And I remember when Ford made the Escort XR3i. That was in the 1980s, I believe, which clearly precedes Apple's use of the letter "i".
Anyway, what makes Apple think they own the right to use a letter of the alphabet? They gonna go after the Eskimos for branding their ice-houses as iGloos?
So Apple argued: "Our customers will see the DOPi bag and think 'Hey that's iPod backwards! I'd better buy an official iPod-backwards bag to put my laptop in. Even though my laptop isn't called "iPod"'..."
Of course, Apple's attack-lawyers would have worded it better.
So what's this panic button for precisely? So little Eric/Erica can press it when the predatory perverts reach out through the monitor?
I would have thought Eric/Erica wouldn't realise "little Chester" is a nonce until they've gone to the park to meet up with their new friend. I don't think Chester the Molester is going to properly introduce himself online. That would kinda interfere with the grooming process.
And what's wrong with the usual "report this post/message" kinda link? Would a special "OMG he's touching me" button, for Brit kids only, be more effective in some way?
That's right. The correct term for "sexism by women against men" is "feminism". Isn't it?;)
NB: Any women reading this post, please don't mistake that;) for an inappropriate, lecherous gesture. I find lecherous gestures are always appropriate!;)
Yes, you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996.
The Internet Watch Foundation is a "non-governmental charitable body" that "operates in informal partnership with the police, government, public and Internet service providers" (from Wikipedia). So there's no legal standing to what it does. What's more, it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is potentially illegal, and ISPs block the sites accordingly. So sites get blocked if the IWF thinks they might be illegal. This has resulted in cases like when Wikipedia was blocked in 2008. Internetarchive.org was also blocked in the past. Similarly to the NZ filter, IWF does not inform sites that they have been blacklisted, nor does it make its list available to the public.
So IWF has nothing to do (officially) with government or law enforcement, yet it is part publicly funded (through national government and EU grants), and an awful lot of UK citizens find their internet access is filtered according to its list. Who needs official censorship when you've got a voluntary system like this?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948. I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then.
Anyway, the USA signed up to that as well, and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere. So I think that old document is rather irrelevant.
If you allow HTTPS site you can't block SSH tunneling.
They don't need to block every https site. They block a list of named sites, and that list grows over time. The police add pedo sites to the list. Other agencies add other sites that they deem "inappropriate".
The IWF maintain such a list and governments say it's good because it's targeting child porn sites. But there are also lists maintained by various governments, and they often filter for political sites too.
It's impossible to run properly effective filtering by algorithm. So there will be lists involved. But who maintains the lists?
If you got on with (virtually) none of your high school contemporaries, why would you want to get back in touch with them 20 years later? Is curiosity enough of a reason? Personally, I couldn't give a shit what most of my school "colleagues" are doing now, and if I bumped into one of them in the street it's a toss of the 3-sided coin between "yeah hi whatever", ignore, and beat to the floor...
How the hell do you deter carelessness? Like sending this guy to prison will make other parents in the future think "Oh, I'd best not put this gun down and forget about it so my child can kill herself with it, cos I might get sent down".
Like the threat of his kid killing herself isn't going to deter carelessness but prison will? FFS...
However, in nearly all cases, the purpose of putting someone in prison is to rehabilitate the convicted criminal so (s)he can become a productive member of society again and not do the same (or similar) bad thing again.
Oh really? Where's that? Where I live (UK) and where most of this site's users reside (USA) the primary purpose of prison is to punish. Then there's the desire to keep criminals away from law-abiding society. Once all that's been addressed, the courts and gaolers may give a thought to rehabilitation.
Good to see the court of public opinion is in session. You know nothing about the case, but you still have a very specific opinion about what should be done.
Jeeze, some of you guys are dicks.
Bingo! Been waiting for someone to point out the obvious flaw in this unscientific research.
So you noticed the flaw earlier but decided not to point it out? Maybe you thought a "me too" remark would be more useful?
The resident teen here types so fast on her iPhone that the feedback clicks sounds like a woodpecker. Once I asked to see what she had typed and saw no typos (but several abbreviations). Hand her a Blackberry and I'll guarantee that her results would be the opposite that obtained by the keyboard scientist.
I can "type" like a woodpecker on my Sony Ericsson dumb-phone - you know, the kind that has 3 (sometimes 4) letters on each button of the number pad. Using T9 predictive and both thumbs quickly becomes second nature. And once you've used it for a while it will "learn" the abbreviations and "unusual" words you regularly use and typos will be rarer than hen's teeth.
Does that make the dumb-phone's number pad arrangement better than other phones' methods? No, it means that any layout can be mastered pretty damn quickly. So any attempt to characterize one input system as better than another is futile.
But they didn't go to any great lengths, did they? It wouldn't have been difficult to find a picture of a real Lamborghini. But they couldn't be arsed. Doesn't really conjure up your image of a bunch of busy bees who could achieve great things if only blah blah etc, does it?
Let's just be honest hear: They're charging too much and imposing arbitrary restrictions because there's minimal competition, minimal regulation, and they believe that their customers will put up with being charged for a separate plan for each and every device they own.
No, they know that their customers will put up with being ripped off. What's the alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
And I remember when Ford made the Escort XR3i. That was in the 1980s, I believe, which clearly precedes Apple's use of the letter "i".
Anyway, what makes Apple think they own the right to use a letter of the alphabet? They gonna go after the Eskimos for branding their ice-houses as iGloos?
So Apple argued: "Our customers will see the DOPi bag and think 'Hey that's iPod backwards! I'd better buy an official iPod-backwards bag to put my laptop in. Even though my laptop isn't called "iPod"'..." Of course, Apple's attack-lawyers would have worded it better.
So what's this panic button for precisely? So little Eric/Erica can press it when the predatory perverts reach out through the monitor?
I would have thought Eric/Erica wouldn't realise "little Chester" is a nonce until they've gone to the park to meet up with their new friend. I don't think Chester the Molester is going to properly introduce himself online. That would kinda interfere with the grooming process.
And what's wrong with the usual "report this post/message" kinda link? Would a special "OMG he's touching me" button, for Brit kids only, be more effective in some way?
That's right. The correct term for "sexism by women against men" is "feminism". Isn't it? ;)
NB: Any women reading this post, please don't mistake that ;) for an inappropriate, lecherous gesture. I find lecherous gestures are always appropriate! ;)
Yes, you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996. The Internet Watch Foundation is a "non-governmental charitable body" that "operates in informal partnership with the police, government, public and Internet service providers" (from Wikipedia). So there's no legal standing to what it does. What's more, it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is potentially illegal, and ISPs block the sites accordingly. So sites get blocked if the IWF thinks they might be illegal. This has resulted in cases like when Wikipedia was blocked in 2008. Internetarchive.org was also blocked in the past. Similarly to the NZ filter, IWF does not inform sites that they have been blacklisted, nor does it make its list available to the public. So IWF has nothing to do (officially) with government or law enforcement, yet it is part publicly funded (through national government and EU grants), and an awful lot of UK citizens find their internet access is filtered according to its list. Who needs official censorship when you've got a voluntary system like this?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948. I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then. Anyway, the USA signed up to that as well, and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere. So I think that old document is rather irrelevant.
Rule of the majority. Rule by Facebook. eep
If you allow HTTPS site you can't block SSH tunneling.
They don't need to block every https site. They block a list of named sites, and that list grows over time. The police add pedo sites to the list. Other agencies add other sites that they deem "inappropriate". The IWF maintain such a list and governments say it's good because it's targeting child porn sites. But there are also lists maintained by various governments, and they often filter for political sites too. It's impossible to run properly effective filtering by algorithm. So there will be lists involved. But who maintains the lists?
Or brick up all the windows. You won't need 'em with all the flashing LEDs to read by.
You know what he meant really
Ah yes, "you know what I mean". I've encountered this before. Captain, these are women
And the hazard to passing space traffic.
If you got on with (virtually) none of your high school contemporaries, why would you want to get back in touch with them 20 years later? Is curiosity enough of a reason? Personally, I couldn't give a shit what most of my school "colleagues" are doing now, and if I bumped into one of them in the street it's a toss of the 3-sided coin between "yeah hi whatever", ignore, and beat to the floor...
Damn right! And to make sure there's no repetition of this tragedy, we should adopt the Flynn Solution and ban the Wii!
Why is the Wii controller even mentioned in this freakin' story?
To explain why the grief-stricken parents are suing Nintendo.
You might not be stressed about safety but I bet everyone anywhere near you is.
He ain't scared of the world, he just hates it. Probably the kind of guy who shoots fleeing burglars in the back, repeatedly, in self-defence.
Was she a ginger step-child? That'd explain a lot... :p
How the hell do you deter carelessness? Like sending this guy to prison will make other parents in the future think "Oh, I'd best not put this gun down and forget about it so my child can kill herself with it, cos I might get sent down". Like the threat of his kid killing herself isn't going to deter carelessness but prison will? FFS...
However, in nearly all cases, the purpose of putting someone in prison is to rehabilitate the convicted criminal so (s)he can become a productive member of society again and not do the same (or similar) bad thing again.
Oh really? Where's that? Where I live (UK) and where most of this site's users reside (USA) the primary purpose of prison is to punish. Then there's the desire to keep criminals away from law-abiding society. Once all that's been addressed, the courts and gaolers may give a thought to rehabilitation.
Good to see the court of public opinion is in session. You know nothing about the case, but you still have a very specific opinion about what should be done. Jeeze, some of you guys are dicks.
Bingo! Been waiting for someone to point out the obvious flaw in this unscientific research.
So you noticed the flaw earlier but decided not to point it out? Maybe you thought a "me too" remark would be more useful?
The resident teen here types so fast on her iPhone that the feedback clicks sounds like a woodpecker. Once I asked to see what she had typed and saw no typos (but several abbreviations). Hand her a Blackberry and I'll guarantee that her results would be the opposite that obtained by the keyboard scientist.
I can "type" like a woodpecker on my Sony Ericsson dumb-phone - you know, the kind that has 3 (sometimes 4) letters on each button of the number pad. Using T9 predictive and both thumbs quickly becomes second nature. And once you've used it for a while it will "learn" the abbreviations and "unusual" words you regularly use and typos will be rarer than hen's teeth.
Does that make the dumb-phone's number pad arrangement better than other phones' methods? No, it means that any layout can be mastered pretty damn quickly. So any attempt to characterize one input system as better than another is futile.
But they didn't go to any great lengths, did they? It wouldn't have been difficult to find a picture of a real Lamborghini. But they couldn't be arsed. Doesn't really conjure up your image of a bunch of busy bees who could achieve great things if only blah blah etc, does it?
Haven't you heard? Steve Jobs is pretty damn powerful. Who do you think got Eve to try that apple?
Let's just be honest hear: They're charging too much and imposing arbitrary restrictions because there's minimal competition, minimal regulation, and they believe that their customers will put up with being charged for a separate plan for each and every device they own.
No, they know that their customers will put up with being ripped off. What's the alternative?
But what if you want to shred more than one baby at a time? A true multi-tasking shredder could deal with whole litters of the damn things.