I've not been all that keen on this idea from the start. I mean, I can understand the original TLD ideas (.com,.org,.gov,.edu, etc.), but are they planning on semi-forcibly splitting out the adult sites?
Consider - the new.XXX sites are more expensive, they won't have the same recognition for a while so nobody's going to want to change.
So my question is - are they planning on saying, "You're an adult site, so now you have to give up your.COM domain name and pay more for a.XXX name"? And can they make that stick?
And if they are and they can, would that really be a Good Thing?
... with "Intelligent Design" is that it begs the question.
The concept of evolution has itself changed over time, but is based on observed phenomena. This is the keystone of the scientific method - observable and reproducible results. And be assured, there ARE observed instances of evolution. Anyone who doubts can ask doctors about anti-biotic resistant strep, or exterminators about insects that developed resistances to various pesticides.
So, where are the observable phenomena for the "Intelligent Design" camp?
In that case, how does it qualify as science?
Tell you what, just to make sure that nobody can call me unsporting, I'll make a deal. The "Intelligent Design" crew can teach their ideas to our children in science class in school, but only if evolution is granted equal time in Sunday School.
There are those who might argue that the telemarketers are doing nothing more than the equivalent of "phone junk mail" - that these phone calls are no different from the unsolicited ads you get in the mail, and that it's not a long walk between the mailbox and the trash can.
That being said, I'm delighted that the Supreme Court didn't accept that interpretation. Telemarketers demand your time in a more immediate fashion, and with some of them able to stay on the line until you've held the switch hook down for 10 seconds, they are far more capable of interfering with other communications than junk mail does with other correspondence.
I'm glad that the Supreme Court took that view - you see, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not necessarily to bow to the will of the people; its purpose is to see whether the balance of rights is maintained.
So, let's not get too carried away with what this decision means. The telemarketing companies may end up trying other ways to get around the "do-not-call" list.
We know what eternal vigilance pays for, after all.
... they mention the exact reason what the sex offender was charged of
<Irony = ON>
Well, that's a relief. I'm sure that the 17-year-old who was accused by his 17-year-old girlfriend's irate father feels better about the fact that all the details will be posted and the relative heinous-ness (spelling?) will be gauged carefully by his boss, his friends, his teachers, his neighbors, and anybody else.
<Irony = OFF>
Of course, this still doesn't answer the question as to what happens if the information is inaccurate. It brings to mind the issue that John Adams mentioned, which, to paraphrase, says that if we punish the innocent to make sure that we catch the guilty, we remove the incentive for the innocent to stay that way.
I don't expect there to be any easy answers either direction, but then again, if life had nothing but easy answers, then why haven't we gotten further on AI than we have?
Religions are given a tax-exempt status on the grounds that they are pursuing a "higher truth," one that is supposed to be shared with others.
Not so with Scientology. Try looking for one of their texts in the public library, and you'll more often than not find them missing. They say that "the world isn't ready for these truths yet," but still believe that they should enjoy the protection granted to other religions that do make their messages freely available.
They can't have it both ways - either Scientology has trade secrets (in which case it is a business) or it doesn't (in which case it is a church).
People will rant both ways as to whether this is a problem with users or tech support. Both sides can trot out horror stories (with varying degrees of entertainment level) and stupid fill-in-the-blank jokes.
I think the main problem is expectation management. Users occasionally encounter the tech support person who is everything that they could hope for - within 5 minutes, they've figured out that the hard drive cable was plugged in upside-down, and they're back in business thanks to Harold Sharpstuff. However, the next time that the user calls in, they draw Neville Newbie, and after Neville fumbles around and finally helps them get their system running after 2 hours of tests, the user comes up with fodder for a new customer support horror story.
Meanwhile, Harold Sharpstuff has quit because after the tenth "coffee-mug-holder-is-broken" call in 2 hours, and after the third "I'm-paying-your-salary-so-you-should-help-me-
adjust-my-screen-contrast" call (which is particularly ironic from users calling a toll-free support line), he's decided that his not-so-great paycheck isn't worth the headache.
There's lots of aggravation to spread around, folks. The users who piss and moan about clueless phone support (but who could never do that job themselves!) and the tech support personnel who complain about the 10th "the Internet is down!" call (but forget that these are 10 different people, NOT 1 single person calling 10 times!) both need to modify their expectations a bit.
The landmark documents of government, which include such gems as the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States, have in particular done one thing in particular. They state, in rude, unambiguous, and terribly impolite fashion, what a government is NOT allowed to do. From "The Crown shall not impose taxes without the consent of Parliament..." to "No Bills of Attainder or ex post facto legislation to be passed..." - these were written to prevent similar dirty tricks that had been played by previous governments.
All we can hope for in this case is that the U. S. Congress will respond with its usual lack of celerity, and will let the panic die down before passing some atrocity that turns out to be harder to repeal than Prohibition.
Yeah, well I don't know about you, but I know that I am mad as hell. I'm not going to give a good @#%$ about whether the people I want revenge against are really the ones who ordered the attack or are just convenient, 'cause to tell you the truth, that takes thought, and I'm just too angry and I'm just too scared and I hurt just too much to indulge in that little luxury! I want blood, and I want it now, and if it turns out to be the right blood, so much the better!
<IRONY=OFF>
This is the sort of thinking that we're going to be dealing with... the sort of knee-jerk reaction that's going to lead to people calling in bomb threats against mosques in the US (as has happened in Kansas City, and doubtless in other parts of America)... the same sort that led to such less-than-glorious chapters in American history as the Manzanar Internment Center.
Hopefully we'll outgrow it as a people. Personally, I am more interested in accurate justice than convenient justice, because convenient justice sometimes snags people like me.
Just my two cents... leave the change in the penny bowl.
Or, and this is far more likely, some day when we're mining asteroids for iron someone will make some big iron bowling balls...
In actuality, it's been suggested that rod-shaped projectiles might be better. With a lower cross-sectional area, the atmospheric friction would be less, and so the projectile might be still intact when it reaches the ground.
This was the rationale behind a project called "Thor," where the proposed material was cadmium. In one Thor package, the 20 to 25 of these rods were bundled around a de-orbiter motor (possibly a cold-gas motor; lower power and slower to de-orbit, but less thermal plume to alert the enemy) and the package would be placed in a polar orbit to provide world-wide coverage.
According to the article I read (and mind you, this was over 10 years ago and the details might have gotten fuzzy over time), a set of 10 of these packages would provide us with a possible response time of less than 2 hours before dropping one of these bundles. 100 packages in orbit would give a response time of less than 10 minutes.
I recall the article dealt with such ideas as sensors embedded in the nose of the rod (exposed after the ablative effect of the atmosphere), minimal maneuvering based on raising and lowering bumps on the back end of the rod, and terminal guidance based on color contrast, metal detection, thermal detection.
An additional aspect of this involved payloads such as sand (imagine the shock wave when sand traveling at close to escape velocity flares out into the atmosphere at ground level!), depleted uranium (good for busting through underground complexes), plus other ideas that a suitably nasty mind could envision.
Oh, yes, we're laughing now at all of these extraordinarily dumb ideas.
Diffidently, though, I remind you all that they didn't seem like stupid ideas at the time. Some of the mistakes listed were self-inflicted, but not all of them. Some of them were simply ideas that didn't pan out -- they don't always.
Now, the Digital:Convergence's CueCat... that one, I'll agree, was a monumental waste of money. However, lambasting the investors in a company that had a fugitive as a CEO? That's hitting below the belt.
Here's to the ones who went first, who had nothing to guide them but faith in other people's best guesses, trust in their own luck and brains, and hope that there would be people following them.
Should it, now? How interesting that you should say so....
Disrespect to whom? MasterCard? I don't believe they're paying MY salary!
The original joke was about as tasteful as distilled water and not entirely funny. However, if tastelessness were to be made criminal, Yoko Ono would have been behind bars years ago.
Bravo! Thank you for such well-stated, succinct views!
Irony = 0%
Now, if I understand you properly, you then argue that the only people who have any rights are the ones who agree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you lacks honor, does not work hard, is not self-sufficient... in short, can be labeled easily with the term "liberal," and, by your lights, can be safely considered an "un-person."
And then you follow that up with claims of tolerance? Either this is irony of the finest sort, for which you are to be commended, or you actually believe this....
Without being taught absolutes, everything is relative and I don't blame them for taking the easy road (kill or be killed).
You raise an interesting point. However, I'm not sure that it's relevant.
You see, these "helpful" bits of advice are all well and good when someone is listening. When all that someone is able to focus on is pain... when the feeling is overwhelming that nobody actually gives a wet slap whether that person lives or dies... good advice and sage counsel that don't provide a quick fix are going to be ignored, and such little cantrips end up only wasting breath.
Yeah, suck it up is easy to say, and harder to do. But that doesn't make it wrong.
But it doesn't always make it effective either... and when the failures get covered with graveyard dirt, you have to wonder...
Well, Nietchze did have a way with words, didn't he?
However, I also like to voice my little addendum: "Surviving being hit by a wrecking ball does not significantly improve your chances of surviving a second hit."
I mean, "suck it up," "deal with it," "get over it," and "it'll get better, just give it time" are all phrases that depressed teenagers lump into the category of "easy for YOU to say!" advice, and regard it as adult bulls**t. Many of them are wanting concrete solutions, and worse yet are not experienced enough to be able to say what exactly their problems are!
... what President Bush's science advisor is telling him about this?
Oh, that's right, he doesn't have one yet. That's why there's nobody telling the President that the budget cuts in science and technology are wrong-headed.
As more people get involved in reaching into space, the costs of getting something out there will decrease. However, unless something changes for the better, we won't be able to guarantee that our lead in space exploration will be maintained.
I hope India's project is successful. And I hope that it reminds some people that we used to spend money on improving our ability to go into space, and that our Space Shuttles aren't getting any younger!
The big thing isn't porn, regardless of the knee-jerk reactions of some here. I agree that children do not have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to view pornography or hate speech.
The problem is what they call "shaving the barber" -- from the old logic puzzle about a town where no man could shave himself, and only the barber was allowed to shave anyone else. Who determines what consitutes "hate speech" or what violates "community standards"?
Usually, libraries have done pretty well with having their board of education / library committee / what have you. Unfortunately, access through the Internet requires decisions based on an evironment that changes faster than the pulp-based publishing one. Decisions about site access have to be made more quickly than decisions about book purchases.
Now, it's already been pretty well done to death that the Internet filtering software currently available is not as effective as their brochures would suggest. That is not my point. My point is that the people who provide the filtering software have already determined their own standards, and are in turn imposing them upon the community.
The worst part of it is that the block lists are not readily available to the library staff responsible for system management. In fact, almost all of them are encrypted, and those that offer a "filtering check" web site are assuming that a hyperlink is always available. The libraries have to buy "a pig in a poke," as it were - they don't know what's being blocked, and can't find out.
In short, the filtering software is based on standards that are not at all influenced by the "community standards" we have been using so far. Those who piously mumble that "libraries should take responsibility for their internet access" by buying this software are actually trying to suggest that libraries abdicate this responsibility.
The only way I could tolerate our local library installing content filtering software is if it does the following:
the software is 90% reliable (no more than 10% error rate for false positives and false negatives... OK, that's pretty lenient, but I'm getting there).
the blocking lists and criteria are available for adult perusal at the library (I'd prefer to have them available to take home, but it's likely that some would gasp in horror at the idea of "script kiddies" taking these lists home and exploiting them).
a parental or library staff override is available (to help deal with the "false positives").
I know, someone'll suggest that I wish for the moon while I'm at it. Just bear this in mind - if the filtering software ever gets up to that no-more-than-10% error rate, there'll be a loud hue and cry to start using it immediately. If we already have our other requirements in line, then we might be able to keep some semblance of sanity here.
I'm not very conversant with the Dvorak layout, but if I recall correctly, aren't there keyboard layouts that are set up for 2-handed, left-handed, and right-handed operation?
I remember seeing that Microsoft had some of their keyboard layouts set up for Windows 3.1, and I got a glimpse of their layout. I've heard that Dvorak is more efficient as well, but that could be hype...
Slashdot Mirror
I've not been all that keen on this idea from the start. I mean, I can understand the original TLD ideas (.com, .org, .gov, .edu, etc.), but are they planning on semi-forcibly splitting out the adult sites?
.XXX sites are more expensive, they won't have the same recognition for a while so nobody's going to want to change.
.COM domain name and pay more for a .XXX name"? And can they make that stick?
Consider - the new
So my question is - are they planning on saying, "You're an adult site, so now you have to give up your
And if they are and they can, would that really be a Good Thing?
You've almost got it. Try this one:
"Anti-Child-Porn Counter-Terrorist Flag-Burning-Preventive Vitamin-Fortified Broadcast Protective Flag"
(OK, maybe the "Vitamin-Fortified" part is a little over-the-top.)
... with "Intelligent Design" is that it begs the question.
The concept of evolution has itself changed over time, but is based on observed phenomena. This is the keystone of the scientific method - observable and reproducible results. And be assured, there ARE observed instances of evolution. Anyone who doubts can ask doctors about anti-biotic resistant strep, or exterminators about insects that developed resistances to various pesticides.
So, where are the observable phenomena for the "Intelligent Design" camp?
In that case, how does it qualify as science?
Tell you what, just to make sure that nobody can call me unsporting, I'll make a deal. The "Intelligent Design" crew can teach their ideas to our children in science class in school, but only if evolution is granted equal time in Sunday School.
Doesn't that sound fair?
There are those who might argue that the telemarketers are doing nothing more than the equivalent of "phone junk mail" - that these phone calls are no different from the unsolicited ads you get in the mail, and that it's not a long walk between the mailbox and the trash can.
That being said, I'm delighted that the Supreme Court didn't accept that interpretation. Telemarketers demand your time in a more immediate fashion, and with some of them able to stay on the line until you've held the switch hook down for 10 seconds, they are far more capable of interfering with other communications than junk mail does with other correspondence.
I'm glad that the Supreme Court took that view - you see, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not necessarily to bow to the will of the people; its purpose is to see whether the balance of rights is maintained.
So, let's not get too carried away with what this decision means. The telemarketing companies may end up trying other ways to get around the "do-not-call" list.
We know what eternal vigilance pays for, after all.
At the risk of causing the lameness filter to fire off:
Bravo!
<Irony = ON>
Well, that's a relief. I'm sure that the 17-year-old who was accused by his 17-year-old girlfriend's irate father feels better about the fact that all the details will be posted and the relative heinous-ness (spelling?) will be gauged carefully by his boss, his friends, his teachers, his neighbors, and anybody else.
<Irony = OFF>
Of course, this still doesn't answer the question as to what happens if the information is inaccurate. It brings to mind the issue that John Adams mentioned, which, to paraphrase, says that if we punish the innocent to make sure that we catch the guilty, we remove the incentive for the innocent to stay that way.
I don't expect there to be any easy answers either direction, but then again, if life had nothing but easy answers, then why haven't we gotten further on AI than we have?
I have to agree with AEton above.
Religions are given a tax-exempt status on the grounds that they are pursuing a "higher truth," one that is supposed to be shared with others.
Not so with Scientology. Try looking for one of their texts in the public library, and you'll more often than not find them missing. They say that "the world isn't ready for these truths yet," but still believe that they should enjoy the protection granted to other religions that do make their messages freely available.
They can't have it both ways - either Scientology has trade secrets (in which case it is a business) or it doesn't (in which case it is a church).
Thud
I think the main problem is expectation management. Users occasionally encounter the tech support person who is everything that they could hope for - within 5 minutes, they've figured out that the hard drive cable was plugged in upside-down, and they're back in business thanks to Harold Sharpstuff. However, the next time that the user calls in, they draw Neville Newbie, and after Neville fumbles around and finally helps them get their system running after 2 hours of tests, the user comes up with fodder for a new customer support horror story.
Meanwhile, Harold Sharpstuff has quit because after the tenth "coffee-mug-holder-is-broken" call in 2 hours, and after the third "I'm-paying-your-salary-so-you-should-help-me- adjust-my-screen-contrast" call (which is particularly ironic from users calling a toll-free support line), he's decided that his not-so-great paycheck isn't worth the headache.
There's lots of aggravation to spread around, folks. The users who piss and moan about clueless phone support (but who could never do that job themselves!) and the tech support personnel who complain about the 10th "the Internet is down!" call (but forget that these are 10 different people, NOT 1 single person calling 10 times!) both need to modify their expectations a bit.
... how can this be anything but good for Linux?
Consider - the biggest excuse that people have used about Linux has been "nobody uses it, so nobody writes software for it."
Well, people are using it, now. This is the opportunity for Linux to show that it is, indeed, useful for everyday users... or not.
Face it - this is going to be Linux's baptism by fire. Let's try hoping that it survives, instead of making half-witticisms about Wal-Mart shoppers.
The landmark documents of government, which include such gems as the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States, have in particular done one thing in particular. They state, in rude, unambiguous, and terribly impolite fashion, what a government is NOT allowed to do. From "The Crown shall not impose taxes without the consent of Parliament..." to "No Bills of Attainder or ex post facto legislation to be passed..." - these were written to prevent similar dirty tricks that had been played by previous governments.
All we can hope for in this case is that the U. S. Congress will respond with its usual lack of celerity, and will let the panic die down before passing some atrocity that turns out to be harder to repeal than Prohibition.
Yeah, well I don't know about you, but I know that I am mad as hell. I'm not going to give a good @#%$ about whether the people I want revenge against are really the ones who ordered the attack or are just convenient, 'cause to tell you the truth, that takes thought, and I'm just too angry and I'm just too scared and I hurt just too much to indulge in that little luxury! I want blood, and I want it now, and if it turns out to be the right blood, so much the better!
<IRONY=OFF>
This is the sort of thinking that we're going to be dealing with... the sort of knee-jerk reaction that's going to lead to people calling in bomb threats against mosques in the US (as has happened in Kansas City, and doubtless in other parts of America)... the same sort that led to such less-than-glorious chapters in American history as the Manzanar Internment Center.
Hopefully we'll outgrow it as a people. Personally, I am more interested in accurate justice than convenient justice, because convenient justice sometimes snags people like me.
Just my two cents... leave the change in the penny bowl.
You could try Yoko Ono... but the ACLU might go after you for "cruel and unusual punishment"...
The Mad Scientists Club was one of the first books where the kids actually had to think their way out of trouble... a refreshing concept at the time!
I hadn't realized until now how much I missed those books, and I'm going to see to it that our kids get to read them.
The last year of the Yugo was when they included a rear defroster... that way, your hands didn't get cold when you were pushing it.
How about the founding of LinuxOne?
In actuality, it's been suggested that rod-shaped projectiles might be better. With a lower cross-sectional area, the atmospheric friction would be less, and so the projectile might be still intact when it reaches the ground.
This was the rationale behind a project called "Thor," where the proposed material was cadmium. In one Thor package, the 20 to 25 of these rods were bundled around a de-orbiter motor (possibly a cold-gas motor; lower power and slower to de-orbit, but less thermal plume to alert the enemy) and the package would be placed in a polar orbit to provide world-wide coverage.
According to the article I read (and mind you, this was over 10 years ago and the details might have gotten fuzzy over time), a set of 10 of these packages would provide us with a possible response time of less than 2 hours before dropping one of these bundles. 100 packages in orbit would give a response time of less than 10 minutes.
I recall the article dealt with such ideas as sensors embedded in the nose of the rod (exposed after the ablative effect of the atmosphere), minimal maneuvering based on raising and lowering bumps on the back end of the rod, and terminal guidance based on color contrast, metal detection, thermal detection.
An additional aspect of this involved payloads such as sand (imagine the shock wave when sand traveling at close to escape velocity flares out into the atmosphere at ground level!), depleted uranium (good for busting through underground complexes), plus other ideas that a suitably nasty mind could envision.
It sounded convincing as hell at the time...
Oh, yes, we're laughing now at all of these extraordinarily dumb ideas.
Diffidently, though, I remind you all that they didn't seem like stupid ideas at the time. Some of the mistakes listed were self-inflicted, but not all of them. Some of them were simply ideas that didn't pan out -- they don't always.
Now, the Digital:Convergence's CueCat... that one, I'll agree, was a monumental waste of money. However, lambasting the investors in a company that had a fugitive as a CEO? That's hitting below the belt.
Hear, hear!
Here's to the ones who went first, who had nothing to guide them but faith in other people's best guesses, trust in their own luck and brains, and hope that there would be people following them.
joins his glass to others in salute...
Should it, now? How interesting that you should say so....
Disrespect to whom? MasterCard? I don't believe they're paying MY salary!
The original joke was about as tasteful as distilled water and not entirely funny. However, if tastelessness were to be made criminal, Yoko Ono would have been behind bars years ago.
Bravo! Thank you for such well-stated, succinct views!
Irony = 0%
Now, if I understand you properly, you then argue that the only people who have any rights are the ones who agree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you lacks honor, does not work hard, is not self-sufficient... in short, can be labeled easily with the term "liberal," and, by your lights, can be safely considered an "un-person."
And then you follow that up with claims of tolerance? Either this is irony of the finest sort, for which you are to be commended, or you actually believe this....
You raise an interesting point. However, I'm not sure that it's relevant.
You see, these "helpful" bits of advice are all well and good when someone is listening. When all that someone is able to focus on is pain... when the feeling is overwhelming that nobody actually gives a wet slap whether that person lives or dies... good advice and sage counsel that don't provide a quick fix are going to be ignored, and such little cantrips end up only wasting breath.
But it doesn't always make it effective either... and when the failures get covered with graveyard dirt, you have to wonder...
However, I also like to voice my little addendum: "Surviving being hit by a wrecking ball does not significantly improve your chances of surviving a second hit."
I mean, "suck it up," "deal with it," "get over it," and "it'll get better, just give it time" are all phrases that depressed teenagers lump into the category of "easy for YOU to say!" advice, and regard it as adult bulls**t. Many of them are wanting concrete solutions, and worse yet are not experienced enough to be able to say what exactly their problems are!
Oh, that's right, he doesn't have one yet. That's why there's nobody telling the President that the budget cuts in science and technology are wrong-headed.
As more people get involved in reaching into space, the costs of getting something out there will decrease. However, unless something changes for the better, we won't be able to guarantee that our lead in space exploration will be maintained.
I hope India's project is successful. And I hope that it reminds some people that we used to spend money on improving our ability to go into space, and that our Space Shuttles aren't getting any younger!
The problem is what they call "shaving the barber" -- from the old logic puzzle about a town where no man could shave himself, and only the barber was allowed to shave anyone else. Who determines what consitutes "hate speech" or what violates "community standards"?
Usually, libraries have done pretty well with having their board of education / library committee / what have you. Unfortunately, access through the Internet requires decisions based on an evironment that changes faster than the pulp-based publishing one. Decisions about site access have to be made more quickly than decisions about book purchases.
Now, it's already been pretty well done to death that the Internet filtering software currently available is not as effective as their brochures would suggest. That is not my point. My point is that the people who provide the filtering software have already determined their own standards, and are in turn imposing them upon the community.
The worst part of it is that the block lists are not readily available to the library staff responsible for system management. In fact, almost all of them are encrypted, and those that offer a "filtering check" web site are assuming that a hyperlink is always available. The libraries have to buy "a pig in a poke," as it were - they don't know what's being blocked, and can't find out.
In short, the filtering software is based on standards that are not at all influenced by the "community standards" we have been using so far. Those who piously mumble that "libraries should take responsibility for their internet access" by buying this software are actually trying to suggest that libraries abdicate this responsibility.
The only way I could tolerate our local library installing content filtering software is if it does the following:
- the software is 90% reliable (no more than 10% error rate for false positives and false negatives... OK, that's pretty lenient, but I'm getting there).
- the blocking lists and criteria are available for adult perusal at the library (I'd prefer to have them available to take home, but it's likely that some would gasp in horror at the idea of "script kiddies" taking these lists home and exploiting them).
- a parental or library staff override is available (to help deal with the "false positives").
I know, someone'll suggest that I wish for the moon while I'm at it. Just bear this in mind - if the filtering software ever gets up to that no-more-than-10% error rate, there'll be a loud hue and cry to start using it immediately. If we already have our other requirements in line, then we might be able to keep some semblance of sanity here.I remember seeing that Microsoft had some of their keyboard layouts set up for Windows 3.1, and I got a glimpse of their layout. I've heard that Dvorak is more efficient as well, but that could be hype...