Consider the following: MS has only said that it will release Windows source code. Nothing was said about which release.
I'll be willing to bet that if this happens, we'll see MS releasing the code for 95/98 only. This will allow them to divest themselves of supporting previous versions on the basis "It's now open-source and everyone's working on it", and will let them focus on Win2k only.
It's a good business move, because they look like the good guys for promoting open-source, but it's no loss to them at all, as they don't really want to have to support 95/98 any more and this gives them a valid reason to withdraw official support.
As a longtime fan of Terry Pratchett, I have to cheer this on. I don't know Neil Gaimon's solo work, but I have read, and THOROUGHLY enjoyed "Good Omens".
Sadly, Pratchett isn't that well known in the US, and his Discworld series doesn't receive half the acclaim it deserves. With any luck, 'Good Omens' will be a success and prompt other Pratchett novels to be put onto the bigscreen.
There has been a LONG-running debate on alt.fan.pratchett about who would play what roles in his books, so it'll be interesting to see what the producers can come up with for a cast...
I have to agree with Jeff McCoskey, although I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way...
Kids are not adults (duh!). Adults filter everything they percieve through experiences they have picked up over the years. How people experienced things determine these filters. One person adores horses, another hates them. Why? The horses are still the same, but the experience the person had with them was wildly different.
Kids are much the same. They are intelligent and bright, but they haven't had the experience to filter out certain things. Going back to Psychology 110: the mind is made up of 3 things: The id, or subconcious, the ego, your views on things, and the super-ego, which is societal values (e.g. Respect your elders). The ID is the great mystery. No one knows exactly where it comes from, although there is a lot of theory about genetic memory, instincts and racial memories. The super-ego are those things we grow up with: our experiences of the world around us. Our parents hate X, so we hate X. Our peers embrace Y, so we embrace Y. Between what we know as "instinct" (balance, how to walk, reflexes) and the "sociatal values", we develop our own egos. What *MY* rules for the world are. How *I* interact with friends, strangers and the world.
This ego development takes time though. Years, in fact. Some people learn faster than others, some slower. We label the fruition of this learning as "maturity". However, there's no way to measure it effectively, so society has imposed generalities on us. *MOST* people are 'mature' by 18, so we'll make that the age of consent, but they only learn to be careful about over-indulgence, in general, about 3 years later, so we'll make the age of majority 21.
There are 13 and 14 year olds who are more mature than 30 and 40 year olds. However, they are the exception rather than the rule. Sadly, they have to suffer under societies guidelines, as the majority of the people out there are NOT mature at 13 or 14.
Asking kids to grow up and be mature, and expecting them to do so is stupid. They are still learning. They WANT to push limits, see what they are capable of. You can't expect them to police themselves, based on your "rules of society" and still expect a complete person to emerge. What you deem as accetable is not see that way by everyone. Let the child learn for themselves, at a set rate. Give them a chance to be a child, without being influence by adult issues. The avg age of a person is about 80 years. Of that, less than 1/5 is as a "child". Once they are past that, they can't go back. In fact, society condemns them if they go back. Let them learn about childish things while they are children and let them learn about adult things as adults.
Well, I do believe in censorship. There are some things which are not appropriate for some people. I believe rather strongly in kids being protected from things like porn and vulgarity.
Realistically we can't expect kids to monitor themselves. Some teenage boy sees "All Naked - All The Time" ad, odds are he's going to have a look. Libraries and other public access places are institutes we encourage students and minors to go to. To grant them access to places where they can see pornography, and then condemn them when they explore, seems a little hypocritical.
I noticed on peacefire that they give menthods for disabling the censorship software. This I think is stupid, depending on where the software is installed. I think that a place like schools and libraries should be locked down for this. Sure there are adults that should be able to access this, but provision should be made for them. I doubt the majority of the people using library systems for net access are surfing for smut. Put a couple of PC's in a controlled area where age can be verified. If people dont' like this, tough...Protecting kids from porn in public places is more important than giving access to people wanting to search for porn, be it a legit reason or not.
When it comes to college and work access, things get a little more complicated. There are various courses at college which *require* research into sexual matters. However, *VERY* few of them will require that to be on "horny young teens" or "live lesbian videos". Sadly, there's no real way to distinguish between the two without actively viewing the content. That's just impractical. At college level, I think they should block out vulgarity, while leaving sexual content. True, some vulgar sites will get through, but that's the price for freedom of speech. As for companies, if you are using their systems, you play by their rules. They pay for the lines, the computers and the access. Therefor, they get to dicate what you view. Similarly, if you *hate* classical music, what right does a guest have to come into your home and monopolize your system to listen to the Classical masterpieces, without your permission? You wouldn't allow that, but you still want to use work systems to allow you to view what you want? I don't think so.
We have to take resposibility for what we want others to see. Yes, you have a right to view *anything* you want to. I'm not denying that. I'll even fight for it. However, you do not have the right to make that material available to others.
Censorship is a good and necessary thing. It just needs to be handled better. I do agree that the "blacklist" should be open. If I install the software, I want to be able to modify what gets banned and what doesn't. The censors do not have *that* right. I'm an adult. Treat me like one.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be willing to bet that if this happens, we'll see MS releasing the code for 95/98 only. This will allow them to divest themselves of supporting previous versions on the basis "It's now open-source and everyone's working on it", and will let them focus on Win2k only.
It's a good business move, because they look like the good guys for promoting open-source, but it's no loss to them at all, as they don't really want to have to support 95/98 any more and this gives them a valid reason to withdraw official support.
That's just my opinion though.
Subby
Sadly, Pratchett isn't that well known in the US, and his Discworld series doesn't receive half the acclaim it deserves. With any luck, 'Good Omens' will be a success and prompt other Pratchett novels to be put onto the bigscreen.
There has been a LONG-running debate on alt.fan.pratchett about who would play what roles in his books, so it'll be interesting to see what the producers can come up with for a cast...
Kids are not adults (duh!). Adults filter everything they percieve through experiences they have picked up over the years. How people experienced things determine these filters. One person adores horses, another hates them. Why? The horses are still the same, but the experience the person had with them was wildly different.
Kids are much the same. They are intelligent and bright, but they haven't had the experience to filter out certain things. Going back to Psychology 110: the mind is made up of 3 things: The id, or subconcious, the ego, your views on things, and the super-ego, which is societal values (e.g. Respect your elders). The ID is the great mystery. No one knows exactly where it comes from, although there is a lot of theory about genetic memory, instincts and racial memories. The super-ego are those things we grow up with: our experiences of the world around us. Our parents hate X, so we hate X. Our peers embrace Y, so we embrace Y. Between what we know as "instinct" (balance, how to walk, reflexes) and the "sociatal values", we develop our own egos. What *MY* rules for the world are. How *I* interact with friends, strangers and the world.
This ego development takes time though. Years, in fact. Some people learn faster than others, some slower. We label the fruition of this learning as "maturity". However, there's no way to measure it effectively, so society has imposed generalities on us. *MOST* people are 'mature' by 18, so we'll make that the age of consent, but they only learn to be careful about over-indulgence, in general, about 3 years later, so we'll make the age of majority 21.
There are 13 and 14 year olds who are more mature than 30 and 40 year olds. However, they are the exception rather than the rule. Sadly, they have to suffer under societies guidelines, as the majority of the people out there are NOT mature at 13 or 14.
Asking kids to grow up and be mature, and expecting them to do so is stupid. They are still learning. They WANT to push limits, see what they are capable of. You can't expect them to police themselves, based on your "rules of society" and still expect a complete person to emerge. What you deem as accetable is not see that way by everyone. Let the child learn for themselves, at a set rate. Give them a chance to be a child, without being influence by adult issues. The avg age of a person is about 80 years. Of that, less than 1/5 is as a "child". Once they are past that, they can't go back. In fact, society condemns them if they go back. Let them learn about childish things while they are children and let them learn about adult things as adults.
EOT - End of Tirade.
Realistically we can't expect kids to monitor themselves. Some teenage boy sees "All Naked - All The Time" ad, odds are he's going to have a look. Libraries and other public access places are institutes we encourage students and minors to go to. To grant them access to places where they can see pornography, and then condemn them when they explore, seems a little hypocritical.
I noticed on peacefire that they give menthods for disabling the censorship software. This I think is stupid, depending on where the software is installed. I think that a place like schools and libraries should be locked down for this. Sure there are adults that should be able to access this, but provision should be made for them. I doubt the majority of the people using library systems for net access are surfing for smut. Put a couple of PC's in a controlled area where age can be verified. If people dont' like this, tough...Protecting kids from porn in public places is more important than giving access to people wanting to search for porn, be it a legit reason or not.
When it comes to college and work access, things get a little more complicated. There are various courses at college which *require* research into sexual matters. However, *VERY* few of them will require that to be on "horny young teens" or "live lesbian videos". Sadly, there's no real way to distinguish between the two without actively viewing the content. That's just impractical. At college level, I think they should block out vulgarity, while leaving sexual content. True, some vulgar sites will get through, but that's the price for freedom of speech. As for companies, if you are using their systems, you play by their rules. They pay for the lines, the computers and the access. Therefor, they get to dicate what you view. Similarly, if you *hate* classical music, what right does a guest have to come into your home and monopolize your system to listen to the Classical masterpieces, without your permission? You wouldn't allow that, but you still want to use work systems to allow you to view what you want? I don't think so.
We have to take resposibility for what we want others to see. Yes, you have a right to view *anything* you want to. I'm not denying that. I'll even fight for it. However, you do not have the right to make that material available to others.
Censorship is a good and necessary thing. It just needs to be handled better. I do agree that the "blacklist" should be open. If I install the software, I want to be able to modify what gets banned and what doesn't. The censors do not have *that* right. I'm an adult. Treat me like one.