Unfortunately, she works long hours more often than I do. Oh well.
Honestly, I don't think the stereoype applies; I live in the Bay Area, and I know very few "lonely geeks". Most of my friends, natch, are in high tech in one way or another, and most of them do have social lives.
"You must still be asleep. If "censorship" cuts children off from "some aspect of human experience", and you don't want to do that, then porn must be okay."
I have no problem with it. If you see a problem with your kids & pornography, then by all means, don't let them access it. Just don't try curtail ayone ELSE'S acceess.
"Isn't sex an aspect of human experience?"
Duh.
"Do you have children?
Maybe little girls?
:)
Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to all aspects of human experience."
What is this? Religious Whacko Acceptance Month? You're saying that if John thinks porn is okay, it's okay for you to threaten his kids. What?
"After all, it isn't your decision as a parent as to what you consider your children ready for, is it?"
That's the point, you drooling idiot. It's the PARENT'S responsibility. Theirs, and theirs ALONE. Censoring content for everyone is a result of laziness on the part of the parents - they don't want to be bothered, so they get the govenment do do it for them.
"Why don't you try posting again when you've gained some experience with raising children?"
Why don't you try posting again when you've managed to aquire a CLUE?
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there tired of of the religious whackbrains in this country trying to decide what's "morally correct" for everyone else? And their kids?
Actaully, Cleese did that at Graham's memorial, not at the funeral. It's most of the rant from the Parrot sketch (which they co-wrote) plus some other rather "interesting" bits. The full text of it is in Kim Johnson's book, The First 280 years of Monty Python (excellent book - with tons of info about all the Pythons, before, during & after the series and all of the various film projects - well worth the US$22.00)
"However, no amount of free-thinking philosphy in the world will make me believe that what's morally right is subjective, only that we have the right to make our own choices regarding which morals we will uphold and which we won't."
Well, too bad for you. I don't believe that there are _any_ "moral absolutes". As far as I can tell, belief in such is the primary motivator for racism, genocide, and other wonderful things the world religions are so fond of.
"Your mockery of this person's choices in referring to him as an xtian reactionary implies you would deprive him of his right to an opinion if you had the power to do so."
Hmmm? Not at all. It was _just_ what it sounded like - mockery. I heartily dislike people who make value judgements on what they _percieve_ as other people's moral failings. I have no problem with Alta prattling on about foul language and satanism; I just resent what _I_ see as the reactionary, mostly xtian attempt to control what _I_ may see, do, or think.
Sure, it's the theater owner's right to choose who he admits into his theater. But if he's really concerned, why is he showing the film in the first place? This is the worst kind of hypocrisy - "well, I don't approve of the movie, but maybe I can make some big bux from it anyway".
Seeing as how the U.S. is not a libertarian state, but rather a socialist demorcatic one, there are lots of rules that are used to determine who gets to do what - most of these rules are predicated on an arbitrary age limit that may or may not have had some rational basis.
Most of these rules are also very loosely defined. The mother in Katz's article had _explicitly_ stated that she was giving permission to her kid (and one assumes that she was temorarily in loco parentis for the other children as well) to see the movie without her supervision. That's _it_ - nothing more need be said - she has the final say here.
If the theater owner still doesn't want her kids to see the movie, then he still need not admit them. But theater chains who resort to this kind of moral watchdogging are going to find themselves out of the loop, eventually.
It's happening with the music industry - there's no reason to think that the film & television indutry is immune.
You _seriously_ need a cranial enema, pal. You also need to realize that there are in reality, very damn _few_ of us geeks that actually want to have some stupid xtian reactionary preaching at us.
I applaud Katz for actually having the balls to speak up and say something. Most people, despite their convictions, seem to abhor confrontation, but confronting this kind of media & church inspired lunacy is the _only_ way to stop the erosion of our civil right to see & hear what _we_ define as appropriate.
Yep. I'm 33 - I don't think there was anything that jfkjr did that impacted on my life at all, except to die in a highly public manner. I think the best thing I've read about it is The Misanthropic Bitch's commentary:
http://bitch.shutdown.com/kennedy.html
I'm pretty tired of the intense amount of news coverage of the crash, search and funeral - unfortunately, we'll probably have to hear about it for a few weeks more. Bleh.
"Why can't you people even wait until the product comes out to bash it!?!?"
Because, historically, M$ has been all about vaporware as a way to discourage competition. As far as bashing, I see no reason why anyone would spend the amount of $$ needed for an HA system from a company that has always claimed, but never delivered real stability. What's _not_ to bash?
"You would expect the slashdot netizens to be at least a little intelligent and open minded... but alas, you all are a discredit to your OS."
Fuck you too. At work I am the primary NT admin for my company. My primary (at home) OS is MacOS 8 - I read/. for interesting news & for links to Linux & Unix resources, as I am learning Solaris & Linux administration.
"I looked at the white papers, and it sounds DAMN cool. Yet most of you imediatly start bashing NT... which is completely besides the point."
How is it besides the point? NT sucks for high-availability applications, Win2K is just another version of it, with even more M$ FUD to bolster it's market position.
"Stop bashing and start looking for the best solution to your IT problems... don't use a product simply because of who does, or does not make it."
Obviously, you haven't been reading/. for very long. Most of the IS pros here do just that, _when_ they are allowed to - but often they are forced to use inferior (for their purposes) products. They don't like them, so they bitch.
"I don't know about you, but I use something because it's the best... not because MS does or doesn't make it."
Which is why I use a Mac at home for the majority of my personal work (I can hear the flamethrowers ramping up now...).
"As for the "windows enthusiast", I didn't know such a beast existed. Can anyone confim or deny this for me?"
As someone who actually makes a living as an NT administrator (and yes, I can use all the sympathy you kind/.'ers throw my way), my opinion is that the only "windows enthusiasts' out there are people who've never used _anything_ else and people who only do gaming.
In any case, I think Apple will easily win the suit; the EPower box is so similar as to be easily mistaken for an iMac from any distance, and Apple does have a patent on the case design.
--I love Micro$oft's OSes; they're so badly broken that I'll never want for work...--
"Someone should shut Anti-Online down using the same tactics. They shouldn't be allowed (by the community, of course it's legal) to narc all their alleged contacts, then get paid for it."
Apparently someone has. Antionline has been unreachable (from here anyway) for at least the last hour.
As a Unix/Linux newbie, I haven't gotten too involved in security issues as yet, so I've never had occasion to visit the PacketStorm site. However, I find this kind of harassment, as well as Harvard's complete bendover in the face of a legal threat from this Vranesevich yahoo is unconsionable. They did not bother to even speak to Ken Williams before trashing _all_ of his data.
Mr. Coward, let me correct a few of your more obvious errors: 1) "pornography" is _legal_ for adults in this country. Filtering software doesn't check to see that the user is over the age of consent. 2) Filtering software, being keyword-based, doesn't work very well - a lot of other sites get filtered. 3) The government has no more right to determine my "morality" than YOU do - and _I_ didn't vote for a single one of the professional assholes currently in congress. 4) Some libraries do indeed carry Playboy; many more of them have a lot of erotic texts. However, libraries are mostly non-profit organizations, and most of them cannot afford to carry periodicals that actually cost money.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, she works long hours more often than I do.
Oh well.
Honestly, I don't think the stereoype applies; I live in the Bay Area, and I know very few "lonely geeks". Most of my friends, natch, are in high tech in one way or another, and most of them do have social lives.
I think the convention will be a bust.
Anonymous Bonehead wrote:
"You must still be asleep. If "censorship" cuts children off from "some aspect of human experience", and you don't want to do that, then porn must be okay."
I have no problem with it. If you see a problem with your kids & pornography, then by all means, don't let them access it.
Just don't try curtail ayone ELSE'S acceess.
"Isn't sex an aspect of human experience?"
Duh.
"Do you have children?
Maybe little girls?
:)
Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to all aspects of human experience."
What is this? Religious Whacko Acceptance Month? You're saying that if John thinks porn is okay, it's okay for you to threaten his kids.
What?
"After all, it isn't your decision as a parent as to what you consider your children ready for, is it?"
That's the point, you drooling idiot. It's the PARENT'S responsibility. Theirs, and theirs ALONE. Censoring content for everyone is a result of laziness on the part of the parents - they don't want to be bothered, so they get the govenment do do it for them.
"Why don't you try posting again when you've gained some experience with raising children?"
Why don't you try posting again when you've managed to aquire a CLUE?
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there tired of of the religious whackbrains in this country trying to decide what's "morally correct" for everyone else? And their kids?
Actaully, Cleese did that at Graham's memorial, not at the funeral. It's most of the rant from the Parrot sketch (which they co-wrote) plus some other rather "interesting" bits.
The full text of it is in Kim Johnson's book, The First 280 years of Monty Python (excellent book - with tons of info about all the Pythons, before, during & after the series and all of the various film projects - well worth the US$22.00)
"However, no amount of free-thinking philosphy in the world will make me believe that what's morally right is subjective, only that we have the right to make our own choices regarding which morals we will uphold and which we won't."
Well, too bad for you. I don't believe that there are _any_ "moral absolutes". As far as I can tell, belief in such is the primary motivator for racism, genocide, and other wonderful things the world religions are so fond of.
"Your mockery of this person's choices in referring to him as an xtian reactionary implies you would deprive him of his right to an opinion if you had the power to do so."
Hmmm? Not at all. It was _just_ what it sounded like - mockery. I heartily dislike people who make value judgements on what they _percieve_ as other people's moral failings. I have no problem with Alta prattling on about foul language and satanism; I just resent what _I_ see as the reactionary, mostly xtian attempt to control what _I_ may see, do, or think.
Sure, it's the theater owner's right to choose who he admits into his theater. But if he's really concerned, why is he showing the film in the first place? This is the worst kind of hypocrisy - "well, I don't approve of the movie, but maybe I can make some big bux from it anyway".
Seeing as how the U.S. is not a libertarian state, but rather a socialist demorcatic one, there are lots of rules that are used to determine who gets to do what - most of these rules are predicated on an arbitrary age limit that may or may not have had some rational basis.
Most of these rules are also very loosely defined. The mother in Katz's article had _explicitly_ stated that she was giving permission to her kid (and one assumes that she was temorarily in loco parentis for the other children as well) to see the movie without her supervision. That's _it_ - nothing more need be said - she has the final say here.
If the theater owner still doesn't want her kids to see the movie, then he still need not admit them. But theater chains who resort to this kind of moral watchdogging are going to find themselves out of the loop, eventually.
It's happening with the music industry - there's no reason to think that the film & television indutry is immune.
You _seriously_ need a cranial enema, pal. You also need to realize that there are in reality, very damn _few_ of us geeks that actually want to have some stupid xtian reactionary preaching at us.
I applaud Katz for actually having the balls to speak up and say something. Most people, despite their convictions, seem to abhor confrontation, but confronting this kind of media & church inspired lunacy is the _only_ way to stop the erosion of our civil right to see & hear what _we_ define as appropriate.
Yep. I'm 33 - I don't think there was anything that jfkjr did that impacted on my life at all, except to die in a highly public manner. I think the best thing I've read about it is The Misanthropic Bitch's commentary:
http://bitch.shutdown.com/kennedy.html
I'm pretty tired of the intense amount of news coverage of the crash, search and funeral - unfortunately, we'll probably have to hear about it for a few weeks more. Bleh.
"Why can't you people even wait until the product comes out to bash it!?!?"
/. for interesting news & for links to Linux & Unix resources, as I am learning Solaris & Linux administration.
/. for very long. Most of the IS pros here do just that, _when_ they are allowed to - but often they are forced to use inferior (for their purposes) products. They don't like them, so they bitch.
Because, historically, M$ has been all about vaporware as a way to discourage competition. As far as bashing, I see no reason why anyone would spend the amount of $$ needed for an HA system from a company that has always claimed, but never delivered real stability.
What's _not_ to bash?
"You would expect the slashdot netizens to be at least a little intelligent and open minded... but alas, you all are a discredit to your OS."
Fuck you too.
At work I am the primary NT admin for my company.
My primary (at home) OS is MacOS 8 - I read
"I looked at the white papers, and it sounds DAMN cool. Yet most of you imediatly start bashing NT... which is completely besides
the point."
How is it besides the point? NT sucks for high-availability applications, Win2K is just another version of it, with even more M$ FUD to bolster it's market position.
"Stop bashing and start looking for the best solution to your IT problems... don't use a product simply because of who does, or does
not make it."
Obviously, you haven't been reading
"I don't know about you, but I use something because it's the best... not because MS does or doesn't make it."
Which is why I use a Mac at home for the majority of my personal work (I can hear the flamethrowers ramping up now...).
"Get a life..."
Get a _clue_.
"Vaporware?"
Yep. That'd be VaporOS v2.0...
I do wonder what's really going on though.
"As for the "windows enthusiast", I didn't know such a beast existed. Can anyone confim or deny this for me?"
/.'ers throw my way), my opinion is that the only "windows enthusiasts' out there are people who've never used _anything_ else and people who only do gaming.
As someone who actually makes a living as an NT administrator (and yes, I can use all the sympathy you kind
In any case, I think Apple will easily win the suit; the EPower box is so similar as to be easily mistaken for an iMac from any distance, and Apple does have a patent on the case design.
--I love Micro$oft's OSes; they're so badly broken that I'll never want for work...--
"Someone should shut Anti-Online down using the same tactics. They shouldn't be allowed (by the community, of course it's legal) to narc all their alleged contacts, then get paid for it."
Apparently someone has. Antionline has been unreachable (from here anyway) for at least the last hour.
As a Unix/Linux newbie, I haven't gotten too involved in security issues as yet, so I've never had occasion to visit the PacketStorm site. However, I find this kind of harassment, as well as Harvard's complete bendover in the face of a legal threat from this Vranesevich yahoo is unconsionable. They did not bother to even speak to Ken Williams before trashing _all_ of his data.
Mr. Coward, let me correct a few of your more obvious errors:
1) "pornography" is _legal_ for adults in this country. Filtering software doesn't check to see that the user is over the age of consent.
2) Filtering software, being keyword-based, doesn't work very well - a lot of other sites get filtered.
3) The government has no more right to determine my "morality" than YOU do - and _I_ didn't vote for a single one of the professional assholes currently in congress.
4) Some libraries do indeed carry Playboy; many more of them have a lot of erotic texts. However, libraries are mostly non-profit organizations, and most of them cannot afford to carry periodicals that actually cost money.