More people == more people to be offended by what the other people are doing.
Now, we can't possibly allow people to be offended, so we must protect them. We must at all costs not allow these people to feel "different" in any way.
Now, some people want to be different. They get together with the other people and dress/talk/walk different. Just like the rest of their friends.
Also, the more people you can tax the more money is there for the taking which means more people want to get a slice of that pie. Then you have to regulate the regulators who take even more money. Then those people must be regulated. The public cannot be trusted to make these kinds of decisions because someone somewhere will at some point be offended by something. And we just can't have that.
I know I'm trying to introduce logic into a system that clearly was not designed to handle it, but how is this for a simple solution to your question.
Any collection of web pages that is designed to be viewed as a single object.
With your examples, every single one of the "sites" would be their own entity.
To put another example out there, my brother has a web page that is mostly hosted by a provider. There are certain things that provider will not host, and those portions are on my server at home. This makes, blog.jombee.com, chat.jombee.com and www.jombee.com all one single entity because they are designed to work with each other, the subdomains are there to physically separate a single logical entity onto multiple servers.
If the site is designed to be viewed as a whole object, even if there are drastically different elements in each of it's pages then it would be a single entity. If there are several different sites on a single machine, those would have to be treated as different entities.
It would be similar to a brick and mortar building where one half was a bar, but the other half is a day care center. Same physical location, but drastically different content.
But then, I'm not a politician so there has to be something significantly wrong with this. It almost makes too much sense.
Yea, they'll never go for it.
...Why the hell does someone in every country think "Let's censor internet!"?...
The less open communication you have the more control they have. It's all about making our decisions for us.
I thought we were starting to get used to the idea. At least here in the states we are.
A customer arrives at a car lot for a new car. The salesman steers him toward the top of the line model with all the newest bells and whistles. While they're out on the test drive, the salesman tells the potential buyer that the radio is so advanced, it understands voice commands. To demonstrate, the salesman says "classical", and wouldn't you know it, a classical station is automatically tuned in. He tells the driver to try, and he says "classic rock". Before you can blink, Led Zepplin is pulsing through the speakers. The driver is duly impressed and is about to comment on how cool that is, when some punk kid in a riced out civic cuts him off. The driver yells "ASSHOLE".... and the radio tunes to Rush Limbaugh.
Didn't Microsoft come out with something like this just this year? I remember some pretty funny commercials about this very thing. Talk to your car radio and it changes channels, maybe that's why Rush has moved to Mac
Before the flamewars begin, let's all agree that sane kids will not kill somebody in real life just because they can do it in a video game. Good luck getting that point across. Remember we're all Americans here./sarcasm
I would imagine the vast majority of the books you read were at the very least screened by your parents. what the trouble seems to be is most parents who are not gamers will not even spend an hour screening games their children will potentially spend dozens of hours playing.
What in your opinion would the result have been if your books as a child were more or less randomly given to you?
Everybody with a laptop? It's pretty hard to find a laptop without Windows bundled, and you can't build your own. That's not true, a buddy of mine built his laptop. Probably about 2 years ago, pretty close to top of the line for about $800.
Perhaps we also need to make it clear exactly why nobody is purchasing RIAA music anymore - what about a marketing campaign saying 'it's not because of piracy - it's because we think you suck.'
This message can be reinforced by purchasing music from independent labels - if indie label sales are going significantly up while the RIAA label sales are freefalling, it makes the 'piracy' argument seem all the more far-fetched.
There is no such thing as a "native" American. We all came here at some point, it's just a question of when and from where. I disagree. Some came here, learned to live with the land rather than off it. It's almost like they became part of the land, like they were meant to be there (native???).
Others came, saw, conquered, built a great nation and shit on it.
But are Tv's DVD's, VCR's and computers, etc... also for all ages.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the idea that a family device can not have "Adult Only" material on it is a bit absurd.
I'm saying the device is nothing more than that, a device that facilitates entertainment. What a person decides to use that device for is another matter completely. I guess there are different rules for "interactive" entertainment than for the more passive sorts.
...retuning 4 out of 5 items, and it was steadily getting worse. For some reason men's clothes don't suffer the same variance. Only $INSERT_FAVORITE_DEITY knows why... This slowly becoming a problem at some cheaper stores. I won't mention the name, but they're pretty high profile. I got 2 pairs of pants, both the same size and neither fit. One was way too long, the other way too short.
I can't speak for you, but when I was 14 it was a hell of a lot easier to get drugs, specifically coke and pot than it was alcohol.
Most people I knew had older siblings, sure but very few over 21 and even fewer that would actually buy for us. drugs are a lot easier to get than booze for most of the people I knew
...the effect of the vaccine would be like quitting cold turkey...extremely painful for the firmly addicted (possibly even dangerous for a drug like cocaine). You could keep injecting/snorting/smoking it, but it won't do a darn thing for you.
The same would no doubt hold true for a similarly-functioning nicotine vaccine. It could be a very unpleasant way to quit smoking. Cocaine is not physically addictive. You can quit cold turkey without any fear of getting sick.
I would place a heavy bet on the prison system being just as full if we legalized all drugs...some people are just leeches and will find some other way to earn a dishonest living. But those who are in prison for simple drug offenses, like possession of small amounts of controlled substances would not be there. That is a HUGE amount of people. The worst thing about that is, when they get out of prison they are in a much worse state than when they went in. Nobody will hire an ex-con. Not for anything other than shit work.
...There is a tiny bit of concern that it will be marginally "easier" to access at the street corner, but it is ALREADY quite easy... I would imagine that if drugs were decriminalized, it would be MUCH more difficult for children to get their hands on. Test it out yourself. Give any 14 year old in America $30, tell them to come back with either alcohol or illegal drugs whichever is easier to get. Guaranteed, they will bring back drugs 99% of the time. I've seen it in action hundreds of times over. It is much easier for children to get drugs than it is for them to get booze.
I'm not saying it is impossible or even difficult to get booze, but it sure is easier to pick up something that is not regulated than it is to get something that is regulated.
Slashdot Mirror
...because media are necessary for the function of democracy as they directly influence the mindless voters.
Fixed that for ya.
More people == more people to be offended by what the other people are doing.
Now, we can't possibly allow people to be offended, so we must protect them. We must at all costs not allow these people to feel "different" in any way.
Now, some people want to be different. They get together with the other people and dress/talk/walk different. Just like the rest of their friends.
Also, the more people you can tax the more money is there for the taking which means more people want to get a slice of that pie. Then you have to regulate the regulators who take even more money. Then those people must be regulated. The public cannot be trusted to make these kinds of decisions because someone somewhere will at some point be offended by something. And we just can't have that.
Imagine that,
A family that actually parents their young. You must be new here.(here being the good ol USA).
I must have missed that one.
I know I'm trying to introduce logic into a system that clearly was not designed to handle it, but how is this for a simple solution to your question.
Any collection of web pages that is designed to be viewed as a single object.
With your examples, every single one of the "sites" would be their own entity.
To put another example out there, my brother has a web page that is mostly hosted by a provider. There are certain things that provider will not host, and those portions are on my server at home. This makes, blog.jombee.com, chat.jombee.com and www.jombee.com all one single entity because they are designed to work with each other, the subdomains are there to physically separate a single logical entity onto multiple servers.
If the site is designed to be viewed as a whole object, even if there are drastically different elements in each of it's pages then it would be a single entity. If there are several different sites on a single machine, those would have to be treated as different entities.
It would be similar to a brick and mortar building where one half was a bar, but the other half is a day care center. Same physical location, but drastically different content.
But then, I'm not a politician so there has to be something significantly wrong with this. It almost makes too much sense.
Yea, they'll never go for it.
...Why the hell does someone in every country think "Let's censor internet!"?...
The less open communication you have the more control they have. It's all about making our decisions for us. I thought we were starting to get used to the idea. At least here in the states we are.
Didn't Microsoft come out with something like this just this year? I remember some pretty funny commercials about this very thing.
Talk to your car radio and it changes channels, maybe that's why Rush has moved to Mac
BRB, need to find my tinfoil helmet.
Tin Foil ain't gonna cut it this time. You can borrow my lead helmet and matching vest.But I don't think this internet thing is really going to catch on.
I think it's just another fad, remember the pet rock.
It's a quote I haven't heard in years, and I'm relatively young. (under 30 over 12)
I think the meaning is lost on this generation though.
oddly enough, this site says for me to "Slow Down Cowboy" not dissimilar from what I heard that night.
I would imagine the vast majority of the books you read were at the very least screened by your parents.
what the trouble seems to be is most parents who are not gamers will not even spend an hour screening games their children will potentially spend dozens of hours playing.
What in your opinion would the result have been if your books as a child were more or less randomly given to you?
This message can be reinforced by purchasing music from independent labels - if indie label sales are going significantly up while the RIAA label sales are freefalling, it makes the 'piracy' argument seem all the more far-fetched.
I will donate a small amount to that campaign.
Some came here, learned to live with the land rather than off it. It's almost like they became part of the land, like they were meant to be there (native???).
Others came, saw, conquered, built a great nation and shit on it.
But are Tv's DVD's, VCR's and computers, etc... also for all ages.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the idea that a family device can not have "Adult Only" material on it is a bit absurd.
I'm saying the device is nothing more than that, a device that facilitates entertainment. What a person decides to use that device for is another matter completely. I guess there are different rules for "interactive" entertainment than for the more passive sorts.
...article
...retuning 4 out of 5 items, and it was steadily getting worse. For some reason men's clothes don't suffer the same variance. Only $INSERT_FAVORITE_DEITY knows why... This slowly becoming a problem at some cheaper stores. I won't mention the name, but they're pretty high profile.I got 2 pairs of pants, both the same size and neither fit. One was way too long, the other way too short.
Just my $0.02
I can't speak for you, but when I was 14 it was a hell of a lot easier to get drugs, specifically coke and pot than it was alcohol.
Most people I knew had older siblings, sure but very few over 21 and even fewer that would actually buy for us.
drugs are a lot easier to get than booze for most of the people I knew
...the effect of the vaccine would be like quitting cold turkey...extremely painful for the firmly addicted (possibly even dangerous for a drug like cocaine). You could keep injecting/snorting/smoking it, but it won't do a darn thing for you.The same would no doubt hold true for a similarly-functioning nicotine vaccine. It could be a very unpleasant way to quit smoking. Cocaine is not physically addictive. You can quit cold turkey without any fear of getting sick.
That is a HUGE amount of people. The worst thing about that is, when they get out of prison they are in a much worse state than when they went in. Nobody will hire an ex-con. Not for anything other than shit work.
Test it out yourself.
Give any 14 year old in America $30, tell them to come back with either alcohol or illegal drugs whichever is easier to get.
Guaranteed, they will bring back drugs 99% of the time.
I've seen it in action hundreds of times over. It is much easier for children to get drugs than it is for them to get booze.
I'm not saying it is impossible or even difficult to get booze, but it sure is easier to pick up something that is not regulated than it is to get something that is regulated.
I would imagine 1/10 of the stories it will be used incorrectly on today.