This is the sort of weaponry that might have been helpful during the NATO mission to Bosnia.
Remember those times that the Serbs blocked roads with little old ladies, all bunched together screaming profanity at the NATO troops? Those were difficult times for the tank commanders escorting the supply trucks... do anything excessive, and watch the support for intervention dwindle, or wait and let the Bosnian Serbs continue their excesses.
This weapon system would have been effective, while not being as potentially lethal as riot gas grenades might have been.
There are different method for teaching and some starts at the end of a cane.
Now, if this isn't one of the most pious-sounding and morally smug pieces of garbage that I've had the misfortune of finding!
Don't you remember that it was the assistant principal who made the decision to suspend this kid? It was his high-handed behavior and arrogant assumption that his authority extended beyond the school halls that led to the lawsuit.
This could have been prevented, but by spanking whom?
Very few of you would be barking if little Johnny wasn't allowed to present his project "Do girls enjoy being raped?" or "The relative effectiveness of suicide techniques".
Wow! From a discussion of race to a discussion of rape and/or suicide! If this is trolling, then it is masterfully done; if not, then it's one of the most blatant "quick-let's-change-the-subject" ways of maneuvering the discussion I've seen in a while!
Simply stated, the science fair is a showcase for people's understanding of the scientific method. What the girl did was reasonable science - she had a hypothesis, she tested the hypothesis, and she compared the results to see if the hypothesis still held. Her experiments did not involve anything illegal nor did they violate any school policies or rules. (So much for your "rape" and "suicide" red herrings.)
Now, according to the teachers there, her research was in an area that might have made others uncomfortable. And that was enough for them to remove her exhibit? I think not!
This whole "snitch" business is yet another attempt by school boards across America to absolve themselves of any and all culpability by making students and teachers responsible for reporting any and all threats. In this way, a school board can make the claim that it is in no way responsible that little Johnny shot up the school because nobody every reported that little Johnny threatened to do so.
I'm reminded of what Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) wrote: "God created the Idiot for practice. After that he created the School Board."
As has been pointed out by other posters here, it's not as though the Phillipines only have one ISP. People there do have a choice.
Now, I have no particular brief for the Roman Catholic church - I disagree with some of their teachings and a lot of their administration. As far as filtering the internet service that they are providing, though, I can't say that it's really any of my business.
Oh, yes, the old straw man argument... "We don't allow Playboy/Penthouse/Hustler/Music Bondage magazine in the library, so we need to apply that to the Internet..."
Now, if I recall correctly, there was a Supreme Court ruling that indicated that content-based censorship was unconstitutional. The argument was that "you can't go through books and mark out or cut out the offensive passages."
It was accepted that libraries could choose not to carry particular books based on the concept of limited resources - "We can't afford to subscribe to every single magazine or buy every book on the market, so we have to make decisions based on that." However, once the library holdings were acquired, the library staff could not go through and start marking out the "naughty bits."
Well, guess what - the Internet is a magazine. The library pays regularly for access, and receives the information from the providers through its network link, rather than throught the U.S. Mail. That is the simplest way to look at Internet access at the library, and if we do that, then it's plain that Internet filtering would come under the heading of content-based censorship.
Now, how much public money will get spent defending this viewpoint is anyone's guess, but nobody said that democracy was cheap.
Is there room for one more in this game?
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
I hear people saying, "We're in a new Renaissance!" and others saying, "No, we're not!"
I don't believe that the Italians of 1455 AD were discussing whether a sea change was undergoing their belief systems, or if these newfangled inventions like the printing press or the "Monke's wrench" (later called a "Monkey wrench") would change civilization as they knew it. I'll bet dollars to donuts that they were busy saying things like, "Hey, neat! This is going to make my life easier!"
When changes like these happen, I don't think people notice them while they're happening. We only notice them when they're over, and we then figure out how to continue with our lives while the next big change occurs. "The New Renaissance" will be followed by "The Second New Renaissance," and eventually the "New And Improved Third Re-Renaissance! (TM) (With Extra Changing Power)!"
I propose that we table the discussion as to whether we're undergoing a Renaissance. The only people who are going to be able to determine that will be the history authors of the future, and their students who will be our (great**3)grandchildren. Let's try do to things that won't cause them to curse our names.
I think that the reason they use the Windows logo is because there are other programs that emulate Windows, such as Win4Lin, Plex86, and VMWare.
You have a good point, though - if Wine continues to head toward this position of dominance, I agree that it would be apropos to create a new logo and a new section.
This is the sort of thing I've been needing for my home system. I'm hooked on Linux, but I haven't been sure where to go without buying up an entire library of documentation.
According to the different people that I asked, the reason given for encryption is "to protect our trade secret/copyright" from duplication.
Yes, it's lame, and it's yet another reason why I won't use any censorware on my home machine, nor willingly let it be used on library computers in my home town.
More importantly, he's asking a very relevant question: in a world where the value of everything is defined by marketing, and everyone knows it, how is it possible for anything to have value or be intrinsically important at all? If everything is marketing, what matters? Unlike Sterling, I think that society as a whole will react by retreating into religion.
Hmmm... is religion something that people "retreat" into? I'm not meaning to throw bottles from the bleachers here, because I will admit to having little use for religion myself, but I wonder if you're correct about that?
If I may be so bold as to look into my own tea leaves, I think that religion may take a hit from the general fatigues which you suggested (quite astutely, too, I might add!). When religions begin to ply the Internet even more thoroughly than they do now (as members become more net-savvy and access becomes easier), there will be a glut of information, and people will look at the various claims by the different faiths, and either dismiss them as more "over-the-top" marketing or find less differences between the competing creeds.
(N.B. The sig doesn't apply here - I'm not intending to be ironic, as most readers (if any) have probably guessed.:) )
This is off-topic, but I'd like to add that this is the sort of interaction that first attracted me to Slashdot!
Rather than jumping all over the first poster of this thread as a "lame suit who doesn't grok," I have seen someone sympathize, respond courteously, and offer an additional point of contact for continued discussion.
I had thought that polite behavior was a thing of the past. I am so delighted to be proved wrong!:)
(N.B. My usual.sig does not apply in this case. In case there was any doubt, I intended no irony, satire, or sarcasm in my commentary!)
I can envision a hue-and-cry among open source users, who will see this (quite justifiably, I might add) as Microsoft's usual policy of "embrace-and-extinguish." There will be vitriolic posts here, full of people who will suggest that we figure out how to hack Microsoft's modification, or send lots and lots of E-mails to Microsoft to vent our collective spleen, and all kinds of howls of outrage.
Shall we try to get the word out on various news services? It could be difficult - the people who don't immediately understand the technical issues are likely to see us as "anti-Microsoft zealots," and subsequently dismiss our complaints as so much noise. Not that we've always been so good at advocating our actions - for every 10 level-headed suggestions, we have one rabid nihilistic recommendation that is far more entertaining, and grabs far more media attention. Unfair, but true.
The problem is this - How can we figure out a way to prevent Microsoft from doing this? And how do we do it without looking like a bunch of lunatic-fringe weirdos?
CyberPatrol does have a page to check their list to see if a site is on it. It does not do much good for seeing how good their list is...
I find it irritating that censorware companies suggest this as a suitable means to find whether a site is blocked or not. These are just fine if the address is known, but what about hyperlinks that don't show the address? In those cases, all you can do is click and hope it doesn't give a 403 error.
The other question that I have is this: what keeps the proxy server from substituting a 403 (forbidden) error return with a 404 (page not found) error code? "I don't know what you're so upset about - it's obvious that this page just doesn't exist any more..."
OK, people, let's hold off a second on the knee-jerk "It's a conspiracy!" response that seems to be automatic to anything done by the FBI.
The FBI is providing a program to detect DDoS attacks. It's lame, it's probably not that effective, the source code is unavailable, and they are overlooking the general level of trust that Slashdotters have for the FBI.
So go ahead and accuse the FBI of suspicious timing, and feel free to cast aspersions on their motives, and by all means consider them responsible for any and every possible disaster going back to the Garden of Eden debacle.
And when you're done, let me know what YOU'VE done to deal with this. At least they're trying to do something...
And finally, the American Family Association, which launched the pro-blocking-software initiative in Holland, is blocked.
So, if I understand correctly, the software solution being proposed will not even allow people to view the site of the organization that began this proposal process!
To use the Latin, "Res ipsa loquitur" (it speaks for itself).
To those three young adults, I have nothing but applause. They found a problem, looked at different possible ways to solve it, chose one that played to their strengths, worked it out, and presented it well.
And now for the brickbats to some of the posters I've seen here:
They should've (done it in LISP/run under a different emulator/used Windows). Look, they chose to solve one problem. They didn't need to learn a new language/find a different emulator/utilize an unfamiliar OS.
Aww, I was doing that when I was 4 years old! I'm glad you were doing that. Now, remember, that this was their project, not yours!
Big deal - how is this News for Nerds? How do you think we get nerds? By encouraging people who take what measures they can to solve problems that they find. As I said above, they looked at alternative solutions and found one that fit what they knew. It's things like this that has made the term "nerd" less of the taunt that it used to be, and more of an honor.
Again, my hat's off to these people, and I hope to see more from them in the future!
The reason that I say this is that the companies will fight tooth and nail to keep from losing their ".com" domain name. The name change would deprive the company of the air of legitimacy that is conferred by ".com". Also, they HAVE already paid for the site name.
Also, there is the question of who would determine whether a site qualified as ".adu" vs. ".com" -- are we going to let Network Associates become the guardians of our children from the perpetrators of pornography? Hell, we're not sure we're ready for them to be the custodians of ".com"-dom...
(Please pardon the alliteration, I was on a roll... and then I slipped off the butter.)
You raise a salient point, and one that I agree with. There is no inherent right for people to browse porn on the internet. The problem is that the blocking software may not limit itself to porn.
It may choose to also block out sites that contain subject matter that the software manufacturers consider distasteful, such as "feminism" or "gay rights" or "censorship."
An additional problem is that you have no way of determining what the sites are that are being blocked. The software manufacturers claim that their lists of blocked sites and keywords are proprietary, and the lists are encrypted.
In short, the library ends up buying a pig in a poke -- they have no idea as to what exactly is being filtered.
That is where I have trouble. If there is a way for libraries to get a full disclosed list of blocked sites and keywords from the software provider, then I would have no trouble with it. But first, let's make sure we know what we're getting for our money.
Does SurfWatch (or any other blocking software) make it clear as to what its criteria are for determining that a site is inappropriate?
Those who check out www.peacefire.org may find that some decidedly odd sites are blocked, including:
the National Organization for Women
the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank)
various gay/lesbian/bi support groups
and, in one case, a newspaper that wrote an article critical of a particular internet filtering package.
The biggest problem with this is that, in the effort to "protect children" by purchasing blocking software, libraries have to submit to the censorship of a company... one whose ownership might have an axe to grind or a particular agenda to advance.
Hopefully a state judge can declare the filtering software violates the "open meetings law" that is passed in most states, as there is no public input to determine the sites to be blocked.
Meanwhile, wake up the neighbors, sound the alarms, and man the barricades!
I had trouble seeing the web page about ignoring the warning labels -- I was laughing so hard that some of my co-workers were beginning to worry a little more about me.
I've wondered what the appeal is about sites such as the "Backyard Ballistics" site, or the page mentioned above. Is part of it the idea of making things go boom without actually hurting anyone? IMHO, I think it might be. Most of the time we're having to do constructive things -- build a web page, write a program, and so forth -- and perhaps we all have a little atavistic urge to go and knock something down for a change.
You raise good points. However, I think you mistook what I said.
Science has never claimed that it does answer everything. However, science has never thrown in the towel, either. Whenever a scientist says, "We don't know..." about 99% of the time there will be a "... yet." tacked on to the end.
Hill's statements seemed to me to be an abdication, a way of saying, "Well, I don't know, but I'll sell it anyway and see what happens." That is condemns him in my eyes.
Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what the evidence so far seems to suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember those times that the Serbs blocked roads with little old ladies, all bunched together screaming profanity at the NATO troops? Those were difficult times for the tank commanders escorting the supply trucks... do anything excessive, and watch the support for intervention dwindle, or wait and let the Bosnian Serbs continue their excesses.
This weapon system would have been effective, while not being as potentially lethal as riot gas grenades might have been.
Now, if this isn't one of the most pious-sounding and morally smug pieces of garbage that I've had the misfortune of finding!
Don't you remember that it was the assistant principal who made the decision to suspend this kid? It was his high-handed behavior and arrogant assumption that his authority extended beyond the school halls that led to the lawsuit.
This could have been prevented, but by spanking whom?
Wow! From a discussion of race to a discussion of rape and/or suicide! If this is trolling, then it is masterfully done; if not, then it's one of the most blatant "quick-let's-change-the-subject" ways of maneuvering the discussion I've seen in a while!
Simply stated, the science fair is a showcase for people's understanding of the scientific method. What the girl did was reasonable science - she had a hypothesis, she tested the hypothesis, and she compared the results to see if the hypothesis still held. Her experiments did not involve anything illegal nor did they violate any school policies or rules. (So much for your "rape" and "suicide" red herrings.)
Now, according to the teachers there, her research was in an area that might have made others uncomfortable. And that was enough for them to remove her exhibit? I think not!
I'm reminded of what Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) wrote: "God created the Idiot for practice. After that he created the School Board."
Now, I have no particular brief for the Roman Catholic church - I disagree with some of their teachings and a lot of their administration. As far as filtering the internet service that they are providing, though, I can't say that it's really any of my business.
Now, if I recall correctly, there was a Supreme Court ruling that indicated that content-based censorship was unconstitutional. The argument was that "you can't go through books and mark out or cut out the offensive passages."
It was accepted that libraries could choose not to carry particular books based on the concept of limited resources - "We can't afford to subscribe to every single magazine or buy every book on the market, so we have to make decisions based on that." However, once the library holdings were acquired, the library staff could not go through and start marking out the "naughty bits."
Well, guess what - the Internet is a magazine. The library pays regularly for access, and receives the information from the providers through its network link, rather than throught the U.S. Mail. That is the simplest way to look at Internet access at the library, and if we do that, then it's plain that Internet filtering would come under the heading of content-based censorship.
Now, how much public money will get spent defending this viewpoint is anyone's guess, but nobody said that democracy was cheap.
When changes like these happen, I don't think people notice them while they're happening. We only notice them when they're over, and we then figure out how to continue with our lives while the next big change occurs. "The New Renaissance" will be followed by "The Second New Renaissance," and eventually the "New And Improved Third Re-Renaissance! (TM) (With Extra Changing Power)!"
I propose that we table the discussion as to whether we're undergoing a Renaissance. The only people who are going to be able to determine that will be the history authors of the future, and their students who will be our (great**3)grandchildren. Let's try do to things that won't cause them to curse our names.
I think that the reason they use the Windows logo is because there are other programs that emulate Windows, such as Win4Lin, Plex86, and VMWare.
You have a good point, though - if Wine continues to head toward this position of dominance, I agree that it would be apropos to create a new logo and a new section.
Captain Sarcastic
Thanks!
This is the sort of thing I've been needing for my home system. I'm hooked on Linux, but I haven't been sure where to go without buying up an entire library of documentation.
Much obliged, friend!
Yes, it's lame, and it's yet another reason why I won't use any censorware on my home machine, nor willingly let it be used on library computers in my home town.
Hmmm... is religion something that people "retreat" into? I'm not meaning to throw bottles from the bleachers here, because I will admit to having little use for religion myself, but I wonder if you're correct about that?
If I may be so bold as to look into my own tea leaves, I think that religion may take a hit from the general fatigues which you suggested (quite astutely, too, I might add!). When religions begin to ply the Internet even more thoroughly than they do now (as members become more net-savvy and access becomes easier), there will be a glut of information, and people will look at the various claims by the different faiths, and either dismiss them as more "over-the-top" marketing or find less differences between the competing creeds.
(N.B. The sig doesn't apply here - I'm not intending to be ironic, as most readers (if any) have probably guessed. :) )
Rather than jumping all over the first poster of this thread as a "lame suit who doesn't grok," I have seen someone sympathize, respond courteously, and offer an additional point of contact for continued discussion.
I had thought that polite behavior was a thing of the past. I am so delighted to be proved wrong! :)
(N.B. My usual .sig does not apply in this case. In case there was any doubt, I intended no irony, satire, or sarcasm in my commentary!)
Shall we try to get the word out on various news services? It could be difficult - the people who don't immediately understand the technical issues are likely to see us as "anti-Microsoft zealots," and subsequently dismiss our complaints as so much noise. Not that we've always been so good at advocating our actions - for every 10 level-headed suggestions, we have one rabid nihilistic recommendation that is far more entertaining, and grabs far more media attention. Unfair, but true.
The problem is this - How can we figure out a way to prevent Microsoft from doing this? And how do we do it without looking like a bunch of lunatic-fringe weirdos?
I find it irritating that censorware companies suggest this as a suitable means to find whether a site is blocked or not. These are just fine if the address is known, but what about hyperlinks that don't show the address? In those cases, all you can do is click and hope it doesn't give a 403 error.
The other question that I have is this: what keeps the proxy server from substituting a 403 (forbidden) error return with a 404 (page not found) error code? "I don't know what you're so upset about - it's obvious that this page just doesn't exist any more..."
Or am I just being paranoid?
The FBI is providing a program to detect DDoS attacks. It's lame, it's probably not that effective, the source code is unavailable, and they are overlooking the general level of trust that Slashdotters have for the FBI.
So go ahead and accuse the FBI of suspicious timing, and feel free to cast aspersions on their motives, and by all means consider them responsible for any and every possible disaster going back to the Garden of Eden debacle.
And when you're done, let me know what YOU'VE done to deal with this. At least they're trying to do something...
To use the Latin, "Res ipsa loquitur" (it speaks for itself).
And now for the brickbats to some of the posters I've seen here:
Again, my hat's off to these people, and I hope to see more from them in the future!
The reason that I say this is that the companies will fight tooth and nail to keep from losing their ".com" domain name. The name change would deprive the company of the air of legitimacy that is conferred by ".com". Also, they HAVE already paid for the site name.
Also, there is the question of who would determine whether a site qualified as ".adu" vs. ".com" -- are we going to let Network Associates become the guardians of our children from the perpetrators of pornography? Hell, we're not sure we're ready for them to be the custodians of ".com"-dom...
(Please pardon the alliteration, I was on a roll... and then I slipped off the butter.)
It may choose to also block out sites that contain subject matter that the software manufacturers consider distasteful, such as "feminism" or "gay rights" or "censorship."
An additional problem is that you have no way of determining what the sites are that are being blocked. The software manufacturers claim that their lists of blocked sites and keywords are proprietary, and the lists are encrypted.
In short, the library ends up buying a pig in a poke -- they have no idea as to what exactly is being filtered.
That is where I have trouble. If there is a way for libraries to get a full disclosed list of blocked sites and keywords from the software provider, then I would have no trouble with it. But first, let's make sure we know what we're getting for our money.
Those who check out www.peacefire.org may find that some decidedly odd sites are blocked, including:
The biggest problem with this is that, in the effort to "protect children" by purchasing blocking software, libraries have to submit to the censorship of a company... one whose ownership might have an axe to grind or a particular agenda to advance.
Hopefully a state judge can declare the filtering software violates the "open meetings law" that is passed in most states, as there is no public input to determine the sites to be blocked.
Meanwhile, wake up the neighbors, sound the alarms, and man the barricades!
I've wondered what the appeal is about sites such as the "Backyard Ballistics" site, or the page mentioned above. Is part of it the idea of making things go boom without actually hurting anyone? IMHO, I think it might be. Most of the time we're having to do constructive things -- build a web page, write a program, and so forth -- and perhaps we all have a little atavistic urge to go and knock something down for a change.
Don't people realize that our genes are important and should be passed on to the next gen... ooops.
That was "celebrate", not "celibate"?
Never mind!
-- Andrew Jackson
Science has never claimed that it does answer everything. However, science has never thrown in the towel, either. Whenever a scientist says, "We don't know..." about 99% of the time there will be a "... yet." tacked on to the end.
Hill's statements seemed to me to be an abdication, a way of saying, "Well, I don't know, but I'll sell it anyway and see what happens." That is condemns him in my eyes.
Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what the evidence so far seems to suggest.