I'd much rather have my kids participate in meatspace team-building starting with after-school programs and then moving on to the football team or the academic decathalon or robotics
You will find much of the group activities that children do are anti-social and competitive in nature. Though this is not just limited to children, adults who are socialized also exhibit anti-social behaviors like gossip, peer-pressure, pecking orders, all means of physical and psychological aggression; there have even been entire books published about the irrationality of crowds.
Competitive sports is one of the worst things to get children involved in. These are often injury prone activities which have marginal educational or intellectual value. As a child I've learned far more from television and books than I have from playing street hockey.
My parents dragged my kicking and screaming into daycare
Not something to be proud of. Ideally your parents should have raised you instead of an institution.
then later pulled me off of my precious NES which caused me to get on my bike and jump dirt hills with friends, then again they dragged me into the football team against my wishes.
Jumping off dirt hills is neither educational, enlightening, nor safe; and football is one of the most injury prone sports.
then I discovered that I actually found those activities preferable to wasting away in front of a TV or monitor.
You would have learned far more from watching the Flintstones, Gilligan's Island, or Mr. Rogers than playing football. What children learn from socializing with each other is what most adults learn from socializing with each other; they learn to re-enforce their prejudices, and waste their time talking about mindless and trivial matters.
Employers may monitor employees' phone calls [privacyrights.org] and location [privacyrights.org] (using cell towers or GPS).
I'm talking about telcos here and not employee/employer relationships.
Cell phone companies are required by the FCC to have the ability to track your location to within 100 meters for the purposes of 911 calls.
Not really relevant to what I was asking.
Telephone company employees may listen to your conversations when it is necessary to provide you with service, to inspect the telephone system, to monitor the quality of telephone service or to protect against service theft or harassment.
That's what I already presumed and stated in my earlier comment; as I've stated I was more interested in knowing whether the telco had unlimited access and liability to listen in whenever they wanted (as was your original statement of facts).
Note that the above paragraph gives telephone companies free license to listen to phone conversations
That's your interpretation. As I've stated I was looking for specific laws or precedent and not legally dubious loop-holes.
Unfortunately all of your examples and references refer to the USA; I was specifically talking about and mentioned Canada and it's much stricter privacy laws. I will give you kudos for going out of the way to do some research however. It does appear to me that your initial statements are actually just dubious assumptions.
since legally there is no expectation or indication of privacy from the network owner, and that legally they can do pretty much whatever they want to the packets on their network (assuming no breach of contract or misrepresentation of services has occurred).
Since you appear to know the law, it would be helpful if you gave a reference to any evidence you have to this statement. In Canada our privacy laws have always been rather strict (as compared to the US for example). I personally doubt that phone companies can listen to phone calls or Internet sessions at their whim. However if you provide some evidence to this it may change my perceptions (and I'm talking about actual laws or legal precedents and not just possibly illegal EULAs or inadvertent listening do to maintenance work).
Shaping traffic to ensure the overall health of the network is fine
I don't have a major philosophical argument against this statement. The problem arises when: a) There are not formalized and published rules about the shaping b) Shaping isn't done discriminately (i.e. favouring one protocol over another, like VOIP over Gnutella for example. Telling customers which protocol is more important to their network is discriminatory. So if I wanted to develop a completely legal and exclusively p2p network over the DSL lines I would be SOL here for any type of consistent service I could offer my customers) c) Shaping isn't done to game the economics of the monopoly infrastructure (i.e. continually throttling services more and more to prevent needed infrastructure improvements) d) Shaping is done in the fairest possible manner (related to points a, b, and but there are an infinite number of other variables to consider)
Of course it can be argued that shaping isn't needed at all, and that ISPs shouldn't sell more bandwidth than they are able to produce. This is especially true for corporations who have the infrastructure monopoly. If ISPs wholesale a certain amount of bandwidth then their customers should get what they pay for. There should be choice here and it should be reasonable. I'm not seeing any choice here nor any reasonableness.
P2P is not (yet, as far as I know) illegal in Canada. At any rate ISPs should NOT be policing the Internet (because, among other reasons, LAWS are arbitrary and bandwidth is neutral). I wish I could just say I'm going to drop Bell Canada as an ISP but I am not using Bell Canada, I am using a far cheaper and more net neutral ISP. Unfortunately Bell Canada has an infrastructure monopoly which is supposed to be regulated to prevent abuse.
The CRTC has become a corporate pawn (notice the introduction of Fox News into Canada and the denial of Al Jazeera), amongst other right-wing favouritisms over the years. I've personally complained to the CRTC in the past (about another issue) but they only told me I need to complain to my member of parliament. I would dismantle the CRTC if I could because they are worthless (to consumers) except to the corporate broadcasting/telecommunication elites in this country.
Your examples seem to be well chosen. I've met prostitutes who do make lots of money. In this case you're not even referring to prostitution but to the act of pimping and more specifically human slavery. Taking advantage of people is well known in the garment industry as well. It would be far better to make the garment industry illegal, for then people would not have any moral scruples and excuses for being naked.
Your last paragraph shows where your objectivity and honesty (and morality, or lack-there-of) lie:
Women who work in a sex industry that caters 99.9 percent to the basest desires of men stand a very high chance of being abused or victimized -- if not physically, then emotionally, financially, etc. This is going to be true whether society formally condones prostitution or not. The act of seeking sexual gratification without concern for your partner is an asocial act, and as such it should be (at minimum) monitored carefully.
Like the banking industry though, regulating and legalizing prostitution is helpful (like in Nevada). What is obvious is that criminalizing prostitution does not work; it only drives the business underground and makes victims of innocent people.
I know people with PhDs in stats, math and physics who work in marketing.
In that case "Marketing" would not seem to be a logical career choice for somebody who doesn't like Maths or Sciences.
Yes, even in Warehouse work (shipping, receiving, etc) there is a great deal of Mathematics and Science involved. There are PhD's who have derived equations to help the field during World War Two and beyond. The same with the insurance industry. Marketing can be very, very advanced; as can almost any other field. The point is that this person is not interested in Maths and Sciences.
Wrong. My post is directly related to the parent post. Secondly I'm not positioning myself for Karma; I would expect the possibility of getting modded Offtopic myself to be high. Unlike you I don't feel compelled to post as an AC; if people don't like me then they can Foe me and leave me posting at -1 Karma. You are sad for your dishonest Troll (and I suspect that you are the GP here, but yeah that's just a guess).
Your post is Offtopic and un-Insightful and relates in no way to the Parent post. You merely posted here because you knew you were more likely to get Mod points. Let's be honest with ourselves and stop Gaming the system.
Your attitude and intelligence is probably the same as many others who posted here. If you haven't been promoted into Management already then I would be surprised.
Since your niece obviously doesn't want to pursue a career or education that involves either (MIT level) Mathematics or Science then it is illogical that you posted a question involving your niece that is about getting into a career that involves Mathematics and Science. What your question should have been is something like "What type of education and careers can my niece pursue that involves creativity, but without the need for MIT level Mathematics or engineering."
Your whole Slashdot article/question is an obvious Troll. You could have been more obvious (and honest) by asking something like this, "How can I manipulate my niece into pursuing an engineering career so that I can feel self-important through my niece?".
Fight the good fight and deny the Puritan ideology that infects our culture. But don't be foolish.
I'm not foolish, and I have no idea why anybody would consider me foolish. I won't fight since I know I will loose (notice the fact that I got modded -1 Flaimbait for my opinions). I can't help but to find it sad and depressing that people view sex and sexuality as being negative and that people will merely dismiss my arguments as Flaimbait instead of considering them in a logical and rational manner.
Claiming that pornography is "never inappropriate" is ludicrous.
An over-generalization perhaps, but as generalizations go I will stick to my guns. These are ideals and I recognize the impracticality of some ideals.
Meta-moderators: don't be fanatical right-wing Christians and leave the parent moderations of "Faimbait" go unpunished. People who modded this post as "Flaimbait" (and not Insightful) should be ashamed.
It also might shock you to know that pornography is entirely inappropriate in some environments. Especially that particular one.
Wrong. Pornography is never inappropriate. Anybody who considers visual depictions of sex to be inappropriate in any environment has some very serious problems. If somebody needs to use packet sniffers to determine that people are viewing this material then it is obvious that there is a problem with the appropriate behaviour of Management. If viewing pictures of Mars does not have a negative effect on workplace productivity then neither should nude bodies, whatever they happen to be engaged in. So yes it is quite bizarre that these people (seem) to focus on pornography (by creating a "skin folder") and not on "furniture" or anything else.
And who said anything about email?
You originally stated,
...it really liked the time pictures of camel spiders in Sandland were the hot topic of emails
so I presumed that all Internet traffic was sniffed, and not just Web traffic.
The project did little more than provide a guise of "doing something" and feeding particular individual power-trips.
It's bizarre how or why some wierdo in your company would consider "skin" to be "suspect". It's also quite bizarre why your company would be interested in "sniffing" employees email. If somebody was so interested in reading other peoples emails then that person should have just asked employees to forward copies of the email to the appropriate accounts.
SECAU was also considering another purpose-built CD to search financial documents for use by a fraud squad or those hunting terrorists using keywords.
Another example of how the fight against privacy has little to do with terrorism. Perversion is of greater concern to the Right Wing than fighting violent crime.
The article offers no details on what means the software uses to identify suspicious files.
I highly suspect that the police don't want people to know the details of how sophisticated their technology is because they don't want to embarrass themselves. Keeping an aura of mystery and FUD around themselves and their techniques is also a form of psych-ops; it's the chrome facade of a lemon.
Yet another think-of-the-children article. First off not all Zombies are bad. There has been a lot of negative and biased media regarding Zombies, most of which is complete fiction. The media always likes to sensationalize and dwell upon the negative.
From the Canadian Society Counteracting The Unfair Treatment Of The Living Impaired (CSCTUTOTLI):
Zombies are people too and should not be judged by the few of their kind that are actually bad or the stereotypes depicted by television and movies.
If we could make an effort to live with them instead of demonizing them the world would be a far better place.
One must first try to solve the problem instead of merely dealing with the consequences. If people don't like Zombies in the first place then "scientists" should stop experimenting with genetic engineering, human cloning etc. Stop trying to play god with life forms. Prevention is always better than a cure.
One of the best methods for dealing with unruly Zombies is proper and professional training, make sure they are properly leashed and muzzled when in public, and make sure that children don't approach Zombies without proper parental supervision.
If you are really interested in helping the cause against Zombie discrimination then you should try to find a local chapter of PETZ (People for the Ethical Treatment of Zombies).
It should be pointed out that there is a difference between economic interventionism and regulation. That is, there is a difference between such things like wage and price controls, pork belly politics, etc and regulating against fraud or monopolistic practices.
The current economic crisis appears to have happened because of the lack of regulation.
As a person who used to be a child I strongly disagree. Most children argue nonsensically as do most adults. Being nonsensical is not inherently childlike but is just a part of the human condition. Adults merely have the education to make their nonsensical arguments more elaborate.
He feels that games should be archived in the same way that music, books and film are preserved
Let's hope he changes his mind. Today's music, books and film are archived in proprietary formats, often requiring proprietary for-profit DRM services and software to access, legal (copyright) restrictions on making backup copies; and in the case of movies and TV shows the original films are often changed to suit the fad of the current day while the original copies sit literally rotting in storage. Books are often stolen or vandalized in libraries (including more restrictive academic libraries), and many are just banned and even burned because of PTA (think-of-the-children) activism.
Once knowledge becomes commercialized and given moral value then archivism will deal more with political science rather than library science.
Interesting and disappointing how such Flamebait can be modded up so much and so quickly. It's scary that there are so many dangerous and immoral people in the world.
I agree, and so my usual comparison of sex and religion (and there are many ironies juxtaposing the two). It is always the most religious who are most indignatious and guilty. Religion is indeed scarier than sex; whether the religion is a more secular "save-the-children" belief or something more superstitious. It is the fanaticism of Faith that scares me the most, and the irrationality of crowds (congregations).
I've heard Fundamentalist Muslim men say they couldn't control themselves if woman were allowed to show any skin (including the face). I see the same type of attitude in the West with the views the Religious Right has towards children. The people who want to control people the most (through laws or violence) are the people whom we should be afraid of.
Those who deal in child pornography and prey on children are, to my mind, some of the worst examples of humanity out there. I wouldn't bat an eye if they increased the prison sentences for them to life or allowed capital punishment.
I usually see a lot of hypocrisy in people however. People will demonize sex which is healthy, but they will in turn let children be subjected to religious perversions.
I personally am against the death penalty, especially for "sex crimes". I will give people who pervert the minds of children with religion little sympathy however. I wish there were vigilantes who protect children from religious fanatics because that is where the real danger lies. Unfortunately the people who prey on children the most are the religious, and there's not much we can do about it except for vigilantism.
Nearly all sites use JS in some form. Many use it as a crucial part of their setup.
I've found most sites are operable without forcing a person to use JavaScript. The ones that aren't probably violate accessibility laws (kudos to the people who already brought that point up). Most sites that enforce Web 2.0 type restrictions I have found to be low in quality (like youtube).
Maybe I don't go to the sites that you (and many others) go to. I certainly don't have a MySpace or Facebook account -:) For me, I avoid Web 2.0 type sites, though they do seem to be gaining in popularity (probably the reason I get down-modded every time I say anything against them). For me, if a Web designer can't figure out how to design a site without having to use Web 2.0 technology then the content is probably as lame as the style (and yes, I've found that to be the case). If a person want's videos then a better place to search for them is on Usenet or bittorent (the videos will be higher quality, there will be no ads, and no Web 2.0 annoyances), and a lot of P2P clients have instant messages built right in. Just like DRM lead to the downfall of traditional music revenue, so I believe that Web 2.0 will eventually lead to the Downfall of Web browsing as users like myself choose technologies which they have control over (like IRC as opposed to AIM), or Freenet as opposed to traditional Web sites. THIS I can see happening if Web designers and their companies continue on the path that they are on. Regular AOL users will continue to get their Web 2.0 experiences while the rest of us retreat to technologies that WE have control of instead of the multinationals and business type marketing people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd much rather have my kids participate in meatspace team-building starting with after-school programs and then moving on to the football team or the academic decathalon or robotics
You will find much of the group activities that children do are anti-social and competitive in nature. Though this is not just limited to children, adults who are socialized also exhibit anti-social behaviors like gossip, peer-pressure, pecking orders, all means of physical and psychological aggression; there have even been entire books published about the irrationality of crowds.
Competitive sports is one of the worst things to get children involved in. These are often injury prone activities which have marginal educational or intellectual value. As a child I've learned far more from television and books than I have from playing street hockey.
My parents dragged my kicking and screaming into daycare
Not something to be proud of. Ideally your parents should have raised you instead of an institution.
then later pulled me off of my precious NES which caused me to get on my bike and jump dirt hills with friends, then again they dragged me into the football team against my wishes.
Jumping off dirt hills is neither educational, enlightening, nor safe; and football is one of the most injury prone sports.
then I discovered that I actually found those activities preferable to wasting away in front of a TV or monitor.
You would have learned far more from watching the Flintstones, Gilligan's Island, or Mr. Rogers than playing football. What children learn from socializing with each other is what most adults learn from socializing with each other; they learn to re-enforce their prejudices, and waste their time talking about mindless and trivial matters.
Employers may monitor employees' phone calls [privacyrights.org] and location [privacyrights.org] (using cell towers or GPS).
I'm talking about telcos here and not employee/employer relationships.
Cell phone companies are required by the FCC to have the ability to track your location to within 100 meters for the purposes of 911 calls.
Not really relevant to what I was asking.
Telephone company employees may listen to your conversations when it is necessary to provide you with service, to inspect the telephone system, to monitor the quality of telephone service or to protect against service theft or harassment.
That's what I already presumed and stated in my earlier comment; as I've stated I was more interested in knowing whether the telco had unlimited access and liability to listen in whenever they wanted (as was your original statement of facts).
Note that the above paragraph gives telephone companies free license to listen to phone conversations
That's your interpretation. As I've stated I was looking for specific laws or precedent and not legally dubious loop-holes.
Unfortunately all of your examples and references refer to the USA; I was specifically talking about and mentioned Canada and it's much stricter privacy laws. I will give you kudos for going out of the way to do some research however. It does appear to me that your initial statements are actually just dubious assumptions.
Best regards,
UTW
since legally there is no expectation or indication of privacy from the network owner, and that legally they can do pretty much whatever they want to the packets on their network (assuming no breach of contract or misrepresentation of services has occurred).
Since you appear to know the law, it would be helpful if you gave a reference to any evidence you have to this statement. In Canada our privacy laws have always been rather strict (as compared to the US for example). I personally doubt that phone companies can listen to phone calls or Internet sessions at their whim. However if you provide some evidence to this it may change my perceptions (and I'm talking about actual laws or legal precedents and not just possibly illegal EULAs or inadvertent listening do to maintenance work).
Shaping traffic to ensure the overall health of the network is fine
I don't have a major philosophical argument against this statement. The problem arises when:
a) There are not formalized and published rules about the shaping
b) Shaping isn't done discriminately (i.e. favouring one protocol over another, like VOIP over Gnutella for example. Telling customers which protocol is more important to their network is discriminatory. So if I wanted to develop a completely legal and exclusively p2p network over the DSL lines I would be SOL here for any type of consistent service I could offer my customers)
c) Shaping isn't done to game the economics of the monopoly infrastructure (i.e. continually throttling services more and more to prevent needed infrastructure improvements)
d) Shaping is done in the fairest possible manner (related to points a, b, and but there are an infinite number of other variables to consider)
Of course it can be argued that shaping isn't needed at all, and that ISPs shouldn't sell more bandwidth than they are able to produce. This is especially true for corporations who have the infrastructure monopoly. If ISPs wholesale a certain amount of bandwidth then their customers should get what they pay for. There should be choice here and it should be reasonable. I'm not seeing any choice here nor any reasonableness.
P2P is not (yet, as far as I know) illegal in Canada. At any rate ISPs should NOT be policing the Internet (because, among other reasons, LAWS are arbitrary and bandwidth is neutral). I wish I could just say I'm going to drop Bell Canada as an ISP but I am not using Bell Canada, I am using a far cheaper and more net neutral ISP. Unfortunately Bell Canada has an infrastructure monopoly which is supposed to be regulated to prevent abuse.
The CRTC has become a corporate pawn (notice the introduction of Fox News into Canada and the denial of Al Jazeera), amongst other right-wing favouritisms over the years. I've personally complained to the CRTC in the past (about another issue) but they only told me I need to complain to my member of parliament. I would dismantle the CRTC if I could because they are worthless (to consumers) except to the corporate broadcasting/telecommunication elites in this country.
Your examples seem to be well chosen. I've met prostitutes who do make lots of money. In this case you're not even referring to prostitution but to the act of pimping and more specifically human slavery. Taking advantage of people is well known in the garment industry as well. It would be far better to make the garment industry illegal, for then people would not have any moral scruples and excuses for being naked.
Your last paragraph shows where your objectivity and honesty (and morality, or lack-there-of) lie:
Women who work in a sex industry that caters 99.9 percent to the basest desires of men stand a very high chance of being abused or victimized -- if not physically, then emotionally, financially, etc. This is going to be true whether society formally condones prostitution or not. The act of seeking sexual gratification without concern for your partner is an asocial act, and as such it should be (at minimum) monitored carefully.
Deregulating immorality does NOT work.
Prostitution has nothing to do with immorality.
Like the banking industry though, regulating and legalizing prostitution is helpful (like in Nevada). What is obvious is that criminalizing prostitution does not work; it only drives the business underground and makes victims of innocent people.
I know people with PhDs in stats, math and physics who work in marketing.
In that case "Marketing" would not seem to be a logical career choice for somebody who doesn't like Maths or Sciences.
Yes, even in Warehouse work (shipping, receiving, etc) there is a great deal of Mathematics and Science involved. There are PhD's who have derived equations to help the field during World War Two and beyond. The same with the insurance industry. Marketing can be very, very advanced; as can almost any other field. The point is that this person is not interested in Maths and Sciences.
Wrong. My post is directly related to the parent post. Secondly I'm not positioning myself for Karma; I would expect the possibility of getting modded Offtopic myself to be high. Unlike you I don't feel compelled to post as an AC; if people don't like me then they can Foe me and leave me posting at -1 Karma. You are sad for your dishonest Troll (and I suspect that you are the GP here, but yeah that's just a guess).
Your post is Offtopic and un-Insightful and relates in no way to the Parent post. You merely posted here because you knew you were more likely to get Mod points. Let's be honest with ourselves and stop Gaming the system.
Your attitude and intelligence is probably the same as many others who posted here. If you haven't been promoted into Management already then I would be surprised.
Since your niece obviously doesn't want to pursue a career or education that involves either (MIT level) Mathematics or Science then it is illogical that you posted a question involving your niece that is about getting into a career that involves Mathematics and Science. What your question should have been is something like "What type of education and careers can my niece pursue that involves creativity, but without the need for MIT level Mathematics or engineering."
Your whole Slashdot article/question is an obvious Troll. You could have been more obvious (and honest) by asking something like this, "How can I manipulate my niece into pursuing an engineering career so that I can feel self-important through my niece?".
Fight the good fight and deny the Puritan ideology that infects our culture. But don't be foolish.
I'm not foolish, and I have no idea why anybody would consider me foolish. I won't fight since I know I will loose (notice the fact that I got modded -1 Flaimbait for my opinions). I can't help but to find it sad and depressing that people view sex and sexuality as being negative and that people will merely dismiss my arguments as Flaimbait instead of considering them in a logical and rational manner.
Claiming that pornography is "never inappropriate" is ludicrous.
An over-generalization perhaps, but as generalizations go I will stick to my guns. These are ideals and I recognize the impracticality of some ideals.
Best regards,
UTW
Meta-moderators: don't be fanatical right-wing Christians and leave the parent moderations of "Faimbait" go unpunished. People who modded this post as "Flaimbait" (and not Insightful) should be ashamed.
I'm surprised that this confuses you.
I wasn't confused. It does disappoint me however.
It also might shock you to know that pornography is entirely inappropriate in some environments. Especially that particular one.
Wrong. Pornography is never inappropriate. Anybody who considers visual depictions of sex to be inappropriate in any environment has some very serious problems. If somebody needs to use packet sniffers to determine that people are viewing this material then it is obvious that there is a problem with the appropriate behaviour of Management. If viewing pictures of Mars does not have a negative effect on workplace productivity then neither should nude bodies, whatever they happen to be engaged in. So yes it is quite bizarre that these people (seem) to focus on pornography (by creating a "skin folder") and not on "furniture" or anything else.
And who said anything about email?
You originally stated,
...it really liked the time pictures of camel spiders in Sandland were the hot topic of emails
so I presumed that all Internet traffic was sniffed, and not just Web traffic.
The project did little more than provide a guise of "doing something" and feeding particular individual power-trips.
That's what I presumed.
generate a "skin folder" of suspect imagery
It's bizarre how or why some wierdo in your company would consider "skin" to be "suspect". It's also quite bizarre why your company would be interested in "sniffing" employees email. If somebody was so interested in reading other peoples emails then that person should have just asked employees to forward copies of the email to the appropriate accounts.
SECAU was also considering another purpose-built CD to search financial documents for use by a fraud squad or those hunting terrorists using keywords.
Another example of how the fight against privacy has little to do with terrorism. Perversion is of greater concern to the Right Wing than fighting violent crime.
The article offers no details on what means the software uses to identify suspicious files.
I highly suspect that the police don't want people to know the details of how sophisticated their technology is because they don't want to embarrass themselves. Keeping an aura of mystery and FUD around themselves and their techniques is also a form of psych-ops; it's the chrome facade of a lemon.
Yet another think-of-the-children article. First off not all Zombies are bad. There has been a lot of negative and biased media regarding Zombies, most of which is complete fiction. The media always likes to sensationalize and dwell upon the negative.
From the Canadian Society Counteracting The Unfair Treatment Of The Living Impaired (CSCTUTOTLI):
Zombies are people too and should not be judged by the few of their kind that are actually bad or the stereotypes depicted by television and movies.
- http://www.ifyouwereazombie.com/50-we-get-letters...-zombies-eh.-take-off-hoser.html
If we could make an effort to live with them instead of demonizing them the world would be a far better place.
One must first try to solve the problem instead of merely dealing with the consequences. If people don't like Zombies in the first place then "scientists" should stop experimenting with genetic engineering, human cloning etc. Stop trying to play god with life forms. Prevention is always better than a cure.
One of the best methods for dealing with unruly Zombies is proper and professional training, make sure they are properly leashed and muzzled when in public, and make sure that children don't approach Zombies without proper parental supervision.
Before posting such lame and biased topics on slashdot people should first do some research. While there is very little scientific research on the topic of Zombies, I have listed a couple of related articles:
- http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1441495520-41605750/content~content=a714022128~db=all
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W84-4D1MX3K-6&_user=10&_origUdi=B75JF-4DHWX0N-F&_fmt=high&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db53fa206b2c098c5c0ce2758901d679
If you are really interested in helping the cause against Zombie discrimination then you should try to find a local chapter of PETZ (People for the Ethical Treatment of Zombies).
It should be pointed out that there is a difference between economic interventionism and regulation. That is, there is a difference between such things like wage and price controls, pork belly politics, etc and regulating against fraud or monopolistic practices.
The current economic crisis appears to have happened because of the lack of regulation.
"It reminds me of how a child argues"
As a person who used to be a child I strongly disagree. Most children argue nonsensically as do most adults. Being nonsensical is not inherently childlike but is just a part of the human condition. Adults merely have the education to make their nonsensical arguments more elaborate.
He feels that games should be archived in the same way that music, books and film are preserved
Let's hope he changes his mind. Today's music, books and film are archived in proprietary formats, often requiring proprietary for-profit DRM services and software to access, legal (copyright) restrictions on making backup copies; and in the case of movies and TV shows the original films are often changed to suit the fad of the current day while the original copies sit literally rotting in storage. Books are often stolen or vandalized in libraries (including more restrictive academic libraries), and many are just banned and even burned because of PTA (think-of-the-children) activism.
Once knowledge becomes commercialized and given moral value then archivism will deal more with political science rather than library science.
...should be flayed and burned where they stand.
Interesting and disappointing how such Flamebait can be modded up so much and so quickly. It's scary that there are so many dangerous and immoral people in the world.
Methinks he doth protest too much, actually
I agree, and so my usual comparison of sex and religion (and there are many ironies juxtaposing the two). It is always the most religious who are most indignatious and guilty. Religion is indeed scarier than sex; whether the religion is a more secular "save-the-children" belief or something more superstitious. It is the fanaticism of Faith that scares me the most, and the irrationality of crowds (congregations).
I've heard Fundamentalist Muslim men say they couldn't control themselves if woman were allowed to show any skin (including the face). I see the same type of attitude in the West with the views the Religious Right has towards children. The people who want to control people the most (through laws or violence) are the people whom we should be afraid of.
Best regards,
UTW
Those who deal in child pornography and prey on children are, to my mind, some of the worst examples of humanity out there. I wouldn't bat an eye if they increased the prison sentences for them to life or allowed capital punishment.
I usually see a lot of hypocrisy in people however. People will demonize sex which is healthy, but they will in turn let children be subjected to religious perversions.
I personally am against the death penalty, especially for "sex crimes". I will give people who pervert the minds of children with religion little sympathy however. I wish there were vigilantes who protect children from religious fanatics because that is where the real danger lies. Unfortunately the people who prey on children the most are the religious, and there's not much we can do about it except for vigilantism.
Nearly all sites use JS in some form. Many use it as a crucial part of their setup.
I've found most sites are operable without forcing a person to use JavaScript. The ones that aren't probably violate accessibility laws (kudos to the people who already brought that point up). Most sites that enforce Web 2.0 type restrictions I have found to be low in quality (like youtube).
Maybe I don't go to the sites that you (and many others) go to. I certainly don't have a MySpace or Facebook account -:) For me, I avoid Web 2.0 type sites, though they do seem to be gaining in popularity (probably the reason I get down-modded every time I say anything against them). For me, if a Web designer can't figure out how to design a site without having to use Web 2.0 technology then the content is probably as lame as the style (and yes, I've found that to be the case). If a person want's videos then a better place to search for them is on Usenet or bittorent (the videos will be higher quality, there will be no ads, and no Web 2.0 annoyances), and a lot of P2P clients have instant messages built right in. Just like DRM lead to the downfall of traditional music revenue, so I believe that Web 2.0 will eventually lead to the Downfall of Web browsing as users like myself choose technologies which they have control over (like IRC as opposed to AIM), or Freenet as opposed to traditional Web sites. THIS I can see happening if Web designers and their companies continue on the path that they are on. Regular AOL users will continue to get their Web 2.0 experiences while the rest of us retreat to technologies that WE have control of instead of the multinationals and business type marketing people.