do with living in a free country. I have the freedom to earn as much as I can. I work hard to better myself and my income reflects that.
There is nothing wrong with earning more than someone else. I work harder. I make every effort to know more than they do, and to be able to apply the knowledge more effectively. Should I not be rewarded for that?
It's not about psychology or self esteem. If I make $100K, my wife doesn't work, and my three kids want to go to Ivy League schools, what do you expect me to do? What if I have to support my parents as well because some medical conditions annihilated their savings? Heck, under your plan, they couldn't save for their retirement anyway because you don't let people make very much money.
What if I use my extra earnings to fly to Haiti several times a year and provide medical care to those that can't have it? I have a fried who does this. Owns his own plane, buys his own supplies. He couldn't do that making less than $100K.
A maximum wage is a terrible idea that I hope never gets implemented. Apparently, you haven't thought this through. There are plenty of reasons to earn $100K or more. Capitalism means that I (and you) can. If my talent is not worth $100K, then no one will pay me that. If it is, then good for me. And, I can spend it how I see fit.
If you don't like it, move to another country. This one is built on capitalism and freedom. Don't take either one away.
I don't know if I these proposals are useful, but I don't think that they're censorship. The proposal to allow for monitoring what sites your kids go to seems like it would be pretty easy to implement in a browser. All you really need to do is lock down the browser history feature. It wouldn't take very long to add a feature to Mozilla that required password access to clear/alter the history.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
But later (or before, I forget) Gore's idea on parental responsibility came up again specically on a question about how to make sure that parents are responsible when it comes to education needs. Both candidates quickly skimmed away from how to deal with lax parents and went into their blurbs about their various education plans. But this is really an important point - if the parents are not going to spend the time and investiment in the education of their students, are they going to spend the time and investiment in makign sure their kid is only visiting good sites? Probably not.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
My initial instinct is to leave it to parental control, but we all know children are far more at ease with technology than their parents. By letting standard filters be put in place there will at least be some minimal control.
Of couse, while we all get nervous about 'big-brother' look over our shoulder, whether we agree to it or not, he will always be there. We never know where he is 'all of the time', but at least with standardized filters, we'll know where he is 'some of the time'.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
Bush says:
I think we ought to have character education in our schools. I know that doesn't directly talk about Hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you're teaching. I'd greatly expand character education funding, so that public schools will teach children values, values which have stood the test of time.
Does this scare anyone else? How can the government decide what character they should instill in children? There is no way you could draw a line to say what is good character, and what is bad character. I certainly don't character taught to my children based on popular vote. Besides, if I ever have children I'm not going to teach them values, or morals based on a predefined dogma. I'm going to teach them ethics which are based on views that they as people have developed themselves through learning naturally what is right and wrong. I can't believe that someone who seems to have such strong beliefs that the government shouldn't control peoples lives, would have the gaul to tell me that my children should be taught by the government how to behave on such a fundamental, personal level.
excuse me moron, but try buying a small house here in the bay area making $70k/year. its impossible, unless you want to buy a trailer!! Houses here are averaging over $300k!! for a 3bed 2bath in a decent neighborhood, its more likely going to run nearly 450k now. you try making house payments of $3500/month on 70k/year. idiot.
When/how did you interpret Bush as regulating speech from his debates? Perhaps it was something outside his debate, but it would seem that Bush has no interest in censorship, from his response to Joyce Klinger as regards the Internet, Hollywood, morals, etc.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Hasn't either candidate used a browser in the last five years? There's something called View History...
sulli
RTFJ.
'a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.'
<zoiks>
Well, it's too late for someone to slap a patent on that one!
</zoiks>
gore said ISP would monitor... and do you knoweasy it is to disable that on a machine that your useing? thats the point of having the ISP do it, not that thats not easy to get aroung... just send it via a anonimizer (sp?) or proxy... it hits the proxy and noone knows where it goes! and how about groups like freenet or mojonation? they CANT be tracked in this fashion do to the format of the network... all-in-all its the parents duity to watch their kid. teach you kids right and wrong, if you dont trust them then watch them.
And by god, if I catch Jenny looking at that birth control website again she's gonna get the beating of her life.....
As this is only my opinion, I'll say what I think.
There needs to be a simplification of roles. Either a child is given privacy and all the responsibilities that come with it, or the parent must be able to check on their child.
We're living in a time where parents can be held responsible for a child's actions, and must pick up the peices when a child makes a mistake. Never mind the fact that the child made the mistake under the protection of privacy, thus the parents had no way of knowing what was going on.
Which is it? Jenny has privacy and freedom to view a site on birth control, screw up usage instructions, and then the parents must take up the bill for her mistake? Or allow the parents to see this behavior and perhaps (assuming rational parents) give her direction to the right decision? Parents giving direction? Well, yes, that is their job after all.
You just gave your argument against Gore; what is it that Bush has said that makes him against a free or open internet?
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
fuck that. i'll vote for who i damn well want to. just because two groups of politicians got together and said "these are the only two people you can choose from" doesn't make it so.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
If you want to keep kids away from political sites, I think the best approach is to insist that they browse them, preferably for a couple of hours a day. Ask them questions about issues at the dinner table, have them tell you what sites they visited and why, get them to summarize candidate positions. After a week of this, they'll never want to visit a political site again. Ya just gotta know how to handle them ...
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Since when is a TROLL moderated "interesting"? How about posting a source for that lie? You won't find it in the GP platform.
Why vote for the lesser of evils, Ctuhulu for president
No more years, no more years
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
And the NCSA facility at Illinois where Mosiac was put together was not built and paid for by the federal government under a bill that Gore sponsored. In fact, the university itself was able to pay for it when it realized that it could double its revenues from deposit bottles by driving them to Michigan in a stolen postal vehicle. Or maybe that was a Seinfeld episode. In any event, the point is that Gore's a big liar.
As a nation we are continually giving minors (children? Most kids aren't kids any more by the time they're 15, even if their judgement is still childlike. Then again, most so-called adults aren't known for excellent judgement) more responsibility without more rights - In fact, every chance we get we take away more of them. And now that graffiti is almost always a felony based on some objective view of what the amount of damage done is, and we have a three strikes law, a minor could find themselves facing a life sentence in prison for graffiti.
Well, around California, anyway. Maybe I should move.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
School and library funded computers should be used for research purposes, and using filtering software to do that is a reasonable approach. (Common sense should also come into it -- a student should be able to request the filter be disbaled to reach a site normally blocked if there is a good reason behind it.)
On the other hand, Gore's approach really is creepy -- compel ISP's to provide an ability to track users so that parents can snoop on their kid's activites? It ain't censorship, but it is draconian.
Remember, it's one thing to say that government resources have restrictions, it's quite another for the government to force private industry into doing its will, no matter how good the intention.
--
No, you totally miss the point. It's not the government's money, it's ours. WE are the taxpayers, not Uncle Sam. You think it's good government to confiscate money from citizens forcibly, and use that money against them? Vote for one of the two parties in last night's debates, then.
School and library funded computers should be used for research purposes, and using filtering software to do that is a reasonable approach. (Common sense should also come into it -- a student should be able to request the filter be disbaled to reach a site normally blocked if there is a good reason behind it.)
Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you. The problem is that the impulse to filter does not come from common sense, it comes from fear and ignorance and a need to pander to some constituency. Students have been barred from the school library for pointing out that appropriate material has been inappropriately blocked. Students that understand how ineffective and counterproductive the filters are are seen as "hackers" and are banned from all access.
If that isn't government sponsored censorship, then what is?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Hope this helps.
Love,
Bruce
Bruce
You are the real Bruce Perens.
Why the hell would you vote for someone that supports a MAXIMUM WAGE? thats not freedom, infact its exactly the opposite. while I agree with you on Bush and Gore Nader is definetly not what you think he is. He's socialism 100%. IF you want that, then move to Switzerland. I'll take freedom and lousy presidents any day.
The Libertarian solution: Legalize all recreational drugs. Effect: The black market is eliminated. Innocent prisoners of victimless crimes are released. Tax money is no longer wasted on the drug war. Above all, our freedom to choose for ourselves what goes into our body is restored. Much more "to the point", if you ask me.
--
It doesn't seem to radical...
Controlled access in a public institution. Not saying I agree with it, but a library has to dictate it's choices based on morals, bandwidth, resources, allocations, etc anyway.
A library does not have unlimited bandwidth. It seems as reasonable to stop porn as it does anything else. I do have concerns when he wants to filter violence and pornography, but it doesn't seem a bad idea to filter it in general.
Bush does have points for mentioning:
"But I'm going to remind mothers and dads: The best weapon is the off-on button, and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them."
I don't know enough about Nader to vote for him. But I think I'm more comfortable with Bush, than with Gore.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Me too. And then when I was sixteen, I saw a movie for the first time. Ah, memories.
When did we (collective USA population) give up our self-responsibility and self-reliance? And WHY?
I, as a parent, am responsable for teaching my child right from wrong, and for protecting my child against harm. I decide what is right and wrong, based on my upbringing, ethics and values. And I decide what is the best way to protect my child. What I consider right, others may consider wrong. And what others may consider harmful, I may consider worth knowing about.
It is also my responsibility to know what my child is doing (not at all times, as that is simply not possable), and to take responsibility for what she does, until she is mature enough to take the responsibilities on her self.
As a result, if she is on the net, then I'm damn well going to be there to help guide her and answer questions for her. A piece of filtering software can't do these things. Expecially when the user of the software is not allowed to know EXACTLY what is being filtered and WHY!
With this said, Bush is says that when my child is online, I should forget about all of these responsabilities and turn it over to a piece of software, that will make the decisions as to what my child my read/see and not read/see. The decisions will be a one size fits all based on who knows what.
Gore's ideas are better, but I'm afraid that his ideas will just be a stepping stone to Bush's form of filtering.
Also, the idea that my child has to come home to look for information, because the libraries have been prevented from providing it, is just plane bad! The idea of a library is to provide a central place to find information. If we allow filtering to happen, then we might as well close the libraries down.
Bush calls for faulty filtering software, which I can live with because I, and many I know, can circumnavigate around it.
Gore, however, wants ISP level controls and filters and checks available to parents, and not for the parents to do it themselves! Which means anyone else with proper authority can also check on the activities of anyone on the internet, because an ISP cannot differentiate between a kid and a parent at the same terminal at home.
Dunno, look up Joyce Klinger's question and both responses to see what I'm talking about, page 3 of the debates.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
What kind of psychological disorder do you have that makes you think *you* have the right to restrict the ability of others to earn what they wish?
Maybe *I'd* like to work for a decade at $250k a year and then take a decade or so off? Maybe I *like* well crafted material things as opposed to cheap ass shit.
Hell, maybe I'm *WORTH* over 100k a year to a company.
You're not an idiot because you're a socialist, you're just and idiot.
(And how much did Nader make back when he was claiming that the Corvair was "unsafe at any speed
? I drove on for about a year, my mother drove one for about 15 years. The only accident she had was when *she* rearended someone. The car was fine. Nader is a sanctimonious prick).
Signing off from the Damaged Worlds
As an immediate step, the Greens advocate a maximum pay differential of 10 to 1. In the long run, the Greens support moving to an egalitarian pay system of labor certificates based on hours of labor contributed
Please see http://www.greenparty.org/program/econdemoc.html.
Also, please check you facts before you call some one a troll...
Both ideas suck. Why should the government have any say in what services an ISP offers? I think Its a good idea though, and ISP's would be wise to offer some sort of service to log children's traffic. However, I don't think it will work. Any self respecting kid over 10 will be able to figure out how to use babelfish to proxy the content.
As far as content filters in libraries.. duh, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. I can't believe we're even still talking about it.
SpamapS -- Undernet #Linuxhelp
It took you this long to realize Gore has no respect for the rule of law? Do you remember him saying "There's no controlling legal authority", basically sticking his tongue out at the law?
They both have the right idea about public internet access, just the wrong implementation. There needs to be something done to prevent kids from sitting down next to some guy staring at beastiality pics with one hand in his pocket.
The Constitution party has their own set of lies.
They claim to be in absolute favor of state sovreignity, but they also want federal laws requiring states to observe one particular religion's ideas about marraige, regardless of the wishes of the citizens of those states.
Thus, they expose themselves even in their own party platform.
-
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
From The Onion
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Bzzzzt.  That is the value of the house at this point in time.  It may be more than you are willing to pay, but it is what the market is currently bearing.
Just remember, what comes up must also come down.  Sadly, you can expect a lot of bankruptcies when all of the venture capital in the Silicon Valley dries up.
and this would be trivial for the ISP to implement allowing parents to check the logs to their own connection using a web form.
I like this idea far more than mandatory filtering by ISPs/libraries/whatever. Give the parents the ability to see what their kids are doing and make it easy for them to use.
Parents should be responsible for repremanding the children going places the parents don't want them to go. Not the ISPs.
Create a 'router' box. The box would come in 56k modem variety, or ethernet variety. Basically, on the 'input' side would be either a phone cord or cat5 input, output side would be a special cord, maybe USB or some special port design that needs a new card. Inside the router box would be a small HD (a gig or so) and necessary software. Note that both input and output would not be ports, but cords that come from inside the box so they can'd be disconnected or bypassed.
The box basically acts as a firewall/router. Software on the computer can activate the modem if necessary. All network requests would go through this box, and can be logged. The router would respond to local address calls, and would require password protection to access. As the way the cords are set up, and assuming you remove the modem from the computer, you can't bypass this system easily by just physically connecting the wires any differently. Otherwise, the kid would have to go into the computer, install the modem or netcard, and then go from there, but that would have a much larger chance of detection by the parents than just hacking around filtering software. I'd say that these would run no more than $100, and probably could be down to $50 if done right.
The only major way to break this is to find the password to the box, but that's the problem with any secure system.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I have laughed hard enough to make milk come out my nose when I was little. I have never ever though laughed hard enough for peanutbutter and jelly to do so... OUCH... funny, but ouch.
You say you want a revolution?
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/19/059246.shtml
Read the bit about the Wired expose.
As for libraries. Instead of filtering software, how about just having the libraries check up on the patrons from time to time? Filtering software is flawed, and has been found guilty of consistently blocking critical information.
I've always had enormous difficulty getting information at libraries with filtering software installed. Not just blocked links. Many of them block entire protocols. No ftp, telnet, or gopher.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
"But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life."
The Internet is to blame for these murders. The Internet is evil. That's his opinion.
The purpose of having libraries is to provide the public access to information, and Internet filtering attacks this mission. There's no reliable way to filter out, for example, Porn, without denying library patrons access to: health information, information for survivors and victims of sexual abuse, scientific papers about human reproduction, discussions about sexual ethics and morals. The list goes on. There's no reliable way to filter bad information without filtering good information
Not everyone has, or can afford, Internet access. For many people, libraries are their only free access to this information. They are also, for the most part, free of censorship.
Every library I know anything about has policies against using library resources to access porn, or play games. This is reinforced by the library staff far more effectively than can be done by software. Some libraries have porn filters in the childrens secion, but allow full access from machines in other sections of the library, which seems to be a decent compromise.
It's easy for Bush and Gore to talk about Internet censorship, they're just preaching to the reactionary and the ignorant.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
Any site with the word "bush" or "gore" on it may already be banned under sex or violence...
--
The Bell Curve is racist?! Have you even read it, or do you prefer burning books in advance of thoughtful discussion? I don't happen to agree with the primary thrust of the book as it doesn't acknowledge cultural influence upon the statistics. But to mention it in the same breath as Mein Kampf, a piece of historical propaganda and fiction is unjustified. I happen to agree with you that filters in public libraries are a bad idea, more because it is a slippery slope, and there can not be adequate discussion of what is and what is not filtered. Frankly, you are absolutely right that a little supervision, or even mere public exposure, will more constructively control this behavior than any filtering software
But back to your initial comment. The fact that you somehow believe that The Bell Curve, an almost entirely statistical work done on studies and statistics generated by other entities is "Hatred and racism" is perhaps the best proof of your argument. Clearly this is part of contentious public discussion, and as soon as we start the book burnings/filtering we control the course of that discussion in an unacceptable manner. We let the bias of someone, anyone, to determine what is and what is not acceptable.
Even so, we need to be far more cognizant of suggestions that change the nature of the Net itself, and which permit greater control of personal information.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
Anyway, if you're interested in the whole history of how there got to be 2 GP's in the US, search for ASGP and GP/USA on the web. The GP/USA is apparently planning to act to end the confusion, as I said in my last post.
I can see why, after all your government is so spotlessly clean, well run and aboveboard on all issues.
Yes, this is sarcasm.
Signing off from the Damaged Worlds
A year ago, I came up with a novel solution, one which I intend to carry over to our new family house. The television will not be hooked up. It will be connected to the VCR and the stereo receiver, so that we can watch movies as we choose them. But that's it. No cable feed, not even an antenna. There's not enough really good television programming to make it worth having that permanent distraction taking up our family room.
So many people think of television as some kind of basic human right that they ignore this possibility. The same goes for internet access. Thousands of Americans don't have any way to access the World Wide Web, and they're not suffering for it. If you don't like what the Internet has to say, don't turn it on. It really is that simple.
Now, what should we do about public libraries? In my opinion, nothing. Hatred and racism like The Bell Curve and Mein Kampf are already available in most sizable public libraries for those who want it; literary pornography is easily accessible to anyone who can find the romance section. And if you don't want to deal with kids browsing porn away from their parents, then just position the monitors so that a librarian at their desk can see what's being downloaded.
This is, as far as I know, the single best example of politicans saying what they think people want them to say instead of thinking through a practical solution to things. Mandatory filtering software has already been tried out extensively, and it never works right: it never filters everything, and usually ends up filtering things it shouldn't because of too-narrow criteria. Gore's proposed solution is poorly thought out, but Bush's is just insipid.
Does anyone care that no need is evident that children need protection from any content online?
:-) If viewing "disturbing" content has done anything to me, it's made me a more balenced, upright citizen.
A breast does not disturb anyone but parents.
I grew up on naked women being ripped to peices by monsters. I'd like to say I'm normal, but I'm not--I'm better than normal. I'm more calm than others, more reasonable, and just more perfect in every possible way.
Of course, on the other side of things, there are people who never were allowed to see even Kung Fu movies; and believe me--these people aren't normal.
**We need to protect children from unreasonable, illogical, irrational and overly-emotional "save the children" campaigns. They exist only because of emotionally disturbed parents and weasily politicians who want to say "I actually <I>do</I> care about children!"
I'm willing to agree that *both* candidates lie, and that neither is particularly trustworthy.
One thing I can put against Bush, however, is that ID software resides in Texas, and that Texas is responsible for the most violent games in the world, right now. *grin*
Likewise, that his is also the gun-state (I think. Did I get that wrong?). And the cowboy state.
Still, that seems to be the way politics works. You represent the most voters, you get the most voters. If you screw them over (by going back on your word, by violating your 'contract') you can get kicked out, replaced, or just not elected.
Dunno, I still haven't seen any reason to vote for Gore yet. His ISP/monitoring plan bothers me.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I can't vote for Nader with a clear conscious. If I vote for Gore, at least there's some chance my liberal viewpoints will be supported. If I vote for Nader, maybe Bush will win my ("swing")-state's precious electoral votes and I'll have to helplessly watch him appoint a few ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices. Ugh!
When Bush said paid for by public money he was refering to the connections. If the gvt is already paying for an internet connection to a library then why shouldn't they have the right to block what ever sites they don't want access. I agree that public money is money the gvt has taken from us but if we are already paying for the connection then why not add filtering software. I know filtering is not the best way to prevent kids going to porn sites but it is a step in the right direction. Now accounts not receiving public funds should not be forced into a mandatory program and that is not what I hear suggested by Bush. If the gvt is going to provide portals to the internet with public money they must be careful to make sure that the information/content being viewed is not harmful to those viewing it.
- Gore knows what he's talking about if you listen to him. When he was talking about having to get children to install filter programs. He does understand the problem. Histories can be easily wiped. And what about those internet applicances that don't have histories? Have you even seen any of those?
My idea is to integrate browser history with the parental control settings, which when activated would make the history read-only. That way, if the parent actually takes time to learn enough about the browser to use the parental controls, they already have a log of what their kids have been visiting.And of course, filters are hideously broken. And who's to say that shielding kids from violence is good for them? Maybe if they were to encounter violence, their parents could sit down and say, 'Son, there is a lot of violence in the world. You will see it in movies, on TV, just about everywhere. This doesn't make it right.' Maybe then, parents could take responsibility for their kids back from the government, because when government intervenes they invariably step on someone else's toes.
Yet another reason to vote Libertarian.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
... other than the minor technicality that the page you linked to doesn't say anything of the sort, you make a great case.
What Nader is against is giving corporations direct access to the schools as a captive audience to market to. You see, us commie pinko radicals have the crazy notion that schools are for learning more important things than what cola brand to drink and what shoe brand makes you cool. What we're worried about may just be the idea that if an organization starts funding a program, they're going to want to influence its content. I bet you'd scream like a pig stuck with a hot poker if you found out your school was using a lesson plan on agriculture sponsored by PETA, and you wouldn't buy the defense "they're just paying for it, they're not writing it." It hasn't possibly occurred to you that if the lesson plan was sponsored by "Supermarket to the World" ADM, it might have a bias, too?
What Nader's website actually says on that page you linked to is, "It is easy to point the finger at the Marilyn Mansons. But they are merely instruments. Speaker Hastert and Senate majority leader Lott ought to focus on the deeper problems. Behind every Marilyn Manson are corporations and corporate executives who cynically draw their large compensation packages from the fruits of such work." Woo.
Brin makes a good observation in his article (the personality traits that make someone a good gadfly aren't necessarily the ones that you want in a political leader), and the page has a lot of political grandstanding (maybe Nader has some of the qualifications we evidently look for in leaders after all--whoops, I'm being cynical). But pulling a column which is on marketing to children (you know, the page on Nader's site that you found it on puts in a category called "Marketing to Children") and pointing it to say, "Ooh, look, those nasty liberals want to censor everything!" is disingenous at best. Us nasty liberals have our faults, but failing to support free speech and civil liberties is, by and large, not one of them.
Are you really a libertarian? According to the Slashdot article, Bush favors filters for government-funded libraries . That doesn't limit freedom. Now, if you're really a libertarian, then you should be in favor of no government funding of libraries, which in effect filters out "all" web pages from government-funded libraries (since there wouldnt' be any). Of course, going by both the libertarian position as well as what Bush said, private citizens are able to view whatever web pages they'd like to, on their own dime or on the dime of any private library benefactors — just not the taxpayers'. I can live with that, but it sounds like you'd be able to view a whole Hell of a lot fewer web pages at the taxpayers' expense if we ever had a true libertarian government than you would with a Bush administration.
As someone with libertarian leanings, I find it annoying when people latch onto their pet issues and fail to understand the core values.
Cheers,
There are definitely more than two candidates.
The only two I'm at all familiar with right now is Bush and Gore.
I've heard Nader vaguely, and throughout this thread/slashdot post, Brown mentioned.
I'm behind on the times, unfortunately. My vote would go to the person that would do the least damage to our country, I think.
I saw your sig, but didn't follow the link. Just did, now.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Gore still seems slimier than Cthulu.
=)
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Likewise, just because the cable company sends you 43 channels doesn't mean you can't sit there and stare at the set while it's turned off.
This would be the 1st Amendment. Congress already regulates speech, especially commercial speech. McCain wants to regulate political speech even more with his inane "campaign finance reform" bill.
2nd Amendment? The right to keep and bear arms is heavily regulated. Gore is pushing a close to the "gun show loophole", and admits that filling out the paperwork would deter legal gun sales. That's the goal, don't you know?
4th? Did you ever hear of "Civil Forfeiture"?
5th? Double Jeopardy. Too bad those cops who were found "not guilty" for beating someone in California were taken to court again for the same offence, but they deserved it!
6th? Speedy public trial. Kevin Mitnick, anyone?
I kind of like my rights. I'd like to keep them.
And what rights would those be?
Hell, folks!
Now we know why the Clinton Administration wants Carnivore up and running: its web page reconstruction capabilities fit in nicely with Mr. Gore's desires here. After all, the Gub-mint can do _anything_ to 'save the children'.
While I do not care for either candidate too much, the current administration's desire to have government oversight of packets flowing through ISP's scares the poop out of me.
FBI position on Carnivore states that harvesting of headers does not require a warrant, as it is functionally equivalent to a pen register, only content of messages requires a warrant. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that reconstruction of web pages visited won't require a warrant either, since I imagine this does not constitute a private person-to-person communication.
Put that together with the Administrative Supoena provisions of the Fugitive Apprehension act S.2516 and you have a recipe for incredibly intrusive surveillance of ordinary law-abiding citizens.
This bill will allow access to many different kinds of records of anyone _in contact_ with a Fugitive (merely charged or sought for questioning, not convicted, mind you!), prevent the entity furnishing the records from disclosing this fact to the subject of the investigation, and allow unlimited delay of government notification to the subject that they were the subject of an investigation.
This proposal of Gore's opens up complete surveillance of packets for all surfers, not just those who are under investigation.
Why not make it simpler for ISPs (take all the admin and compliance overhead out) and just mandate one NAP in DC (Ft. Meade, actually) that all packets traversing the US have to go through and no more difficulties with things like laws and the 4th amendment. Just a few DNS changes and Bob's your uncle.
This makes me want to puke.
I was doing some research at a public library recently and found that one of the sites I was trying to access was blocked (I think it was deja.com of all things, go figure). I just told the librarian about it and she removed the filtering at that site. No biggie.
Cheers,
Okay, maybe he is. I don't know. I don't live in Minnesota! The whole point is that 3rd parties CAN win!
As for your assertion that a third-party (or fourth-party, or nth-party) vote is wasted, that's provably wrong. Do you think the two major parties would have made balancing the budget a priority if Ross Perot hadn't run on that platform and pulled in 19% of the popular vote? Do you think Gore would be harping on questions of economic justice if he didn't have to fend off Nader? You don't think Bush is losing votes to out-of-the-closet cultural conservatives like Phillips and Buchanan for his softness on cultural issues during the post-primary campaign?
Using a vote as a protest is effective - and if people don't use their votes to speak, none of us will ever hear anything but what's told to us by the two major parties to whom you've caved in.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Here's a response to your claims about Internet technology
bad patents: provide news stories for Internet journalists. help people see the stupidity in intellectual "property." porn sites: helps technology innovates. satisfies the sexual needs of millions of horny people. "created the Internet" quote: who cares? Napster: helps artists be tearing down the media monopoly system that promoted a few bad artists as "culture." Exposed millions of people to new artists who couldn't get on the radio or on major labels because they couldn't get past the marketing departments. Turning the rest of music culture into something resembling DIY punk, which has been doing peer-to-peer networking for years (usually over a table at a punk show). Napster has also helped challenge antiquated IP ideologies which had convinced millions that copyrights protect artists, when they actually protect the profits of the companies who *own* the intellectual property which was *cough* created by the artist. "volunteer source" and "free support": the way software will be done in the future. recognizes the economic wisdom that open cooperation is more efficient and has higher quality than closed privatized systems. Higher quality commercial software must mean my Windows 98 computer at home that won't shut down without giving me the BSOD. Slashdot: spawns an online community where geeks can talk about policy issues and organize together to have an impact on decisions that affect them. more democratic than pulling a lever and sending some rich white dude to Washington, DC
Don't vote, it only encourages them
http://www.infoshop.org/voting.html
Public access, moreso than private access, should not be filtered whatsoever.
Then they'll come home and ask you about it, then what are you going to say?
Whatever you think is appropriate. What would you say if they came home and asked you about something they heard from a classmate?
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it. It truly was a remarkable piece of software. It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
It is not "truly remarkable" at all, it is fatally flawed, and indiscriminately blocks images of non-pornographic material, while happily passing many hard core images. One independent test found that blocking images at random was just as effective as this "truly remarkable" software.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Just let them try and then they'll have to face the wrath of Amazon's patent lawyers. =)
Yeah, I know carnivore was e-mail, but what did you really thing the black box would ultimately be limited to. Now Gore wants ALL ISPs to filter and log, and provide the log, at one click, to parents, and the government doesn't even have to buy the damn box. Someone mentioned above that this is just a simple proxy. Right. Does your ISP log everything? I've seen news servers that log message downloads, but no one in their right mind keeps the logs. Send a chill down your spine? Proxy's that log web visits and other Net activity? Are you serious?!
Then someone else mentioned that the Government could get a warrant to these records. No kidding. Better yet, who says they need a warrant. Do you have an expectation of privacy in this information? Courts haven't ruled on it, so we get to find out. Worse, these are some of the first steps down the road toward the "Code" discussed in Lawrence Lessig's book. The law begins to dictate structure that could destroy personal liberties, privacy, and autonomy on the Net. What better cause to justify this intrusion than "protecting the children."
I can live with restrictions on public access, it makes parenting easier, so long as the structure of the Net, and the rules governing service don't get changed. People can buy filtered service if it is important to them. They don't (some do, but not in the numbers the filtering people dream). People don't want it. Combine the Gores' (Tipper too) intent to censor with this new wisdom and it adds up 1984.
Friends don't let friends vote for Gore.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
No, Bush says filtering software should be used in public places (not your home) where there would be a certain expectation of safety for a child.
In fact, Bush mirrors your earlier comments when he says: "The best weapon is the off-on button, and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them."
I'm not going to retype the entire thing, but feel free to read my view of this whole thing about the history. Maybe there's some work to be done, but it can't be that much (granted, I'm not a C programmer).
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
Jeff
I was being sarcastic. Free speech is probably the best example of navigating a "slippery slope".
I would love to vote for a Libertarian candidate, but in our two party system the third part gets screwed and the voters throw away their vote. I am not currently registered because I feel that my only true choice would be the lesser of the two evils OR to throw away my vote on a third party. Please tell me how I am wrong and show me the way to a better future.
Chaswell
Bullhist.
Last thing I need is some idiot deciding FOR ME how much I can earn..
That's not what I get from the link. I see that Nader wants companies to stop trying to go after kids just to get dollars. Heck -- even Gore agrees with this. We have ratings for violent movies, games, etc. to keep them from kids and then the companies that produce these things try to market them directly to kids. I'm not a fan of ratings, but marketing to kids really bothers me.
On a clear disk you can seek forever
I'm not very surprised about the candidates views on filtering-- I mean, it is the politically acceptable view by most people for public access be regulated by the government. Isn't that the case with television? (i.e. They do not show adult programs on broadcast television. You don't see many /.ers who think that is socially inacceptable.) What really got me nervous was when Bush said: "I think we ought to have character education in our schools. I know that doesn't directly talk about Hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you're teaching. I'd greatly expand character education funding, so that public schools will teach children values, values which have stood the test of time." This is just as bad as public prayer in schools. Anyway, doesn't this encroachment of government into the homes conflict with Bush's view of a smaller government? Maybe some of us don't want our heathen children to be raised as model Christians...
If you are worried about the content your children will be viewing while engaged in browsing the internet, take an active role by browsing the internet with them, and thus policing the content they may view.
Ya'll are bloody perverted.
MCH/VO S* W- N+++++ PEC+++ D(s++/r) A a+>+++ C* G++(++++) Q+ 666 Y
No..
what I mean is, at any particular access point to the rest of hte Internet, THAT is where things like 'how should this access be provided' and 'waht kind of filtering' should be discussed, period. I'm not speaking technically, but politicaly.
If I want my kids to only use the intenret connection in the house if it's filtered, that's for me to decide, not the government.
If a community doesn't want its' public library to allow open internet access.. that's fine.
But at a federal level? Shouldn't happen period.
I'll fully agree with your stance on voting for whoever you think will perform to your liking. If you believe in a candidate then your vote is not EVER wasted. BUT using Jesse Ventura as an example is not a good analogy. I saw through Ventura's false front and voted for Mr. Coleman based almost solely on his stance against gun control and pro concealed carry issues. Ventura was obviously seeking to promote himself. He has not stopped his longing to be in the spotlight. He was recently in a soap opera for God's sake! He travels non stop promoting multiple books and conducts radio and TV interviews all over the country to promote them. He's simply in it for the money and eventhough he enjoys high ratings in the polls even now, if you talk to most people who voted for him they will say they are disappointed in his self promotion. My reasoning for voting for Coleman is because crime is a major thing in the metro area and Minnesotans are quite accustomed to firearms. This would be a minor step for many of us but yet we don't follow the 35 other states in the union with legislation that is pro concealed carry. Good luck.
Well, except for abortion, gay rights, military action, gun registration, workers rights, corportate welfare, social saftey net, and a couple dozen other things....
Don't confuse "Close to home" with "Important to me".
If these issues are all "close to home," you'd seem to imply that you're a pregnant lesbian ex-soldier who can barely survive on the $5.15 you now make at Wal Mart.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Then why does it say the following on http://www.greenparty.org/page3.html
Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke have accepted the Green Party nomination for president and vice-president for the 2000 election! ???
A little story:
With apologies to Douglas Adams, both for borrowing the passage, and for mangling it so in the paraphrasing...
The moral of this story is:
Reducing a political race to two irrelevant candidates does not mean that you are obligated to vote for the less irritating of the irrelevant. Vote for a candidate you can actually support. It's only a wasted vote if you throw it away on someone you do not want to be your president.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
Though moderated as "informative", this comment offers no link to any position paper by Nader talking about a maximum wage. In fact, a search of Nader's web site for the phrase "maximum wage" yields no results.
A maximum wage was a plank in Jello Biafra's platform in the Green Party primary.
Yeah, like www.anonymizer.com, .org, and .de, as well as any more that don't have anonymizer in their names won't get around that in a flash.
Signing off from the Damaged Worlds
(.......)
I just--ours is a great land. And one of the reasons why, is because we're free. And so, I don't support censorship.
Bush: "I want the American people to know that I do not have dissociative identity disorder. And neither do I."
But seriously, I'm amazed the man's head doesn't melt from the cognitive dissonance of believing that Internet filters in public libraries is not censorship.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
...proxy...server...
This puts the power in the hands of the parent and removes it from everyone else. Unfortunately, most ISPs' terms of service forbid this, meaning that the most effective solution is denied to parents. I would like to see the two candidates OUTLAW the provision that exists in many ISP's agreements (especially DSL and cable ISPs) that prohibit filtering by the parents. (It is a contract violation for me to have multiple computers attached to my cable modem.)
What I'd like to do is put a Linux box between my kids' computers and all the other computers in the house. The box, the cable modem, and the hub would be under lock and key, and only I and my wife would know the root password (not that she'd know what to do with a root password). Granted, an intelligent kid could hack the whole setup, but frankly, if the kid is old enough and smart enough to do that, and wants to hack past my parental controls, my job as a parent is just about finished, whether I like it or not.
Internet access that is paid for with public funds should be filtered. The filter lists should be open (and public as well), and there should be methods in place so that reasonable folks can get the information that they need at a public library. Blocking skin tones, while clever, would actually be a bad idea (IMHO). If you were looking for medical information, for example, blocking skin tones could prevent a problem. It's the classic case of Playboy versus National Geographic. One is pornography and the other is probably available in your children's elementary school. Librarians should have no trouble sorting this out, they've been doing it forever.
On the other hand, private Internet access should be just that private. The second you start mandating that ISPs keep histories of where their clients have been then you have a proven recipe for trouble. There are plenty of ways of finding out what your children have been looking at on the Internet. I currently use squid, but there are piles of software that do precisely that. And if you really want a squeaky clean ISP, there are plenty of those available as well. Let someone else do the filtering for you.
Gore is clearly cracked if he thinks that the answer is to force ISPs to keep track of where everyone surfs.
OK, I have browsed through the first 305 posts on this topic and I still can't find anyone taking a stab at what Gore means by ISPs having a 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up'.
I know I don't like Bush's filtering plan. What do I think about Gore's 95% parent protection plan? I don't have any fucking clue!
Can someone please expound on what the Hell he is talking about?
Thanks,
Corby
Ok here's the difference: a person sentenced to death in Texas is much much more likely to be black than a newborn. It's not much more likely to actually be guilty however.
--
Nader does not support (at least not publicly) a maximum wage.
There are people who DO support a MAXIMUM WAGE, but Ralph Nader is not one of them.
Does this sound filthy to anyone else?
so, if i'm a fugitive and i get 100 emails for bulk toner cartridges, does this mean the FBI will seek out and shutdown that totally annoying Benchmark Supply Company ?
if so, can someone suggest an appropriate crime?
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
If you have studied philosophy or sociology, then you know from the Kantian problem of order that there is no natural law or rights. The
government is socially constructed and is enpowered by the people. The people decided that free speech is good and therefore it was put in the amendments. If people then choose to limit it in someway, then it is the people's choice.
The people chose to be bound by the Constitution. If they decide to choose to no longer be bound by it, that's one thing; but to simply violate it because part is inconvenient violates the law.
Not the natural law, you pulled that one out of your ass; the Law, which is what I was clearly talking about.
-
George W Bush is stating that he's not for big government.
What is big government really? Is it a government that spends a lot of money? Yes it is.
Do we already have that? Yes.
Is a President going to be able to shrink it? Probably not. That's more in the hands of congress and they don't want to when it all comes down to it.
Is it also a government that's telling you what you can and can't do? Yes. It's that too.
We're always worried about Big Brother. We should also be worried about the government trying to act paternal with us. Parents should be allowed to raise their children. That means if I want my child to be able to read oldmanmurray the government should not be able to override me.
Bush seeks to block porn in public viewing areas. Free speech is one thing, but infringing on another's right to not view porn is another.
So, what you're saying is that you have the right to never be offended? BZZZZT! Oh, that is such a wrong answer. You're going to tell me what should offend me? Well, this kind of bullshit offends me greatly.
I wouldn't call yourself a free speech advocate. Talking about abortion (in any context) will offend somebody. Talking about censorship will offend somebody. Talking about Macintosh computers in a derogatory manner will offend somebody (actually, a lot of somewhat psychotic somebodies who will flame you to death. Note: I do use Macs when they are the best tool for the job ;)
Everybody, repeat after me: I Do /Not/ Have The Right To Never Be Offended.
-30-
"10. Greens support progressivity in taxation as a matter of principle, believing that those who benefit most from the system have a responsibility to return more, their "fair share." "
Oh, so these people are claiming that if I earn 100 000 and pay 10% of this in taxes ( 10 000 ) I do not contribute more than somebody who earned 50 000 and paid 5 000 in taxes ?
Every candadate for multipal offices countiue to talk about educating out children, educating our consumers, blah blah blah.
How about instead of making the government or isps watch kids.. lets say the parents learn how the hell to use computers and software in the first place instead of blindly trusting that everyone else knows how you want your kids raised.
Oh wait, no one realy cares to raise thier own children anymore they just want to blame other people and things when something happens. nevermind forget everything I said... lets have ips, the government and everythong make our children's lives safe
Man, when I got on the internet I was so happy, I could literally get everything at will, I mean, I could get a guide on how to build a bomb, copy/ paste book reports and other interesting stuff to make my school life a bit more bearable[...]
the great strenght of the internet is that everything, and I mean everything is freely available, once people start touching my right to look up whatever I want I'm gonna get pissed.
<sarcasm>Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that things that are illegal in real life aren't illegal on the Internet.</sarcasm>
You do NOT have a right to have free, unfettered access via the Internet to kiddie porn, or to Bill Gates' PIN number, for example (although I might decide to risk jail for the last one). Actually, you do not have a right to have "everything freely available", either. Any information you find via the Internet is there because someone decided to post it (usually at their expense). The great strength of the Internet is only that so many individuals have decided to put up information on the Web just because they enjoy being helpful and sharing their knowledge.
With that said, once someone decides to make the information available, and it is not illegal to do so, then yes, limiting access is a form of censorship. But you are not entitled to everything you want just because you want it.
[command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
I hear amazon's lawyers warming up already. :-)
Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
That's the correct position on the internet, IMHO. It still doesn't get the libertarians my vote.
America's got a lot of problems, but it's pretty prosperous overall. It's not a bad enough system that we should take our current paradigm, where the government takes 50% of our money for itself to turn around and tell us what to do, and move that DRASTICALLY to 100% (Stalinist communism) or 0% (Pure libertarianism).
What we ought to do is look for a candidate who wants to protect our rights and shrink goverment, say, 20%. Sadly, no such candidate exists.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Even if we suppose internet filtering software works (it clearly doesn't) or that it will some day soon (it won't) government censorship is completely unacceptable. No matter how loudly advocates cry "It's for the CHILDREN."
The solution is for any public internet access provider to have the strict rule "No internet access for unsupervised children."
What children see on the internet is being treated as a technical problem. It is not. It is a societal (and more specifically a parenting) problem.
I am a big fan of technology, but unsupervised children in an uncontrolled (and inherently adult) environment was a problem before computers were ever dreamed of. Fifty years ago people weren't demanding guards in the red-light districts to prevent their unsupervised children from seeing something they shouldn't!
I thought he was going to spend all the taxpayer money on tax cuts for high income earners and trap other people's kids in failing schools for three years. Weren't you listening to Al?
How is internet filtering at the terminals a big government solution any more than if he said all the terminals needed a wordprocessor so that job hunters could use them to write resumes? Did Bush say government was going to write the software during the portition of the debate I slept through?
Algore wants the government to force ISPs (the private sector) to put in hooks "for the children." That "for the children" crap has been used many times that governments want to raise taxes or reign in freedoms.
Once the government has forced ISPs to put in hooks and has made sure to hire enough people to enforce it "for the children" there'll be nothing separating your data from the children's data.
And we know Algore thinks he knows better than you child, it's for your own good.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
If my talent is not worth $100K, then no one will pay me that.
Explain Ryan Leaf!
In most states the battle is already decided, and one candidate has pretty much given up. If you're in one of those states, a vote for either major candidate is a wasted vote.
On the other hand, voting for a third party can help them achieve a crucial 5% of the vote, which entitles them to federal matching funds next time around. It will also raise awareness of the issues people care about. Even if 3rd party candidates don't get elected, if they have significant support they can force the major candidates to address some of their issues.
www.votenader.org for more info on why you should vote what you really believe in.
All Nader wants to do is make the companies take into consideration the best interests of the little kids who may end up with a copy of the game: Don't sell it to kids that young, or enable a "safe" mode, or etc.
Just because you want to protect the children, that doesn't mean you want to "protect" the 27 year old gamer who can make up his mind for himself.
Censorship? C'mon! He just wants marketing goons and friends to stop trying to take advantage of little kids.
-bugg
Its boils down to this. The internet as a whole is an asset the government wished to gain control over. Like it or not, they hate the fact that free speech flows so readily. The whole Gore vs Bush debate is just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. Lets just be objective and look at the facts. If you vote for anybody than either of them, people, your wasting your vote. Dont be so eager to give up a right that many before us have literally died for. Dont waste it. Be objective about the two candiates, and pick one. Im not going to go into detail as to who i prefer, I just say this. When you use your constitutinal right , dont waste it. Dont take it for granted. Im sorry, but using your vote as a form of protest wont be effective. Just pick one who you can most favor.
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Please tell me you aren't serious. Go tell the average voter that it's easy to "just use squid as a proxy and log in as root to read the e-mail", and watch the blank expression on her face. The point, as one of the candidates (I think Gore) pointed out, is that if the software is so complicated that you need your kids' help setting it up, what the hell's the point?
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
I often heard library and school computers should used for just research purposes. If that is true shouldn't we block all sites except .edu and .gov? Why should tax payer dollars go to your shopping spree on amazon.com?
i guess its time for amazon to patent "one-click packet sniffing". another prime example of the government slowly burning the bill of rights away...
C. LIVABLE INCOME
1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.
3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a "living wage" campaign and "living wage" standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.
4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue. The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the "American dream" by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.
5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a "floor" of wage protections and worker's rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of "free" international trade.
If parents are able to check which pages their children have viewed then there are serious privacy implications. If the ISP has the records then the government can obtain a warrant for their disclosure. Will the ISP log just children's accounts, or all accounts. Most families today all share one account with the ISP. Also what happened to the law that prohibits collecting information on children under the age of 13.
...because the feature he wants is integral to every browser and is called 'History'.
And I know this is probably highly redundant, but I was up last night watching the replay of the debate and when Gore said this, I was infuriated. Bush isn't any better, supporting mandatory flawed filter software on public computers.
It's just one more reason to vote for Harry Browne.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
Could someone please translate the following into English for me?
"I've been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up,"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
But, people see exactly what they want on the internet. Now, granted, it's sometimes hard to find what you want with the rotten state of today's search engines, but it still takes quite a dunce to "accidentally" hit a porn site and start downloading stuff. If kids are sitting in school computer labs downloading porn, or reading white supremecy websites, or reading a rant by some kid who wants to blow up his school, there's a better question to ask than "how did they get ahold of this" -- WHY did they get ahold of this?
I think answering this would provide a lot more insight into kids' minds than putting up arbitrary boundaries on their experience, mostly because it requires TALKING to kids. Internet filtering seems mostly like an attempt to dodge complex, difficult parenting responsibilities.
It's obvious. Neither of these guys are friends of a free and open Internet. Gore's idea of a "parental information page" generated on the ISP side popping up every time a web page pops up is incredibly silly and would require lots of human hours to create. How many pages are there on the World Wide Web? Billions? How many humans would it take to review these billions of pages and write up parental information on all of them? For shame, Gore, you know better.
This is why I'm voting Libertarian this time around. I cannot simply hold my nose and vote Gore because he'll probably choose less offensive Supreme Court nominees...the fscker's dangerous and I've known that since Tipper was holding court over the Parents Music Resource Center.
Bush is not only dangerous, but dumb as a stone boat too. I'm moving to Vancouver if he gets in.
--.\\-H--
---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
You mean taxpayer money. Bush favors the government taking money from high income earners and using that money to police other people's kids.
The most disgusting aspect of this is that the Republicans claim to be for smaller government then propose a big-government "solution" to a problem that does not exist.
Huh? Bush proposes to do filtering in places funded by public money--libraries, etc. This seems completely within the boundaries of the government's responsibilities! He said -nothing- about filtering in someone's home and taking over the job of the parent. If you read Gore's statement, he wants protection 95% of the time a page comes up... who's infringing on parental responsibility now? Someone mod that inaccurate post down!
Just curious, but isn't this "one-click" feature for discovering your children's net-tivities sounding suspiciously like that hard to use "History" button?
---------
Launch all sig
I watched the debates, and neither of the candidates sounded very knowledgable about this issue. Gore's 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up' sounded very confused, it was difficult to tell exactly what he was proposing. I'm not sure he knew what he was proposing. Bush was a little clearer on the subject, but still didn't seem too knowledgable. He also sounded alot like someone who had been told what to say if asked this question.
Where can I get a filter that will prevent my kids from browsing political sites?
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
The only reason, IMO, that either of them say how they will filter/police/whatever the internet is to appease voters(duh). People want the government to come in and hold their hand and raise their kids, rather than work towards instilling values into their children. And when a politician sees that people are willing to let the government take over an aspect of their lives, they seize the opportunity, make some b.s. claim as to what they will do and hope that will win the most votes. Parents must take responsability for their children and stop wanting to take the easiest way possible.
Harry Browne in 2000 all the way
What do you think about Nader's support of a MAXIMUM WAGE? ie. Nader wants the goverment to PROHIBIT people from earning more than $X dollars...
Isn't it amazing that the proposed max is just a bit more than his own income?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
exactly.. I am that parent. no ritual satanism sites, no porn, no how to kill people sites.
now I do expect my techie kids to keep reading 2600.com and other sites. butnope.. I'm one of the arse-holes that wont give my kids free reign to read about cults and open porn access.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So, "the whole political debate" can only revolve around the Democrats and Republicans? That is totally unfair and the most blindly stated support (!) of the two-party system I have ever seen.
I'll vote for Nader, and though it's true he won't win the election this year, the support he receives will be incredibly valuable to a campaign in 2004. Just because Nader won't win this year does NOT mean that I don't care about American politics, in fact I think it demonstrates a particular leaning towards caring about the future.
Your statement, however, is totally reliant on history in order to decide your positions on the future, with no consideration at all for likely future events independent of the past.
Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for me, and let my unholy reign of darkness begin. Yes, people of America, you *will* bow down before me!
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
For all the small government talk that Bush pushes, it is clear that he believes in small gov't only when it suits him. It will be just another wasteful program to get people to "filter the Internet".
-Moondog
You mean taxpayer money. Bush favors the government taking money from high income earners and using that money to police other people's kids.
The most disgusting aspect of this is that the Republicans claim to be for smaller government then propose a big-government "solution" to a problem that does not exist.
It still comes down to a matter of parents deciding to be responsible for their own children. The government has no place here. When asked the question about Internet content filtering, Gore and Bush should have both replied, "It's not the job of the government to decide what people's children should see and should not see. It is the job of the parents."
Which is what the candidate who is getting my vote believes.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The problem here is deciding WHAT to block. For example, lets say you decide to block any site that uses words related to sex. This will include scientific articles about health and reproduction, public information about sexully transmitted diseases, public sites designed to provide help for people suffering sexual and physical abuse.
Also of note, many public access internet terminals, i.e. those in libraries and schools, serve people who may not have the resources to get internet access at home. How many families in the Bronx don't have a computer in the house.
Then again, let them eat cake.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
- Sell of all federal lands (national forests, etc.), exluding a few national parks, to the highest bidder
- Provide absolutely no federal funding for education, including loans for higher education
- Dismantle most federal government programs, including the FTC which means dropping the Microsoft case and allowing monopolies like the Time Warner/AOL behemoth to form
- Dismantle medicare and medicaid and assure those that depend on those services for their healthcare that it will be provided by "charity"
- Ending welfare again assuring those that depend on this program that they will get by with "charity"
You can read all of this on his web site -- harrybrowne2000.com. I like his views on the first amendment, but I just don't relish the idea of all our national lands being sold of to big corporations who will exploit them to their own advantage.That's why I say vote al gore 2000
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
And here's Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, from an interview...
Constitutionally Correct
How many people do you see at the library getting their rocks off to porn? Usually the library internet crowd can barely manage to check their hotmail and find something on yahoo...I think the humiliation of sitting in the middle of the library where everyone can see you looking at porn is deterance enough.
You totally miss the point. If taxpayer money is being used to fund the computer and the access, then the government has every right to dictate what acceptable use of that resource is. You want to surf for things blocked by your library or school? Get your own damn computer and ISP, don't expect me and everyone else to pay for it. School and library funded computers should be used for research purposes, and using filtering software to do that is a reasonable approach. (Common sense should also come into it -- a student should be able to request the filter be disbaled to reach a site normally blocked if there is a good reason behind it.) On the other hand, Gore's approach really is creepy -- compel ISP's to provide an ability to track users so that parents can snoop on their kid's activites? It ain't censorship, but it is draconian. Remember, it's one thing to say that government resources have restrictions, it's quite another for the government to force private industry into doing its will, no matter how good the intention.
I absolutly agree with what you said. Bush's plan is common sense. Maybe some people want to go to the library to check out the goat sex websites but they should do that on their own time and their own dime. Everything I've heard Gore talk about, however, has a bloating effect on the government. I would think they would need even more gov't stooges to enforce this ISP based content collection. I'm sick of his antics, where does he even come up with this stuff? I think he should fire whatever advisor came up with this ISP plan, if he did it himself he should just go home now and never run for office again. Does he even know the technology behind this? This isn't a quick fix like Bush's library access thing. This would take alot of work and money and it would cost us the people more money (either in the form of taxes or rate hike from ISP's). I don't like either of these guys, but i can't understand why it is Bush that is getting stuck with the "not so smart" label when Gore comes up with stuff like this.
That's a problem with long term contracts. You would think that teams would have termination clauses when signing rookies. You don't perform, you don't stay.
I've not figured out why teams don't demand contracts similar to what Ricky Williams got.
It makes no sense to make a 7 year contract based on potential.
Now Amazon can sue all ISP for their "1-click" porno checks.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
There are two reasons to vote for Nader. You may be voting for his positions (in which case your commentary is valid). But a very large number of people will be voting for him as a placeholder also known as "None of the Above".
Any pundits drawing conclusions on what Americans really want based on Nader's vote in November need to keep BOTH reasons in mind. It is still valid to vote for him on the latter reason even if someone agrees with you on the former reasons.
First of all, moron, the national dept is the result of huge government programs that communists like you and the Democrats support. We wouldn't have a national dept if it weren't for the billion Bureaucracies that exist
because of all the pc garbage that's become so popular in our political culture.
Ok quiz time. This one is easy who makes the beauracracy? Answer? It's *YOU* and every American who lives in this country asking for things. It's like a big line at the Kwick-E-Mart and you are waiting for service. What happens is that many different people ask the government for things and those people are supposed to be represented as the founders intended. To do that you have to make sure that people are served well and not repressed. Hence the size of government.
Respond to s
Gore invented the History button in browsers!
--
--
The gravitational constant of protein has changed. - Turbine
Watching the debates last night, i was truely frightened when Bush started talking about blocking content at libraries and schools nationwide. Then he claimed it wasn't censorship. I was expecting him to go on to talk about how "some of the books in them thar libraries ain't too great either, and down in texas we got a solu'ion! We burn 'em! wooo yeeee hah!"...
Both are evil men. One is a stupid evil man, one is a slightly less stupid evil man. Just vote nader and walk away with a clear concious...
Being the grandson of the lady who administered numerous libraries in the past, I can tell you that our libraries are ALREADY censored.
In Texas, for instance, the Federal Government siezed all land-rights documents dating from the early 1800's. Why? Because the hispanics were going and finding their Gransparent's land grants that the State didn't enforced. They were sueing the US Government and winning.
It is also known that some unknown branches of the Government monitor the Materials checked out of libraries. I know several people who have been questioned about their choices in physics books. Some slashdotters know what I am talking about as well.
Lots of other stuff too.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
- The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national
electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.
For the 1996 election, however, this was the requirement:- The Commission's third criterion considers objective evidence of national public enthusiasm or concern. The factors considered in connection with this criterion are intended to assess public support for a candidate, which bears directly on the candidate's prospects for electoral success. The factors to be considered include:
- The findings of significant public opinion polls conducted by national polling and news organizations.
- Reported attendance at meetings and rallies across the country (locations as well as numbers) in comparison with the two major party candidates.
Note how they changed this when it became obvious that the Reform party candidate -- with over 5% of the vote in 1996 (and thereby lots of Federal matching funds in 2000) would likely qualify for the 2000 debates. Of course this was prior to the self destruction of the Reform party.Under the 1996 rules, Ralph Nader definitely qualified to debate. Pat Buchanan might have qualified too. Although he's on the ballot in a lot of states (49 or 50 I think) I doubt that Harry Browne would have qualified to debate under the 1996 rules. At least Nader and Buchanan are showing up in the polls.
The CPD is running scared. I hope Nader blows them out of the water and that their wreckage sinks the corporate rafts they've been floating on.
By the way, last night Nader was again prevented from even going near the debate forum.
VOTE NADER
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Or perhaps you should just not paint on people's walls. The beautty of three strike laws is that you get "three strikes." Any kid stupid enough to get caught three times vandalizing deserves to spend their life in prison.
Natural selection is not necessarily a bad thing.
Well, it looks like the ISP's are going to have to provide this service for free, or pay Amazon some royalties;)
science is a religion
....by Loundry (moc.gnirpsdnim@yrdnoul) .. got the u and the o mixed up ;)
Just so you know.. it's not backwards.
yrdnoul = luondry
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it. It truly was a remarkable piece of software. It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
I remeber reading about this, too, and thinking it was a good idea. Last I heard though, they were having some serious problems making it work correctly.
Josh Sisk
I forget which one said this, but it was along the lines of: "...and once your kids help you install the software, it will help you regulate their use of the internet".
__________________________
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
http://www.gp.org/platform/gpp2000.html#IV
7. The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics". We must take aggressive steps to restore a FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distributions standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth.
6. We particularly support substantive reforms toward "workplace democracy" in large corporations, especially reform that impacts socially andenvironmentally irresponsible big business.
Asking a politician to legislate morality is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Not to mention that I doubt that Joe and Jane Middle-Class-Voter are using either Linux or BSD. They're probably using "Windows to run the Internet"
Yes, I deliberately misphrased it, because (at the risk of sounding like a 1337 h4X0r), that's how the average guys sees it.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You left out this part:
"Our society, even 10 or 20 years ago, would not have tolerated such youth-beamed depravity. These are the motivations that relentlessly drive the creation, production, and marketing of ever more Doom, Quake, Basketball Diaries, Marilyn Mansons, Mortal Kombat I and II and III and IV, Jerry
Springers, Howard Sterns, South Parks, and the rest of it.
This poison has got to stop. Enough is enough."
How do you interpret "This poison has got to stop. Enough is enough."?
I interpret it to mean he thinks the things he mentions are poison, and that he wants to stop them.
Before you argue that he doesn't want Congress to legislate them away, consider this, from later in the document:
"There is nothing Congress could do that is more important than making America's children safe again from the interests that would rob them of their childhood."
MAKING them safe. He's quite clear about it.
You picked out the nice safe quote that didn't hurt your case, but conveniently left out the damning revelations. That's why I linked the whole document instead of quoting; my agenda was to let people read it, not just your wishful-thinking interpretation of what you wish he'd said.
-
Public Internet access should be filtered.
I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and, knowing how searches bring up nonsense 98% of the time, pulling up some elephant sex porn site or something equally as disturbing. Then they'll come home and ask you about it, then what are you going to say?
Now, as far as the "feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately," I believe it's called the HISTORY. Go buy NetNanny or filtered access from your provider, or, better yet, don't let your kids use the Internet.
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it. It truly was a remarkable piece of software. It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
My question mark key appears to be broken. Please insert appropriate questions marks into the previous post. I am on my way to go buy a new keyboard ;^). Sorry for the typographical inconvenience.
This is a fear tactic. No president knows how the Justices they pick will vote on cases. Some of Reagan's appointees have been have favored supporting Roe v. Wade. This is just another ploy by the 2 major parties to prevent 3rd party dissenting votes.
Vouchers. Let parents make the decisions on what should be allowed in schools. Some will have all the "leetest" equipment with a few logos or sponsor interludes. Others will be using chalk on old blackboards but with absolute ideological purity. And every shade in between in the larger cities.
He opposes nuclear power but he also supports further development of alternative energy sources like solar power, which are really clean. And nuclear waste wouldn't be a problem if we did dispose of it by tossing it into the sun, but usually we just bury it somewhere and hope it doesn't cause any problems big enough for the public to notice.
The whole point of affirmative action is that a lot of people in America have been exploited and abused through most of our history, and something should be done to repair that damage. Personally I think a better way to go about is up the minimum wage and fund public schools so people have a chance to help themselves, but affirmative action is what we have now. As a white male on his way to having a CS degree, I have it plenty good already, and it's not like affirmative action is going to ruin my life or something.
Seems to me like you could handle Gore's request by (1) providing an OS with proper ownership permissions so the kids can't install software such as alternate browsers and (2) making available browsers with enableable security features where the administrator (parent) can restrict nonprivileged users (children) from accessing any site that the parent hasn't directly given them permission for. Forget filtering the bad stuff - that's an impossible project. Just let the parents lock their browsers (and newsreaders) to sites they've specifically approved - filter for stuff known to be good. Sure, this makes them have to look over the kid's shoulder when the kid wants to go to new sites. They ought to.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I haven't seen this anywhere else, but I got this message, and I thought I would share:
On Friday, October 20, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., Judicial Watch will host a nationally televised presidential debate featuring Natural Law candidate John Hagelin, Democrat Al Gore, the Green Party's Ralph Nader, Reform candidate Pat Buchanan, Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, and Howard Phillips. George W. Bush has been invited but has yet to accept.
The debate will be televised on C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2, and maybe on some local stations. The times are Central, so check you local listings.
Taxes
/. readers are considered "rich"?
To be considered "rich", you must only make over $75,000.00 per year (estimate). So when people scream about only the rich getting tax breaks, this is where that statistic gets warped. How many
The rich pay 63% of the federal income tax - why should they be passed over for a tax break? Are the middle class more important than the rich? It is ok to discriminate against the rich it seems. If someone said "tax breaks will only go to white males" people would cry racism. But apparently the rich are allowed to be discriminated against.
I am not considered "rich" - yet. Within a year, or a year and a half, I will be. Why should I not get a tax break? Why should someone making $45,000.00 per year get a tax break and not me? Just because I worked harder than him to get a better paying job?
Treat everyone the same, it's only fair.
-- bearclaw
And I ate the flamebait, so I'm barely better than you. Oh well c'est la vie
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
Just spend some f*cking time with your kids, don't lock them in a room and expect them to come out 18 years later and be normal. Teach them, don't blind them.
Then again, maybe people would start to get suspicious when only one webpage ever comes up in the kid's history.
Yet again, blocking an anonymous web page would be completely and unarguably inconceivable! Well, it would be just plain wrong.
And what about internet proxy? I am thinking this is just too easy to get around undetectably.
first of all both of the candidates said exactly what the woman wanted to hear, of course. Then since they both don't know really what they're talking about they praised filtering software. Anyone who's had any experiences with this kind of software knows that it doesn't only filter out porn and other "offensive materials" but it also filters out half the sites you go to. Although out of the two of them Gore actually had ideas about new stuff to do with them: "I've been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up. And a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately." Can't you do this with Internet Explorer anyhow? Good stuff, good stuff
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." John F. Kennedy
Then you're not aware of Howard Phillips, running for the Constitution Party. He recognizes that the federal gov't does have a role, but the constitutionally-limited scope is much smaller than the present one.
Constitutionally Correct
My only reliable source of info on filtering software has been Slashdot and Kuro5hin, so IANAFE (Filtering Expert), but I wonder why some of the "filtering" packages don't come with a "monitor" option.
By this, I mean that the software sits and checks all the URL's that little Suzie visits and logs all the ones it thinks are "objectionable". Then, the URL's are sent to Mom and Dad, and they can see for themselves what little Suzie's looking at.
This puts the burden of responsibility back on the parents, rather than NetNanny or whomever. If little Suzie goes to dickcheney.com, Mom and Dad can decide the appropriate punishment :)
--Mando
a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.
Isn't that just View - Explorer Bar - History (in IE ) or Communicator - Tools - History ( in netscape )?
Most browsers have had that capability for a long time. There's a little thing you can click on M$IE called "History". Obviously Mr. Gore isn't quite as knowlegable as he likes to make out. Or perhaps he's going to patent "One Click Snooping" ;-)
Sure, people can delete the history, but I'm sure that any scheme you care to come up with can be defeated. One of my older co-workers caught his son looking at porno just this way. I told him "Well, at least you know for sure he's into women and not into sheepshagging". He accepted the point and wasn't too hard on his son ;-)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Well, except for abortion, gay rights, military action, gun registration, workers rights, corportate welfare, social saftey net, and a couple dozen other things....
Niether of their positions is terribly radical and I can't think of anything either could say about the internet as a whole that would be more important to me than their positions on other core issues.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I'm willing to agree that *both* candidates lie, and that neither is particularly trustworthy.
You say "both" like there are two candidates.
There are a hell of a lot more than two.
Dunno, I still haven't seen any reason to vote for Gore yet. His ISP/monitoring plan bothers me.
If you think I'm suggesting you vote for Gore, you must have not only skimmed my post instead of reading it, but also turned off signatures.
I wouldn't vote for Gore to be put out if he was on fire. As for his wife, I've called her a dangerous idiot to her face.
-
...individuals' privacy would enjoy a little well-deserved attention. Of course, the bipartisan-controlled, corporate-sponsored Commission of Presidential Debates arranged to ban other candidates from the debates--despite the majority of American voters favouring a 4-way debate, according to the polls. They were scared enough of Nader to lock him out of the audience--despite his having a spectator pass!
Why don't we patent this 'one click' checking process so Gore can't use it anymore... of course, I'm kidding
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
- Gore just asks that they keep track of web requests from their machine, which can rather easily be done.
Why put more responsibility on the ISP when it is a small code addition to any browser to integrate the history into the other parental control settings, to make it read-only. Of course this means parents actually have to learn about the parental control settings of their browser of choice (which is more than likely IE), which completely goes against the New American Way of letting the government set rules for everybody to live by and values that should be instilled in every kid, whether or not the parents agree with those values.Yet another reason to vote Libertarian.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
If these issues are all "close to home," you'd seem to imply that you're a pregnant lesbian ex-soldier who can barely survive on the $5.15 you now make at Wal Mart.
Or I care about people who fall into those catagories, or it is possible for me to be effected by those issues.
Of course if "close to home" only means "effected directly by" as you seem to imply, the orriginal statement about the candidates positions was even more ludicruis. I have never used the internet from a public terminal of any kind and don't use my parents machine, so the actual statements made in the dabate are no where near my home (or I suspect, most /.ers)
Watch out where you shoot your mouth, you might hit the wrong target. :)
kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Children from going to the "Bush" for president page, due to sexual imagery?
That alone might make it worth doing...
Although it would probably block "Gore", for violent content, as well.
Presidential hopeful CmdrTaco?
and
Vice Presidential hopeful Hemos?
Why is this issue being given any merit?
This is something that has been created by the media, it is an inflamatory issue and will distract the voters from the real issues.
It is this kind of shit that makes the electoral process a fscking joke.
Rick B.
Did you have your sense of humour surgically removed or what?
Why is it that we have several (ie, more than two, and definitely more than 3) candidates to choose from, but none of them seem to have all the ideas that we geeks like?
In other words, there's Nader, who seems to have it all together regarding privacy, but thinks that computer games and media violence causes "kids to shoot kids", and should be eliminated (or regulated to nothing).
Browne's against censorship, but is for things that make us cringe. The same goes for Gore and Bush (they each have ideas I like, and others I don't).
All of these candidates are like buying a cake that has a dill pickle in the middle (and a big one, at that). You like the cake, it is sweet - but you know there is a big piece of sourness on the inside, and it permeates the whole, making it all seem not worthwhile.
I see so many posts of "hold your nose and vote this way". Why should I hold my nose? Why isn't there one candidate that is fair and respectful for ALL THINGS. One candidate that knows what is right and wrong LOGICALLY - not "logic" based on a complete emotional level (I can allow some emotion - otherwise we would be led by a robot, and that isn't good at all). One candidate that works for the people, taking all their interests to heart, and not allowing his or her ideas cloud their judgement?
Is this too much to ask? Is it too much to ask for an honest, fair, and logical individual to head up our nation?
Perhaps it would be better if we had multiple presidents, instead of a single one - and they voted on issues (say, three presidents) that come before them. For some reason, this doesn't sound that workable though, and I also feel (I have no rational basis of knowledge for this) that something like this has already been tried in the past with other governments and has failed...
It wouldn't take much to convince me, just give me a candidate that:
* Advocates personal privacy
* Doesn't bow before corporate interests or offers (ie, get rid of the fscking corporate lobbiests)
* Wants to do away with patents on business methods and algorithms
* Doesn't support censorship of any kind
* Tells the public what goes on - no more secrets!
* Is a moral person, but does not try to inject his or her morals on others
* Knows what a computer and the internet is, and actually uses them regularly
* Realizes nature is not there to be raped indiscimanently
* Is for space exploration and expansion
* Wants children to have more rights
* Wants employees to have more rights when working for a company
I am sure I could post more to this list, but these are the major ones. Is it that much to want a candidate like this? It is getting to the point where I am considering to run - because these are the things that are important to me (unfortunately, it is a pipe dream - I am not old enough, and I don't have the money or influence)...
cr0sh for President!!! (just kidding)
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Heh, it ain't even open yet. But I'm glad you enjoy it. Sharkey
www.bamf.com
Also, look at it like companies monitoring employees' internet use. The resources are there for a specific purpose, furthering the company's goals. A library, school, whatever, needs to know that their resources aren't being misused; that is, computers bought with public money are being used for their intended purpose (research, information, etc.). I personally don't think we should be out there trying to "protect" kids from the evil boogeyman of the internet, but if the computers bought with my taxes in the name of furthering education are being used by some horny 17-year-old kid to look at porn, I have a problem with that.
"This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately
You mean kind of like a proxy? Or a DNS that kept tabs on what sites were visited? I'd buy that.
If the issue was adults in public areas were to be as closely watched, I'd definitely decline. However, parents are legally responsible for their children. If your kid goes to a bombmaking site, then comes into the kitchen for supplies, the parents should have a right to look at the logs and say "Gee, why does little Jimmy need acidic cleaning fluid"?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
And he doesn't want to stop at censoring it; he actually wants to outlaw it.
Even after reading the article to which you linked, I'm unable to understand where you got that idea. Nader discusses the problem (I don't think anyone can deny that violent material falling into children's hands without proper parental guidance is a good thing), but he doesn't propose a concrete solution, quite possibly because he didn't have one worked out in his own mind at the time (May 1999).
I've been unable to find a current, specific discussion of this issue on the Nader campaign site, but I would suspect based on the rest of his (and the Green Party's) positions that he would be entirely in support of stronger laws that outlaw the sale of such products to minors. If adults want to purchase such materials for themselves or their children, that's their right, but the government has an obligation to keep that material out of the hands of children when parents fail to do the job themselves.
It's very easy to say that the government should stay out of the issue entirely because that's the path of least resistance for both government and for consumers of the material, but you've got to realize that when a parent fails to provide a healthy atmosphere in which their child can develop, it becomes the government's responsbility to care for the well-being of that child. It doesn't matter whether the parent is strung out on drugs or is failing to review and restrict/guide the child's access to graphic material--in both cases the child suffers consequences due to the parent's negligence. The child becomes a victim, and the government has a responsibility to step in and protect.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
'a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.'
Al, Netscape beat you to it by about 5 years, its called 'History'.'a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.'
It's sad that in an age when children are more mobile than ever before, the candidates are concerned only with online monitoring. With today's technology, tamper-proof GPS transponders could be affixed to every child, providing one-click access to their whereabouts online and off. As the costs of digital camera and wireless technology fall so rapidly, soon we could add one-click access to images of everything our children look at, like the pornography and bomb-making instructions being pushed at public libraries. Coupled with pulse rate monitors or alpha brainwave emission detectors, parents could be alerted to aberrant thoughts even before they manifest themselves as actions, and with two-way wireless technology, one-click corrective "pulses" could be delivered in nearly real-time.
Candidates should look forward to addressing tomorrow's problems with tomorrow's technology, rather than patching yesterday's problems with yesterday's technology.
Your're sorta-kinda-half right. I guess you could say I want to 'rebel' against the major parties - they're both completely ruled by money.
I'd consider myself a Libertarian - I even have a Harry Browne sticker on my car...
BUT, I still consider Nader because a) he stands up against corporate rule, and b) the Greens may be the only third party with a chance of winning. Granted, neither the Libertarian Party or the Green Party have any hardly any chance, but at least most people have *heard* of Nader.
Richard
I don't know why the hell I bother replying to ACs, but hey.
----
Deepthroat my submarine, swallow my seamen.
Maybe $100K/year is barely enough for some families. But, Christ, nobody needs more than that (hello, affluenza). What if we established a dimishing point of returns? Rather than a maximum wage, we implement a tax program that taxes maybe 10% of your income if you make $100K/year or less. After $100K, parabolically increase the rate toward 90% or 100% (where 100% is like trying to reach warp factor 10: you never get there).
So, if you make $200K/year, you get taxed 15%, and you end up with $170K. If you make $500K, pay something like 25%, $1 million, maybe 40%, $100 million, 80% (and end up with $20 million, boo fucking hoo), and so on.
This way, you can still get a return for your "hard work", and Bill Gates and Ted Turner can still help us pay off the national debt.
I'm a veeeery religious person. I'm a gay christian actually: I fuck Jesus up the ass.
You get 2 points for doing all this research.
--
I have to respond to this. I think Nader's biggest beef is that we are allowing corporations free reign to capture the minds of young people. As soon as a child is physically able to watch TV they are barraged with corporate propaganda telling what to eat, drink, think, buy, nag their parents about, do, feel, etc. In some European companies advertising during childrens programming is outright banned. Yes there are some rules about advertising to children in this country, but they are largely ignored or circumvented. It's not so much that Nader wants to legislate morality, as it is that he just wants to tone down the propaganda (of whatever form), to keep children, the most captive of audiences, from being barraged day in and day out, whatever the advertising content.
This is even *further* exemplified by the outrageous policy of schools obtaining corporate funding by allowing these corporations to dictate that they forcing students to watch corporate advertising. If that is not perverse, what is? Public schools should be publicly financed and NO corporations should be allowed to propagandize students while their even *in school*.
Sex, drugs, and violence sell. Hey, that's great, I'm with that. But it *shouldn't* sell to small children who know nothing better, and *can't* choose to ignore, disregard, or turn it off. It *shouldn't* sell to our own students in our own classrooms.
*Yes* it is the parents responsibility to filter what their children experience. However, we are currently under such a seige of corporate propaganda coming from every single (*cough* publicly owned *cough*) medium, that corporations effectively have held us *hostage* because there is NO way to filter out this stuff without filtering out *everything*. Is the solution to filter out everything? No. The solution is to tell corporations, no, they don't have free reign to corporatize and propagandize during children's shows. They don't have free reign to advertise content which they've previously agreed is NOT for children, TO children. They don't have free reign to use OUR schools to consumerize our children under their corporate parentage.
Nader is not crying save the children. He is saying why are we putting up with *allowing* what we do, on our own property. Take the reigns of your own government.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
...of filtering because then we have the fun race between parents who know next to nothing about computers trying to administer security on a box running an OS with no concept of security (at least in most cases) and used by kids who live and breathe rebellion and technology. But I pity those kids born of sysadmin parents.
--
-- SIGFPE
Those are all good things. Unfortunately, you are a socialist who wants the government to get bigger and bigger, take more and more money away from its citizens, exert more and more control over people's personal business, and become more and more powerful. The government has no business sticking its hands in education, the medical system, or how web browsers are bundled with operating systems. Only a socialist would advocate all out government control of every little detail of human life as you do.
Man, when I got on the internet I was so happy, I could literally get everything at will, I mean, I could get a guide on how to build a bomb, copy/ paste book reports and other interesting stuff to make my school life a bit more bearable, and the most outragious topics with the most outragious people on many, many message boards.
Censorship keeps people stupid, that's the only thing it gets us, shielding people from bad things?? are we kidding ourselves, I take more vocal abuse walking over the street for an hour than watching 2 days TV, and I can see more half-naked people in an hour in a club than I can see on TV in those 2 days I mentioned before.
the great strenght of the internet is that everything, and I mean everything is freely available, once people start touching my right to look up whatever I want I'm gonna get pissed.
---- Stage 5 of drinking : Politics begin to appeal
I feel that filtering should all boil down to being a parents responsibility. If parents want to filter websites they should do that. It should not be the government's job to force parents or ISPs to filter what kids are seeing. I personally wouldn't filter the Internet from my kids. But that is just me...
As for public computers...I do not think they should have filtering because the filters don't work. However I do think school computers should have filtering software. Most first ammendment rights already do not apply in schools, and this should also be one of them. Perhaps not have huge filtering software that blocks sites, but have sofisticated software that detects if students are looking at inappropriate material, and then deal with the matter.
FoonDog
> We have the technology to accurately tabulate a popular vote,
WE also had the technology back when the EC was deliberately chosen over the popular vote: namely, the 0, allowing straightforward addition.
A popular vote for president now is just as bad an idea as it was in 1789.; The difference now is that the absolutely committed slates of electors is also a bad idea (thought not as bad a popular vote).
hawk, esq.
Do you realize that oppressive government interference is why health care is so expensive?
Government is getting after the health care industry for problems government CAUSED!!!
Define "social justice" and I'll respond on that.
Better yet, read "Why Government Doesn't Work" By Harry Browne. Then, after your 60 page education we can talk again. Hell, I'll even buy you a copy if you'll promise to read it. You can also read "Healing our World" By Dr. Mary Ruwart for free at http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/. Both cover your objections to the enviornment as well as most other objections to freedom.
I don't personally have access to a filter program - can someone take a look at the official campaign site (www.georgebush.com) and see if if blocks out the "Dick" in Dick Cheney and the "Bush" in George Bush?
Yes, Perot drew votes from Bush, and caused Clinton to be elected. Yes, Clinton is a scumbag. But to call him the "progenitor" of the combination of likability and criminality in politicians is beyond ignormant: Perhaps you've heard of President Nixon. And here's another way to look at your 19% "point": Perot prevented four more years of selling arms to Iran, giving money to right-wing terrorists in Latin America, and shifting the tax burden to the poor while legislating corporate welfare. Best of all, if anything ever happened to Papa Bush, Perot prevented President Quayle.
Or are you one of those who believes everything bad about the other party's guy and nothing bad about your own party's guy?
As for your "point" that the cabinet is such a big deal, yes, they're influential. But they don't sign bills, they don't sign treaties, and none of them is Commander-in-Chief. There is still one and only one desk at which the buck stops.
From what you wrote, it's tough to precisely discern what your problem is with third-party candidates, except that you think they're into group hugs. Where you get that idea is unclear - Jesse Ventura could probably hug your spine into two pieces.
And finally, I'll do whatever I damn well please with my vote, and that includes wasting it.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
In 1995, 56 men were executed in the United States:
33 were white - 58.9%
22 were black - 39.3%
1 was Asian. - 1.8%
(Source: US Dept. of Justice)
In 1995, 605,376 abortions were performed in 34 US states:
349,857 were white - 57.8%
205,442 were black - 33.9%
32,357 were "other" - 5.3%
17,720 were "unknown" - 2.9%
(Source: Centers for Disease Control)
Hmmm... 6% isn't MUCH more likely. Of course, this is overall US, but it also doesn't include all 50 states in the abortion statistic. Plus, there's no such thing as an "Unknown" in the death penalty. It's still showing though that the chances the baby is black are pretty high up there.
As for the It's not much more likely to actually be guilty however comment, I'm suprised to see such an extreme religous person talking this way about abortion! Since it's obvious you must believe in Original Sin, and the Sin's of the Father being passed down generations by this comment... The child is innocent, until it's surroundings corrupt it.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Bite the hand.
I love how everyone gets all worked up about what the candidates positions are on this type of issue. It's not like when whoever gets elected that there will suddenly be this stupid law passed exactly like the described it. There is this thing called a Congress that does have some say in the issue.
So what we are more likely to end up with, rather than either of the two stated possitions is something else entirely. Something like a law that mandates that all federally funded pre-school programs must install filtering software that blocks porn and any discussion of patent and copy right issues, and simultaniously sets up a federal grant to study whether the honking of Canada geese during their annual migration through the United States is contributing significantly to global warming, assuming that global warming is really happening.
So they block porn sites. Then they block anti-religious sites?, movie sites?, non-christian sites?, video game sites, slashdot? Where does it end ppl.
I know this is a a joke, but it raises a good point. Why do we need ISPs to log what pages kids are going to? If a parent really wants to know why doesn't he/she check the history, or get up off their lazy butt and watch the kid. If you *really* don't trust your kids, install a hidden camera, it's no different then logging their every move online. The fact that we are even *considering* laws to make censorware or logging mandatory shows how lazy our society has become. Most people in America, it seems, would rather let the government do it for them.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
So teach them at an early age not to lie? Where is the marketing staff for the next century going to come from?!
Actually the point is quite valid, although I don't believe that it is the crowning achievement of any presidency. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is often as public a controversy as is the election of the President. Anybody here remember Clarence Thomas and the pubic hair? The whole thing might have seemed silly, but our presidents have stacked the court several times in the past when difficult cases were pending--often with the intended effect. Our oval office has caused the Supreme Court to swell to 13 justices in the past in order to sway power from one side to the other. We fortunately have more checks in place now to prevent that sort of thing, but 2 or 3 seats is a huge percentage of a nine-person panel.
All of this comes at a time when Microsoft--though bounced back to a lower court--faces some of its most difficult legal hurdles. Imagine a president who wants to be touchy-feely (this would, by the way, refer to the same man who believes that all cars should be outlawed--the man who invented the internet...) seeing an opportunity to make a political statement with such a big case as this. Does anybody really want Froot Loop Gore to have an impact on the future of operating systems? Or Bush's stance on gays and abortion? Roe v. Wade overturned through careful court-stacking?
The reality of 3rd party candidates, to return to the other subject, is many years from fruition. Currently we only see the Ross Perot effect, whereby frustrated voters pick Bill & Opus because they don't like George or Al. Remember what happened in '92? We got Slick Willie because of frustrated Republicans.
For all of those who fear Al Gore (and we should all be in this group), a vote should not be cast in frustration for some random guy who might get a few percent of the vote, but for the other major candidate. That way we aren't working against each other. Currently about 60% of registered voters do not like Gore. Why waste the votes on Nader? All he ever did was get rid of the Corvair, and even that was a crock.
Please believe that I do not support the 2 party system. But in the absence of a 3rd or 4th strong political party, votes are wasted on independent candidates. And that's all I have to say about that. Dammit.
Public library access is obviously another ball of wax. I'm typing on one such system right now, and I don't want to see it filtered.
To me, it looks like he's saying he'd rather outlaw "brutalizing" entertainment than take the risk that some kid could see it. I'm very concerned, because before this link was pointed out to me, I was ready to vote for him. .
I sit here and shake my head when people speak of electing Gore. Why? It's because he promotes himself as a defender of citizens rights and privacy and yet has the worst record I've seen.
Bush's plan for blocking software on publicly funded sites is a reasonable solution to a highly charged issue. If you want to get to blocked sites, use your personal account.
Let's look at Gore's record on privacy.
He failed miserably with the Clipper Chip initiative. For those of you too young to recall this blunder, it was an encryption chip to be built into everything. The encryption algorithm (SkipJack) was designed behind closed doors by the NSA and utilized key escrow to allow law enforcement access to your transmissions.
Because of the failed Clipper Chip plan, the whole Key Escrow Foundation was formed. It was because of this initiative that PGP introduced the Ancillary Key problem that surfaced a few months ago.
Digital Wire Tapping Law - Allows the FBI and other law enforcement to readily tap phone lines. Forces telecoms to provide facilities to make this all possible.
Eschelon - VP Gore overseas the the National Security Council. He had to be involved in the decision to deploy Eschelon.
Carnivore - A direct descendent of the DWT law.
Now, if things aren't bad enough, he wants to keep track of e-mail directed to/from young people AND track what the watch. Imagine his friends in Hollywood getting hold of THAT data!
Censorship and Hollywood - He stands before us on national television and tells us how he and Joe Lieberman are for family values and elimination of the marketing of violent and sexually explicit material to young people, but then accepts huge donations from the very people involved in that industry.
And we scream at Bush because of his big business ties? At least he admits when there is a conflict.
Gore claims to be heavily involved in the legislation for the creation and management of the internet. Who has benefited the most in the US from his initiatives? Can you say big media (CNN, MSNBC, ABCNEWS, AOL, TIMES-WARNER, AT&T)?
He sure protected his privacy when they came looking for his e-mails during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater investigations. Or, has everybody forgotten about that?
And, let us not forget that Al supported (and still supports Bill Clinton) even as he purgered himself in court and lied to the American people.
Bottom line is that Al Gore is the worst thing that can happen to privacy minded individuals and for people who know right from wrong.
For netscape at least, different profiles can be set up, what if the pages that a particular profile views were somehow stored locally in something the profile's owner couldn't delete easily? (histories in browsers are simple to get rid of) Then schools could just grep the file for bad sites, parents could look only at children, and know what pages they looked at as opposed to only knowing someone in the family looked at it, and all of it would be attached to a name, and it would be LOCAL on the computer! Schools might be required to install this, but parents could pick something like this up if they wanted to.
In other news... recent legislation now requires every single ISP in the nation to license Amazon.com's advanced One-Click technology.
Go Amazon!
"God forbid that kids see people engaged in sex. Violent sex is another matter (becuase the violence is bad!), but healthy and positive sex is a good thing."
Heard a nice quote summarising strange American attitudes to sex .. "it's OK to bare arms but not to bare breasts". It's amazing, really. I remember watching action shows on TV when I was a kid - you could literally see dozens of people shot to death in one episode (it was OK because it was the "bad guys" getting shot) - but God forbid that you actually saw a woman's nipple!
Filters completely suck. They never filter the correct thing. There's no way that a filter can concieveable keep up with the rapid number of porn sites that appear. Then they block informative research oriented web sites because they contain the word breast. So any 13 year old who wants to do some real research on breast cancer is unfairly hindered. I don't really see a problem though with parents being able to see what web sites there kids have been to. After all, a parent is the best judge for what their kid can and can't see. As for preventive monitoring while they surf. What ever happened to a parent going and seeing what their kid was doing. It takes very little effort to walk into the computer room and see what webpage your children are viewing.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
If your Mother's job is so miserable, why does she stay? I spend an equal amount of time in front of a computer screen at work. So what?
It doesn't have anything to do with luck.
I'm not saying I'm not self absorbed. I don't find it to be my most appealing attribute. However, I don't see what it has to do with my income.
Are you saying I should tell my employer to pay me less? I don't agree with you if you do.
My questions are:
1) Is one-click filtering now unpatentable since Gore said it first.
2) If Gore is for this type of filtering, why didn't he include it in the original spec when he was inventing the internet?
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
The person paying for the service gets to decide what is provided. If you are relying on the government to pay for your Internet service, the logical extension is that the government can control what you see. This is the same reasoning led to other Republican invasions of privacy in the 80's, when seat belt and drinking at 21 laws were pushed on states in order for them to get their highway funds. Under a Libertarian federal government this would never happen, because the federal government wouldn't be supporting the schools, libraries, etc. that provide free Internet access. Anyone willing to have the government pay for their Internet access deserves the restrictions they get. If the government controls or monitor what I do on my own Internet account, though, that is another thing.
How about a features that allows parents to read their kids' email with one click? With Carnivore it shouldn't be too hard to intercept email from flagged accounts (let the parents register em) and forward it to a cache ready for a parent's perusal. After all, if they're under 18 they don't deserve privacy, do they?
And by god, if I catch Jenny looking at that birth control website again she's gonna get the beating of her life.....
</sarcasm>
Most people here aren't old enough to remember the tipper gore music censorship campaign, thats why you have those Explicit Lyrics on cds. Remember that before you vote for gore.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Who controls congress now? There's your economic prosperity. It doesn't matter what kind of budget the president proposes. If he doesn't have support in congress than you have gridlock and once in a while a bill passes through compromise or a 2/3 majority override of a veto. We can argue politics all day, but a fact is a fact. Congress controls the federal money(For you liberals that means "tax payer money" mine and yours).
Bush and Gore are quite right. These things are obviously harmful to children, and we need to take whatever means necessary to keep them away from the Internet. But that's not the entire story. Let's look at what else all of this does:
bad patents: stifle innovation
porn sites: throttle our children's morality
"created the Internet" quote: drives me up the wall
Napster: hurts artists
"volunteer source" and "free support": undercuts high-quality commercial software
Slashdot: spawns trolls
Look at this list - a veritable smorgasbord of undesirable influences and destructive tendencies, ready to crash our economy and subvert our morals. I think it's perfectly obvious that the Internet isn't something we want around at all, and I demand that our next president take full responsibility for thoroughly dismantling it in a timely manner.
Thank you.
Bruce
Bruce
You are the real Bruce Perens.
Yes, but what is the definition of "a certain expectation of safety for a child"? What ever definition you come up with, it is NOT universal! Someone will say is does not go far enough, others will say it goes to far.
Case in point. Yes, I would like to keep my child from ending up on a domain with a name like "xxx-breasts.com". But, that should not prevent her from searching for information on puberty and what type of breast changes she can most likely expect. Every type of filtering software currently out falls flat on its face when dealing with this.
Say she decides to goto Planned Parenthood to look for information on this subject. Most of the filtering software will prevent her from doing so. Why, because someone OTHER THAN ME decided that Planned Parenthood is a "Danger" to MY CHILD!
In this case I'll use Senator Jesse Helms for the person saying the filtering is not going far enough, and I'll use myself for person saying it's going to far (I'm only using Helms for an example, he didn't actually say this).
Helms: This filtering software doesn't go far enough. Any computer that is funded with Government money should filter out any web site that has the word "Breast" on it. WE must protect our children, even if this means preventing someone from finding needed medical information.
Me: I will decide what my child should or should not read/see. As she matures, I will trust her to ask questions and respect my wishes. Besides, she can get around ANY filtering software you put up. Just ask her how. Oh, and that Government money is Taxpayer money, and I am a Taxpayer. Remember, you work for me, you are not my Lord!
This is just an example, but I hope it gets the point across. Since it is not possable to get a universal definition or even a majority of people to agree on a definition of "a certain expectation of safety for a child", the government should just butt out!
In fact, Bush mirrors your earlier comments when he says: "The best weapon is the off-on button, and paying attention to your children and eating dinner with them."
Well, of those three, only paying attention to your children is the important one. You can't decide to use the off-on button if you don't pay attention. And eating dinner with them helps, but only if you actually pay attention.
Even so, I'll only give him partial credit, since he didn't say anything about communicating with your children, which is also needed.
This is a lot more overhead than just a caching proxy. And, yes, there are significant ISPs today that don't use caching proxies.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
When are parents going to start raising their own children?
--Insert catchy
www.monkeysex.com? No, Ma, never been there.. *smirk*
Using history to check will be about as effective as NetNanny or anything else out there. Something new needs to be developed (Im sure there will be ideas posted). And yes, someone needs to educate the candidates about this -- why do you think they have advisors? Not everyone can be expected to know everything.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Who keep these morons in power.
Many people don't like the idiots running this country, but no one wants to risk voting for a
candidate they belive in.
I don't see a lesser evil. Bush is a stupid Texas redneck with a penchant for coke and executions (But not abortion. Go fig on that one...),
while Gore is an android that likes gun control and censorship.
Neither of these candidates represents anything *close* to what I believe in, and both are bought by the highest bidder.
(i.e. The major corps that annoy and violate the people so much.)
For me, it *IS* coming down to two candidates: Browne and Nader.
I'm going to vote for a candidate I *believe* in, not what someone else tells me to believe in.
Yes, it's gonna be a losing vote - but at least it wasn't a wasted vote.
Richard
(And unlike many of my posts, that was not a troll.)
----
Deepthroat my submarine, swallow my seamen.
What do you think about Nader's support of a MAXIMUM WAGE? ie. Nader wants the goverment to PROHIBIT people from earning more than $X dollars...
Whenever I see a quote like this I always think what about the most violent tv show ever produced...Tom & Jerry. I remember one time I started watching it and I actually had to turn it off I was getting disturbed by the violence. And I had just stopped playing Quake. I mean how much dynamite do you need to kill a mouse
most people know as much about the internet as Bush and Gore do, so you take the common assumption that the net is half porn, mixed with the common perception of the effectiveness of "filtering softeware", and say you are for the latter and against the former, and *PooF!*, you've taken a stand!
it's easy to say these things without actually knowing what goes into making them happen, and for the most part no one (except /.ers, of course) will call their bluff.
------------
--
fight global cooling
If you're anti-censorship, you are obligated by your own conscience to vote for Harry Browne. No other candidate - and very obviously neither of the two "main" candidates, supports a complete absence of all censorship. Mr. Browne believes that personal - and parental - responsibility is the proper solution, not government-enforced censorship. Furthermore, he recognizes that the federal government has no authority to censor anything, regardless of whether he or anyone else feels it's a good idea. Vote Browne. Vote Freedom.
What I took away from civics class was that we should allow free speech because we believe that restrictions on it can be abused, and that the small amount of poison we get is worth putting up with because of the benefits we get from the free exchange of other good ideas. This shaded, reasonable approach makes much more sense to me than your absolutist mantra.
And, it has only worked for us so far. Nazi Germany arose out of a democratic society, as did Marxist Leninism, starting in both cases with some poisonous ideas catching hold. You can't advocate the position without considering when it might and might not work.
You're not throwing away your vote if you vote 3rd party (Browne, Nader, etc). You're making a statement.
They won't win, sure. But if you don't vote you have truly wasted your opportunity. If you vote for the lesser of the two evils, you just perpetuate the status quo.
Now, if you really truly believe in either of the two main people, vote for them. But don't let that limit you from learning about (and possibly voting for) the alternatives.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Since the President cannot grow or shrink government to 0% or 100% suddenly by decree, what is the harm in electing one whose goal is 0%. By voting for the guy claiming to aim at 80% of the current size, you would doom yourself to a government that is actually larger than the goal, since it is generally impossible for a President to get everything he wants.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Gore ALREADY worked to enforce the history function in IE/NN, and the warning pages. That was the whole point!!! So all you idiots who are affraid of history peaking by parents, DON'T WORRY. The function is already there!! argh.
Even on tv they were all yapping about this... Really pisses me off. No one is listening anyways. No wonder people just look at the makeup.
And its amazing how many people against censorship are totally for internet filtering. hello hello?
I goofed, I meant 'the government should not censor shit on public computers' (yes I proofread it, but I still missed that one)
Talk to your kids for the love of Pete!
---
I wear pants.
/me had her first sexual experience at age 5. With another 5 year old. It's a natural urge, it's not dirty. Americans really piss me off on this subject...moreso because I am one.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Gore really is going to miss the boat if he doesn't hurry up and patent this great idea of his - One click kid check - who ever would have thought of it?!
I can bet you that 99.95% of schools already have filtering software in place, so whats the big deal here?
Don't even mention nader, he is the most left wing person I have ever seen. Against nuclear power? Come on, whats pollutes less, a million tons of coal or a small lump of plutonium? When the plutonium is depleated you can just rocket it into the sun. Its a non issue because nasa has been using plutonium on space probes for years.
Nader also likes affermative action? Why should a certain group of people need special treatment? That just further divides the gap. I hire who is most qualified for the job, if more while males are qualified then I hire them.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
"Us nasty liberals have our faults, but failing to support free speech and civil liberties is, by and large, not one of them" So that's why your 2 candidates both blame corporate america for the ills of the country rather than the lazy, worthless parents that don't know what their kids are getting into. Their solution: more government. My solution: liberalize the copyright laws as a punishment for marketing violent content to kids. Hmmmm "little johnny, did you pay for that R rated movie?" "No mommy, uncle sam said I can have it for free if I download it!"
*elevator music plays*
First, acknowledge the fact that many many parents
feel, rightly or wrongly, that their children are
able to access content at school, libraries, or
elsewhere outside their homes, content on the
internet that they strongly disapprove of, ie
porn.
So what is the government (local/state/feds) to
do about this, if anything? I propose this:
libraries issue cards with machine readable info,
including the age of the card holder. I know
that my paper card has my dob on it. Then, to use
the internet pc, you must slide your card thru
a reader to remove a content filter. I can also
see a situation where parents would be able to
set which filters apply to their children by
category and age.
No, this is not perfect by any means. Filters
can always be hacked and don't always do the
job intended. But at least this way a) those
who are old enough can look at anything they
want to, b) parents have a modest degree of
comfort about what their kids are not able to
look at while at school or the library.
The plutocrats, as Gore likes to call them, already get the crap taxed out of them. That is what a lot of people don't see. Gore just drums the middle class to hate the 'rich'.
I'm at a point where if I get a raise, I can kiss 39.6% of it (plus medicare and social security taxes) goodbye. We have this lovely thing called tax brackets. The first X amount of your income is not taxed. The next Y amount is taxed at 15%. The next Z amount is taxed at 23%. This goes up to a point at which all income in excess of ZZ is taxed at 39.6%.
I personally find that a bit high. If we do, in fact, have a budget surplus, then we can alleviate some of this. However, no tax relief should come ahead of reducing the debt.
What's your opinion on peer to peer file sharing? What's your opinion on filters?
Gimme a break. These things should be done at a personal, houshold, or community level *at most*. The federal government has *ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS* even dictating things like this.
Since when do we even have to *pretend* like we even *care* what they think about it.
The Libertarian party's position:
"Stop Internet Censorship
Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want. "
Harry Browne's specific position:
"You have the right to speak and write freely -- on paper, on the airwaves, on the Internet --even if the government thinks it has a "compelling interest" in shutting you up."
As for Ralph Nader, he even wants to censor non-pornographic web sites; he doesn't want children to be able to access marketting information. He is one of those people we all berate here who think Doom causes violence.
And he doesn't want to stop at censoring it; he actually wants to outlaw it.
-
It's interesting to me that /. is following the mainstream media's ignorance of third-party candidates. Interesting, because many slashdotters seem to have very Libertarian views already. Just more cud for rumination.
Give Pisa chants.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
And as for contributions, Microsoft has contributed dramatically more to the republicans than the democrats. ... Bill himself has done little to no contributing.
So THAT's why they went after Microsoft!
I thought Janet Reno's Justice Department might ACTUALLY have gone after someone because they broke the law. And here it turns out it's just another dose of revenge for not contributing to their machine's campaign and vacation fund.
Well at least it's nice to know that they're consistent. B-)
(And thanks for the link to Open Secrets.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
OK, I can't be the only who feels this way, but... I don't see anything wrong with placing filters in libraries, schools, etc. But, those filters need to be to stop porn and not information on such controversial topics as abortion. Given that public money does pay for these types of places, it is OK to specify what can and can be seen from them.
I am all for free speech, but there have to be limits and/or controls. As Americans, we do not have the right to view porn whenever and wherever we want.
I do not, however, endorse filters on the web in general. If a user wants to see blocked sites at home, fine. But, if I (as a taxpayer) am footing the bill, I should have some say in what they can view.
Put the burden of cleanliness back on the owner of the content.
.g domains (.g001 through .g999). Offer a free .g domain to every .com .net .edu .org .fr .etc domain in the world. Have a license agreement that states: I promise not to put dirty pics up or sound bites of people moaning or any naughty words on my site. All the same stuff as a g rated movie whatever that may be. Links from a .g site can only go to a .g site. Website owners can choose to create a g version of their site or not. Break the rules, loose a body part and your .g domain for 10 years.
.pg domain.
.g domains. If Microsoft.com doesn't want to go to the hassle of making their website work as microsoft.g or take on the added responsibility of keeping it clean, then fine, my kids won't be able to visit their site. If slashdot wants to write a script to replace the word "fuck" with a on the .g version of their site then maybe they could qualify. If they choose not to try then the kiddies lose out, no biggie either way.
.g sites to make sure they're not breaking the rules. It would cost some bucks (tons because the gov is involved) but not near as many as trying to censor the whole damn net. I'd actually be willing to help the gov by reporting abuses to the .g or .pg web (when I wasn't checking out porn or bomb making on the rest of the web that is).
.g sites so it would become .g certified by default.
We (the US gov I guess) create
Slashdot wouldn't qualify due to the naughty language and some of the hate posts. But they might qualify for a
Now I as a parent can tell my browser to only allow pg and g, all domains, or just g domains. Or I can sign up with an ISP that only routes packets from
The gov could create a task force to evaluate
Google could create a google.g search engine that only searches
Think about it.... I write a censoring proggie that traps for the word "dick" used in a sexually oriented sentence. Website desingers start calling a "dick" a "johnson" and break my filter. I mod it to also trap for "johnson" and they start calling it a "sausage". It just can't work.
Look at the hacker lingo crap. Cops start searching for "software" the criminals (thanks so much ppl) change the term to "wares", cops catch on so the software stealers change the name to "warez". At least I assume that's the way all that developed.
It'll never happen though.... the gov doesn't care one bit if my kids are looking at porn. They're using it as an excuse to introduce censorship into my home so I won't be so shocked when they step up the the next level of invading my privacy and taking away my rights.
sigless G
*sniff* *sniff* I just don't know who to love more! I mean, on one hand, we can have someone who only wants to deny "inappropriate" material to the poor (who else would be using public facilities as their sole means of access?), or *sob!* we could have someone who wants to be a censor for EVERYONE! I'm so TORN!
They must be scratching their heads wondering why so many people don't even bother to vote, and a growing percentage of people that do are voting for third party candidates (Nader, Browne).
I sure know I am!
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Don't know if this was mentioned elsewhere in this post, but I think that there is already case law on this issue, dealing with public-access/funded computer. It was in Loudon County, VA and they (the folks inclined to filter) got their asses waxed in court over 1st Amendment issues as well as other...I do not think that the obligatory appeal even went forward 'cause they got slammed so bad by the defendants. Filter this, you knuckleheads! /s The Great Killer Whale
Hey, I dig your new car, real futuristic, It's a Fillmore isn't it- Frank Zappa LaTFE
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not saying that you think it's a bad thing that we don't have exactly the president you want?
That's what it sounds like you are saying, and you know as well as I do the problems with that...
Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to undecided women voters.
The opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes.
Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?
Gore: as I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election.
My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1 percent in an ironclad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here tonight.
Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.
Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.
Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.
Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to pronounce his name?
Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose.
You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.
Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.
Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested in.
I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman voter would find romantic.
If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or domestic, by putting it in an ironclad lockbox. Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort them with simple metaphors.
Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?
Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a single penny until the year 2250.
In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the child-proof cap.
Lehrer: Gov. Bush?
Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.
Leher: It's time for closing statements.
Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.
Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing no one but Republicans.
pronoblem
Huh? Bush proposes to do filtering in places funded by public money--libraries, etc. This seems completely within the boundaries of the government's responsibilities!
Please cite where I might find that in the Constitution.
He said -nothing- about filtering in someone's home and taking over the job of the parent.
Neither did I.
If you read Gore's statement, he wants protection 95% of the time a page comes up... who's infringing on parental responsibility now?
I'm sorry, but I get violently ill every time I read what Gore has said, so I try to limit my intake of that kind of reading material. Did you assume that my attack on Bush was an endorsement of Gore?
Someone mod that inaccurate post down!
Your accusation that my post is inaccurate looks really stupid in light of the fact that you believe that robbing high income earners to pay for libraries and Internet filtering software is a valid function of the U.S. Government.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I can't believe how much fluff is involved in running for office, I think we should just do an IQ test, take the top 10%, disqualify anyone who wants to be president, and hold a raffle and pick someone at random. All that campaign money could now be used to back a cause instead of a personality. I like the idea of just making 'Bill' foot the bill, and banning the evil closed source and tossing intellectual property/ patents out. sure there would be chaos for awhile, but it'd be better in the end. It offends me that they think censorware should be mandated, but even if the big money folows through, the people will create their own way around this for free. See no evil, Hear no evil, have not a clue!
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
My mother makes $25K (Canadian) a year. To get that money she AVERAGES a 55 hour work week spent staring at a computer screen as her eyes slowly deteriorate. For you to suggest, even for one second, that you "work harder" than my mother, is one of the most offensive and repugnant things I've ever heard. You don't make > $100K because you're smarter or because you work harder. You make it because you are luckier and more self absorbed. And no, you shouldn't be rewarded for that. Right on. This also dovetails with the typical right-wing belief that people on welfare in the united states are on it because they are lazy, stupid, or ignorant. Furthermore, they believe that those who do fall upon hard times are SOL if they do not have the savings to live off of during such time periods. I find beliefs such as that so repugnant, mostly because I've never heard anyone spout that type of drivel at me unless they or their parents made at least $80-90k per year. As long as I'm ranting about economic inequality, I'll mention one more thing. I work with a guy who is, just like me, a college student. He doesn't believe that the government should assist people in paying for college. He's one of those people whose parents make said 80-90 k per year, whereas my mother is a public school teacher, and my father is a deadbeat. I asked my coworker if he, as one who did not take loans out from the government, received money from his wealthy parents for school. He replied, "I have been given a sizeable amount of money for school." I, in contrast, work my ass off to save enough money to continue going to school, receive nothing in money from my parents, and have to take out loans from the government. "Big government" is the only reason I am able to afford school. To say that I am, by default, unworthy of going to college, or should not allowed to receive a higher education if I cannot, at this time, afford it is probably the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard in my life. GORE 2000!
iRooster, the Mac OS X a
It doesn't sound as if there are any *good* solutions out there (aside from 'don't censor' - which really isn't a solution). How can we expect our candidates to answer this question when we, geeks, don't even have an answer. I think someone was just trying to get Al to say that he invented the Internet again.
I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and, knowing how searches bring up nonsense 98% of the time, pulling up some elephant sex porn site or something equally as disturbing.
First, perhaps you should accompany your kids to the library, or only allow them to go to a library where they won't be exposed to something that you don't want them to see. That would be taking responsibility for your childrens' welfare rather than trying to make someone else do it. Second, I think that children are much more damaged by seeing violence than they are seeing sex. We Americans are *very* hung up on sex as if it were something dirty. South Americans and Europeans are much more open about sexuality and (rightfully) think that Americans are weirdos. For bizarre reasons Americans still see "gangsta rap" as more palatable than pornography.
Then they'll come home and ask you about it, then what are you going to say?
I'd probably say, "Some people like having sex with elephants." I know several people who grew up having their parents be very frank with them about sex, even when their kids were two and three. They live perfectly healthy lives and in no way ever felt bad by what their parents told them.
It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
God forbid that kids see people engaged in sex. Violent sex is another matter (becuase the violence is bad!), but healthy and positive sex is a good thing.
I find it odd that people think children are sexless creatures. Do they realize how many kids are sexually active at 13 and suffer no psychological damage from it? I'm not talking about pedophilia (which is vile and deserves harsh punishment). I'm talking about kids looking at pornography, masturbating, and having sex with their peers. I'm sure there are quite of few of us here who have had many such experiences.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Personally, I think that internationals laws that we will use for space should be use as a base for internet!
I don't know about anyone else but I know who has my vote this year, A write in of Rob 'Cmdr Taco' Malda. Theres a president for you... He runs slash he knows linux he would only censor non-debian distrobutions of linux... And besides who else are you going to vote for theres george 'Initial beneath your current threshold' Bush, Al 'Invented the Internet' Gore, Darth Nader, need I go on... With cmdr taco we know his only agenda is world debian domination. Now there is a candidate we can trust... Well this is all a moot point because here in this united states because I am
-- Ostone
"42."
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
---
:>
I find beliefs such as that so repugnant, mostly because I've never heard anyone spout that type of drivel at me unless they or their parents made at least $80-90k per year
---
Let me be the first, then (be warned: this is a bit of a rambling narrative).
My grandmother grew up in a home with a dirt floor, two sisters, and a somewhat unsupportive family life. She was pretty poor overall.
She married my grandfather who, while not rich, wasn't quite as bad off. Once they got married they moved elsewhere for a job, and had two kids.
While their home certainly had a 'real' floor, there wasn't much extra cash to spare on entertainment or extravagant gifts. My grandparents were very loving and caring individuals, though, and raised a couple of pretty good kids. One of which is my mother.
My uncle got a little college in (and did pretty well, as he's a fairly bright guy), although my mom did not (I also consider her pretty bright as well). Cash wasn't the easiest thing to come by, and by the time she had her kids there was lots of other stuff to take care of.
My sister and I grew up comfortable - about as spoiled as any typical middle class kid might be. My parents spent a lot of their cash helping my sister get a college education, and some on me as well (I'm just a little ways off from a basic Associate's degree). They also bought me a computer at a young age - not a trivial purchase - which helped inspire me to continue on with my interests in computers and related stuff.
My sister just got her Master's degree, and has become a pretty successful teacher - and well liked at that. I'm a bit younger, but I have a great job at a company I like, make a pretty decent wage, and work from home with a company supplied laptop.
Note that almost none of this is due to governmental assistance.
While not rich by any means, I definitely don't have to sweep excess dirt off of a dirt floor every night. And I have those who preceded me to thank for that. I only put the pieces together in the end in making my relative success.
My point: There is no such thing as making 'too much'. Yes, luck has something to do with it. So does being in the right place at the right time (or putting yourself in the right place at the right time). There's nothing wrong with that - if there is a demand for certain skills or people, they should feel free to reap those rewards. It's not our place to tell people that they are 'too in demand' or aren't worth that much to someone else.
And no, I don't doubt one bit that your mother is a very hard worker and probably deserves more. And she has probably tried hard to raise you in such a way that you'll have it better than she did. BUT don't blame someone just because they have a lot of cash because she doesn't. Some people may be assholes, and maybe she got screwed over a few times or made bad choices, but don't blame the rich for that. Especially when they already take up a higher percentage burden of the taxes as is.
In the end, I hope that I can provide for my kid(s) in such a way that they do better than I. Please don't chastise or look down upon me if I end up being pretty successful at it...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
People see and hear only what they want to see and hear. Once they have made up their minds, any contradictory information is just rationalized away.
You appear to me to have already made up your mind for one candidate. Am I wrong? Tell me your feelings about Clinton.
Here's my take: Gore understands technology far better than most of his political peers, which ain't sayin' much. Gore believes in the goodness of government and has no shame in using the power of government for whatever purpose he sees fit, including control over the Internet. These views and behavior are out of line with the majority of the electorate, including myself. Bush is just a dumbass. Worse, he's a corporate lackey riding on his father's name. I don't know which is capable of the most harm. But, the magnitude of change that the Internet brings will make both of their opinions irrelevant. Any consequences of this election will be short lived in regards to the Internet.
(OK, now somebody now call me on my rationalizations.)
Instead of having to deal with all this AI filtering and essentially creating a lot of headaches everywhere, why not pass a law that requires all websites that have adult sxual content to be at a .xxx or .sex or appropriate domain. This would make it very easy for programs or browsers to filter those sites for parents. Strip clubs are zoned, couldn't sex sites be too?
N8F8 --Porn monger and free speech advocate.
Hell, a hundred and fifty years ago the Republicans were the third party. Sometimes change can happen.
The same should be done for Internet porn sites. You want unfiltered browsing at a library? Fine, set up safe computers for children and unfiltered adult-only computers.
I'd be just as pissed if found my 6-year-old flipping through a Playboy at the public library. My child should not be able to access that.
When I say there is an expectation of safety at a library I mean I should be able to let my children roam freely, explore and discover. That's what libraries are great for.
I am raising my children to be smart and make the right decisions. I don't expect them to type www.animalsex.com into the browser, but neither do I want them to stumble unto that site because some other library patron just visited it and left it onscreen.
It's a bit late now, unless your state has a different deadline for registration.
In the 1930, the Socialist party was a third party. People voted for them. Every item on their platform was eventually adopted by the Democratic party. Of course, they've updated their platform, and are now asking for more things, but most of the things they were asking for then have come to pass.
I favor the things that the Libertarian party is pushing. I don't care if they are implemented by someone who claims to be a Libertarian. What I care about is the issues the party is pushing. As long as those are done, I'll be happy.
It doesn't matter than the Libertarians might not win this election, and might not win the next one. Every vote for them will make their issues more appealing to other parties, who will adopt them in an effort to sway my vote, and yours if you manage to register in time and vote Libertarian.
Our votes aren't about electing leaders so much as they are about determining which choices we will get next time.
Gore wants, "a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.' The relevant quotes are on the third page of the Posts's debate coverage..."
Before you vote for Gore, think. Do you really want Amazon.com to get all those royalties?
Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
They wiped themselves out through their own excesses and the error in their ways. You're right. Anybody who's been through 7th grade world history (ask my little sister) knows that . Unlike some posts I've read
So what's wrong with Browne and/or the Libertarian Party? Both seem to meet your criteria. Browne isn't exactly a geek, but the Libertarian principles he supports cover most of what we geeks want. Much more throughly than anyone else I've seen. You mention that he supports things that make you "cringe". What, exactly? Maybe start with two or three of the big ones in your view. I'm simply currious what you see as a problem here.
Why am I a troll? First post says hot grits, he gets +3, I say hot grits I get -1. I am sorry for ever posting here. It was a joke you moderator nazis.
"Here's a spoiler: You're will die alone."-Triumph the Insult Comic Dog
---
How much of it was due to parental assistance? Be honest - how much of you and your sister's education was paid for by your family?
---
Most of my education was paid for by my employer at the time. That was a bit of a special case. My sister has a whole lot of student loans to pay off, but she's in a good position to do so as she now has access to a pick of decent jobs.
The initial part of my education was paid for by the state, out of funds that would have went to the local high school (I skipped out 2 years early). That funding, which would have been wasted on the pathetic high school I was attending, instead went to a fairly decent private community college where I actually learnt a few things.
If my parents didn't have the same tax burden, they could have done it directly.
---
What's the effect of growing up in a middle class neighbourhood with good schools and no gun fights? That's luck.
---
I didn't really grow up in a middle class neighborhood (go to Finley, WA and look around sometime - definitely a trailer park kind of place. We were comparitively wealthy, and crime wasn't all that horrible, but the local schools were worthless).
Either way, it's not luck. Nobody bought my mom's house for her, or bought the property on her behalf. Living in a somewhat rural setting makes things cheaper in many aspects, which was a decent reason to move there. Nobody is forcing anyone to live in a crime ridden inner city.
---
I realize that you weren't replying directly to me, but I never advocated an maximum wage.
---
I know, I wasn't really aiming at that (although I realize some people do advocate one, which is a vaguely fascist notion IMHO). I'm talking more about the undercurrent of class warfare that some people seem to ride on. A lot of people talk about others having 'enough' or 'too much' money, even though that's completely irrelevent. It's a matter of principle to me, I guess.
---
I don't for a minute believe I got where I am because I'm smarter or work harder than people who didn't get here. I'm just lucky.
---
You're largely where you are because of a combination of your intelligence and that of your parents. I don't really believe in luck, but I do believe in someone spotting opportunity and taking it.
In our society, I think it's common for some really smart people to not realize how bright they are, and lowering their own expectations as to what they can do. There are enough stories of people coming from near poverty to great success to prove that smart people CAN get somewhere - and enough untold stories of smart people who never get anywhere to show that some just don't get around to it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I've been a huge fan of this concept since I saw it brought up in a debate on C-SPAN. Not only would this allow people who disagree with the Republicrats to actually have representaion, it would encourage those who feel disenfrachised by the current system to participate.
A Republic should not be a winner-take-all, tyranny of the majority. If 5% of US citizens voted Libertarian, 5% Green, etc, (I personally think these numbers would be higher in a proportional system, since every vote now matters) they would actually have some people in congress that represent their beliefs! What a novel concept in this country...
Hell, when I first learned about the electoral college system as a child, I knew then it was a stupid system. The state I live in is a Republican stronghold, it's going to Bush whether or not I vote for Gore, Nader, Browne, or no one.
-Wintermute, who'd love to see a system where his vote meant something.
For the Bush way it would only work in the case of federally funded computers. As for Gore's 'one click history' I doubt it would be hard to institute a system whereby webaddresses migrate around without warning so that if little Jenny looks up birth control today, the page would give a 404 tomorrow. Personally, I think that Bush was right about one thing (and that's scary) the parents have a very very powerful tool already, its called the "off-on button" and the internet and television are not appropriate baby sitters.
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Good thoughts, sadly a major point is missed:
Ross Perot's campaign caused 8 years of Clinton. The winner of the prestigious "Most Impeachable President Award", and progenitor of the now cherished trend of "cuddly and reproachable politicians".
19%. 19% that could have prevented WhiteWater, impeachment trials, shoestringing the military, Vice President Hillary and her sidekick Al, the power of the "StarFucker" (i.e., Lewinsky), and all of the other carnival fun-ride events of the Clinton administration. What would the proposed 3rd party folks do in tricky foreign policy situations? Would they recommend group-hugs with foreign diplomats? Would "rogue nations" be sent psychiatrists or tough-guys? Cabinet nominations, people. Bush can surround himself well. Gore could adopt the current cabinet. Who would Nader choose, and why? This is an important thing to consider (cabinet members usually make the recommendations and decisions, not the prez). Could you handle 4 years of the "New and Improved Steve Dallas" (post-Gephardtization) as your Sec. of State?
Don't waste your vote. DON'T WAST YOUR VOTE.
The problem with you statement is that you say the elderly usually vote conservatively - ie Republican. That is a subtle flaw that to be conservative is to be Republican. The reality to me is it doesn't matter if the elderly vote Republican or Democrat. Both parties (at least these days) are way to much in the center. The democrats have to chipping away at are liberties just as much as the Republicans. There is no difference in either party it seems.
What needs to be done is education of the young of not the two primary parties but of all of the political parties and get them to also understand the electorial college and how both dems and repubs continue to vie for district ownership by continuing to redistrict out either party but especially third parties.
No one needs to kill anyone just to understand how, like the old Soviet Party, both the Dems and Repubs are becoming one central party with just only two choices - Welcome to the Republic for which we are.
If America were truly democratic than no one party, more than likely not even two, would have central control of the Federal Goverment - and that would make it harder for civil liberties to be erased. And the electorial college would mean not be in effect.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!