> Blizzard is saying that any sort of in-game establishment with a specific ideological, philosophical, political, or relgious basis for existence is not allowed. Discrimination requires that different categories of people recieve different treatment. I don't see that happening here.
I don't play WoW, but other people here have said there are Christian guilds so, in fact, there is discrimination, as you defined it.
Hehe, too true. Probably should have said "easier." Well, they don't always go the easy route either. Easier to gain votes from without doing any work? Closer... Only thing missing is a kickback. Or is it?
Emphasizing a single word is not screaming, you seem to have a difficult time with extremes. Just because you don't like analogies does not make them invalid. Yes, something can be mentally intrusive. If you don't understand that you aren't as smart as you give yourself credit for.
You explain to me how any invasion of privacy is wrong for any reason besides "it just is," assuming it doesn't put you at immdiate personal physical risk and I will explain to you how this does as well. You are asking for an answer that may not exist, besides "because it is obviously wrong."
> Mr. Jefferson, tell us why you think you shouldn't have to share your home with troops unless it's a time of war..."
Like that one. If it's so obvious, why don't you tell me why it's wrong. I say because it's invasive, intrusive, but you didn't like that answer before, so it must not be a valid point.
"Your business" doesn't exclude it from being "the school's business" as well. My iris pattern, however is NOT the school's business, just mine.
I haven't avoided a single question you've answered, but when I give you an answer you claim it's not a valid POV. In most circles, that's called trolling. Most people should be ashamed of that as well, but apparently you are not.
First off, I did no "screaming." I'm not sure where you got that idea, but that's not the point, I suppose. Second, you don't know jack about me, you don't know what I would or would not "admit." Yes, they are different, just as any example, any analogy is different from what it is comparing itself to. It's the fact that there are key similarities -- which, in this case, there are -- that is important.
However, I agree that "intrusive" was probably the wrong word to use, as it does not stick a needle in your eye. It may not be physically intrusive, but I don't want someone I've never met, that I cannot have the name of, to have hi-res pictures of my iris. I don't know everything they can do with it, but I know they can imitate me at that school, potentially creating false evidence that I was at the school at a certain time. There are a few clandestine uses for iris scans that I can think of off the top of my head. Also, they are demanding very personal information about me that I know they don't really need.
> You have yet to give a single reasonable explanation for your assertion that this is an infringment of privacy.
Please explain why 2+2=4. Explain how the policeman asking for ID is infringing on your privacy. Explain why the government having a list of borrowed library books is a privacy infringement. It just is. Would you be willing to submit to fingerprinting every time you went to pick up your child? Is that not infringing on your privacy? This is the same thing.
Would it be privacy infringement if the police required iris scans before you could pick your child up? The people working at a school have little right to demand anything of you, certainly less than a police officer.
> An unknown person walking down the street minding their business is wholly different from an individual who is trying to pick up a child
Picking up your own son from a public school is not minding your business?
> what part of asking for identification "having their privacy infringed"?
This is NOT just "asking for identification," ID is a little plastic card with your picture on it. They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home. The parents have more right to ask for the ID of people at the school than the school does that of the parent.
Take your same statement and apply it to "the police" asking for the ID of "random person walking down the street." Is it a privacy infringement then? Of course it is. "Well, that's a government official." So is a public school employee.
> Treat them like prisons and people will think of them as prisons
Haven't spoken to too many teenagers recently, eh? Schools are prisons these days, and the "wardens" are oftentimes the worst people there. I'm lucky that I graduated just before my old High School went down that road.
> can I see the source code just to make sure it's secure?
Good idea. Maybe you can use the "think of the children!" argument to get the source code! "How can we be sure some evil baby raping hacker hasn't reverse engineered it?"
> No, what I'm asking is, "Have they even bothered to think about this before they went and spent a massive amount of my tax money
Assuming that it wasn't due to some "donation" from the company that makes the devices, they are simply playing to the emotions of mothers. It could be that they want to make it look like they are doing something to protect the children -- it's probably cheaper than doing something about teaching them properly.
Most kidnappings/molestations, etc. occur within the family/friends, so you'd probably get better protection if you only let the kids go home with strangers... No, I'm not serious, just making a point that this won't do much of anything.
What if parents divorce and only one has custody? The school's system wouldn't know this unless it was told so by a human. Do you think it would be updated fast enough to prevent the other parent from picking up the child and abducting him/her?
> I wonder how much testing they've done to see if you can fool the system by cutting someone's eyes out or their head off and holding it up to the camera.
So you're asking if they've killed anyone to test their security system?:) I guess that depends how (and how quickly) the necessary features of an eyeball deteriorate after death. In theory, I think it would last for a little while. In practice, holding a severed head up to the scanner at an elementary school may look a bit out of place.
Speaking of eye deterioration: I don't know much about iris scanning, but would a child's grandparent's cataracts interfere with scanning if they had to pick their grandkids up from school? I guess a better question is "should they be driving with those cataracts," but that's not the point.
> Seems that phrase overrides any kind of common sense.
No, they didn't have the common sense to begin with. They use the phrase to make it look -- to other parents -- like they DO have something worthwhile to say.
What, a bowel movement? No, they aren't a technology company, they are just a software company. A "movement," to me, implies some kind of grass-roots organization, which is plainly not true WRT MS. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
> It must be tough to be so insecure [...] about your choice of brand that you have to knee-jerk defend it at any cost.
Hey, I like Pepsi too, you braindead jackass! I'll KILL you if you ever suggest my name brand isn't the best!!! Oh wait, you meant Apple... uh... never mind.
> Why would I pay $20 to meet the author of the book when I already have the book?
Why would I pay $50 for a concert ticket when I already have the artist's boxed set. It's about the whole experience, not just the music or book. Also, sometimes you might gain a new perspective on a book by meeting the person who wrote it. Of course, you could also find out that he's an idiot and just happened to write one good book.
> You probably think that [...] jobs that require human thinking will never go away because we control the machines
Well, some of course, but I don't believe that all of them will. Can a machine design and build, from scratch, a machine more complicated than itself? It would seem to me that it could not, but despite my amazing programming abilities (no, not really: I'm mediocre) I am no expert -- probably not even a knowledeable novice -- in systems that would be so complex. Would this be an exercise in computational philosophy?
> In the future (say, over 30 years) we're going to see a lot more of this "technology replacing jobs" becoming a very big issue.
Amazing: that's what has been said since robots started taking over human jobs at factories. How long has than been now? Stenographers probably said the same thing at the advent of the typewriter (or at least the ones that weren't so easy to jam).
DAMN YOU AND YOUR HORSELESS CARRIAGE!!!! Won't someone please think of the foals?
> You were apparently inept at your attempt at being ironic.
No, you just won't admit when you misunderstood and said something stupid, but still defend it. I don't know that it was irony, exactly, but I'm sure it was intentional.
I believe that is because their appendages, while allowing them to move, are not really legs. Just like the tiny hairs covering some worms help them to move, yet are not quite legs.
Slashdot Mirror
> Blizzard is saying that any sort of in-game establishment with a specific ideological, philosophical, political, or relgious basis for existence is not allowed. Discrimination requires that different categories of people recieve different treatment. I don't see that happening here.
I don't play WoW, but other people here have said there are Christian guilds so, in fact, there is discrimination, as you defined it.
> Delgadillo [...] has requested that the companies fully disclose the content of their games.
Doesn't that sound strangely like "There may be no surprises in any game, we must know exactly what's going to happen before it happens?"
Hehe, too true. Probably should have said "easier." Well, they don't always go the easy route either. Easier to gain votes from without doing any work? Closer... Only thing missing is a kickback. Or is it?
Emphasizing a single word is not screaming, you seem to have a difficult time with extremes.
Just because you don't like analogies does not make them invalid.
Yes, something can be mentally intrusive. If you don't understand that you aren't as smart as you give yourself credit for.
You explain to me how any invasion of privacy is wrong for any reason besides "it just is," assuming it doesn't put you at immdiate personal physical risk and I will explain to you how this does as well. You are asking for an answer that may not exist, besides "because it is obviously wrong."
> Mr. Jefferson, tell us why you think you shouldn't have to share your home with troops unless it's a time of war..."
Like that one. If it's so obvious, why don't you tell me why it's wrong. I say because it's invasive, intrusive, but you didn't like that answer before, so it must not be a valid point.
"Your business" doesn't exclude it from being "the school's business" as well. My iris pattern, however is NOT the school's business, just mine.
I haven't avoided a single question you've answered, but when I give you an answer you claim it's not a valid POV. In most circles, that's called trolling. Most people should be ashamed of that as well, but apparently you are not.
First off, I did no "screaming." I'm not sure where you got that idea, but that's not the point, I suppose. Second, you don't know jack about me, you don't know what I would or would not "admit." Yes, they are different, just as any example, any analogy is different from what it is comparing itself to. It's the fact that there are key similarities -- which, in this case, there are -- that is important.
However, I agree that "intrusive" was probably the wrong word to use, as it does not stick a needle in your eye. It may not be physically intrusive, but I don't want someone I've never met, that I cannot have the name of, to have hi-res pictures of my iris. I don't know everything they can do with it, but I know they can imitate me at that school, potentially creating false evidence that I was at the school at a certain time. There are a few clandestine uses for iris scans that I can think of off the top of my head. Also, they are demanding very personal information about me that I know they don't really need.
> You have yet to give a single reasonable explanation for your assertion that this is an infringment of privacy.
Please explain why 2+2=4. Explain how the policeman asking for ID is infringing on your privacy. Explain why the government having a list of borrowed library books is a privacy infringement. It just is. Would you be willing to submit to fingerprinting every time you went to pick up your child? Is that not infringing on your privacy? This is the same thing.
Would it be privacy infringement if the police required iris scans before you could pick your child up? The people working at a school have little right to demand anything of you, certainly less than a police officer.
> An unknown person walking down the street minding their business is wholly different from an individual who is trying to pick up a child
Picking up your own son from a public school is not minding your business?
> what part of asking for identification "having their privacy infringed"?
This is NOT just "asking for identification," ID is a little plastic card with your picture on it. They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home. The parents have more right to ask for the ID of people at the school than the school does that of the parent.
Take your same statement and apply it to "the police" asking for the ID of "random person walking down the street." Is it a privacy infringement then? Of course it is. "Well, that's a government official." So is a public school employee.
> Treat them like prisons and people will think of them as prisons
Haven't spoken to too many teenagers recently, eh? Schools are prisons these days, and the "wardens" are oftentimes the worst people there. I'm lucky that I graduated just before my old High School went down that road.
> can I see the source code just to make sure it's secure?
Good idea. Maybe you can use the "think of the children!" argument to get the source code! "How can we be sure some evil baby raping hacker hasn't reverse engineered it?"
> No, what I'm asking is, "Have they even bothered to think about this before they went and spent a massive amount of my tax money
Assuming that it wasn't due to some "donation" from the company that makes the devices, they are simply playing to the emotions of mothers. It could be that they want to make it look like they are doing something to protect the children -- it's probably cheaper than doing something about teaching them properly.
Most kidnappings/molestations, etc. occur within the family/friends, so you'd probably get better protection if you only let the kids go home with strangers... No, I'm not serious, just making a point that this won't do much of anything.
What if parents divorce and only one has custody? The school's system wouldn't know this unless it was told so by a human. Do you think it would be updated fast enough to prevent the other parent from picking up the child and abducting him/her?
> I wonder how much testing they've done to see if you can fool the system by cutting someone's eyes out or their head off and holding it up to the camera.
:) I guess that depends how (and how quickly) the necessary features of an eyeball deteriorate after death. In theory, I think it would last for a little while. In practice, holding a severed head up to the scanner at an elementary school may look a bit out of place.
So you're asking if they've killed anyone to test their security system?
Speaking of eye deterioration: I don't know much about iris scanning, but would a child's grandparent's cataracts interfere with scanning if they had to pick their grandkids up from school? I guess a better question is "should they be driving with those cataracts," but that's not the point.
And so if a parent refuses to have their privacy infringed just to pick their child up from school will the child be held indefinitely or expelled?
> Seems that phrase overrides any kind of common sense.
No, they didn't have the common sense to begin with. They use the phrase to make it look -- to other parents -- like they DO have something worthwhile to say.
> I think I'll go buy some eggs...
To eat and build up your energy before you have to run away from their burning office building?
> MS is a movement, not a technology company.
What, a bowel movement? No, they aren't a technology company, they are just a software company. A "movement," to me, implies some kind of grass-roots organization, which is plainly not true WRT MS. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
> It must be tough to be so insecure [...] about your choice of brand that you have to knee-jerk defend it at any cost.
Hey, I like Pepsi too, you braindead jackass! I'll KILL you if you ever suggest my name brand isn't the best!!! Oh wait, you meant Apple... uh... never mind.
> Welcome to fachist America, folks!
You mean fachist unedamucated Amerkia?
> That's why I personnly like the No problem Bugroff license.
I have a new license for my music! Thanks, that's great.
> search engines destroy rents
Pardon my ignorance, but what does "rent" mean in this context?
> Why would I pay $20 to meet the author of the book when I already have the book?
Why would I pay $50 for a concert ticket when I already have the artist's boxed set. It's about the whole experience, not just the music or book. Also, sometimes you might gain a new perspective on a book by meeting the person who wrote it. Of course, you could also find out that he's an idiot and just happened to write one good book.
Evidently, this guy has never heard of robots.txt. Of course, that only applies to the SEs that actually use it...
> You probably think that [...] jobs that require human thinking will never go away because we control the machines
Well, some of course, but I don't believe that all of them will. Can a machine design and build, from scratch, a machine more complicated than itself? It would seem to me that it could not, but despite my amazing programming abilities (no, not really: I'm mediocre) I am no expert -- probably not even a knowledeable novice -- in systems that would be so complex. Would this be an exercise in computational philosophy?
> In the future (say, over 30 years) we're going to see a lot more of this "technology replacing jobs" becoming a very big issue.
Amazing: that's what has been said since robots started taking over human jobs at factories. How long has than been now? Stenographers probably said the same thing at the advent of the typewriter (or at least the ones that weren't so easy to jam).
DAMN YOU AND YOUR HORSELESS CARRIAGE!!!! Won't someone please think of the foals?
> You were apparently inept at your attempt at being ironic.
No, you just won't admit when you misunderstood and said something stupid, but still defend it. I don't know that it was irony, exactly, but I'm sure it was intentional.
> Why don't starfish count?
I believe that is because their appendages, while allowing them to move, are not really legs. Just like the tiny hairs covering some worms help them to move, yet are not quite legs.