Um...not sure if you realize it or not, but the original Burton Batman was based about as much on the Dark Night Returns as Hollywood is likely to see....
Is there a link to the study? If so please post. I suspect they're only showing correlative relationships, which as I said, are easy to demonstrate. A violent kid will like violent games, but that doesn't mean the games made him that way.
Of course, when software companies provide the means to allow parents to determine what their children can do on a
computer, Peacefire and the YRO crew start shrieking about that.
I'm not going to defend Peacfire's "freedom at all costs" stance, but I'll be damned if I use software to "protect" my child that 1) I cannot verify what it is protecting them from and 2) is so bloody easily circumvented.
Since the companies that block sites seem to spend much of their effort blocking unrelated sites or sites that I see as no problem, I don't see how their software provides any useful function. Go back and read over the Cyber Patrol 4 hack (I'm sure there are mirrors out there SOMEWHERE) and see what I mean. I'll write my own firewall rules before I trust that junk.
while/. ppl may want to deny it, violent video games have a causal link to violent actions as well
BAH! Where is your proof?
I saw an interesting graph recently, that linked most violent actions (54+ %) to FAMILY issues, and only something like 5% to violent video games. Certainly no less biased than you, but just as valid until those making this claim provide some PROOF. There may well be correlation and I'm sure that's easily demonstrable. A causal link is another kettle of wombats.
As far as it goes, I don't have a problem with K-Mart enforcing the ratings, as you say that's why they were created. But please save us the rants about things unproven.
Excellent point. You would not BELIEVE how many times I've had to explain to customers that just because we actually release more patches for our OS than some of the other competing vendors does NOT mean we have a worse product. We simply believe in being up front about getting the fixes out the door. I had to support HP hardware for a time before I started working for Sun, and I had to be tripping all over a problem before I could get them to supply me with a patch. Sun makes the patches available up front, and recommends that you keep them up to date. I won't claim we're perfect on all scores, but in this case I know we've been doing our level best to do the right thing for all our customers with this problem.
Step 1 is to do a core analysis. This is done by the kernel group. No surprises, no coverups on anyone's part. You reported a crash and a corefile, so you got the kernel group, end of story.
So, let's take a hypothetical that's not so hypothetical. I bought a FireWire card for my PC so I could use the PC to edit digital video from my newly purchased Sony TRV-120. I installed it. The drivers recognized the card. The driver that is supposed to recognize my CAMERA is provided by Micro$oft. It doesn't recognize my camera. I go download the latest versions of every driver I can find related. It still doesn't recognize my camera.
So, seeing as how CompUSA is actually somewhat enlightened about return policies, I took it back, got a different brand card, installed it and its drivers, and now the Micro$oft driver DOES recognize my camera.
Query: Was this a hardware or a software problem? Please tell me how the lovely legislation protects me (obviously I don't NEED protection, since CompUSA, despite incredibly an incredibly inefficient return desk, did allow me to return/exchange the item in question).
Not to mention, www.cindymargolis.com is one of those damn sites that never lets you back out.... Microsoft must be making that a standard feature of their server, right?
Dan, have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Jaywalked? Lived an a southern state and had any non-missionary style sex with your wife (still illegal in some states, doesn't matter if you're married or not)? I suppose I could go on, but there are a LOT of laws on the books that are either not enforced or only selectively enforced, and LOTS of people have broken some or all of them, whether they knew or not ("ignorance of the law is no excuse" after all). I suspect that you might even be one of them.
By your definition there are probably 100,000 non-criminals in this country. Y'all gonna lock the rest of us up?
There's PLENTY of ways to break the law technically without doing anything morally wrong. Even by such strict moral standards as you profess to have. Of course by the "deserves whatever they get" standard, seems like most lawbreakers should just get the death penalty. Hey, they deserve it right?
An "industry" that pushes the view that women are sluts there for male exploitation and use?
Ah, and here we see the rub. The problem is that it many cases, you are projecting your own opinion that women who are in the "industry" are sluts. There is plenty of pornography that does not make that assumption--a simple picture of a naked woman makes no perjorative prejudgement of her moral character, unlike you.
Those of us who still believe in decency need to fight those who would
push their immoral filth onto society.
Um....nobody forces you to buy porn, Dan. Or do you mean that because something exists and is legal, it's forced on society? Personally, I'm more offended by those who would force Barney onto society. That, and religious people who think they are the only ones who know the ultimate truth and I have to be forced at gun point (that's what law does after all, in its final analysis) to behave by their rules.
Yes, but Franklin didn't live in an era were innocent children are attacked and killed every day, where pornographers make twice as much money as the regular film
industry, where Islamic fundamentalists want to destroy America and where crime and murder are so commonplace. He'd have thought differently if he lived today I'm
sure.
Good god. The problems with your assertions are innumerable and amazing. I hope you're just trolling, but I doubt it.
Let's see 1) children attacked and killed every day...never mind the children's crusade, the horrible state of orphans in, for example, victorian england, etc. Methinks that most children today are overall better off than in Franklin's time. If you want to bring all of culture down to the level of children, hey, have fun watching Barney for the rest of your life.
2) pornographers make lots of money...SO WHAT? How do *you* define pornography? What exactly is wrong with pornography as you define it (pretty broadly I'd guess)? If you don't like it, don't watch it, don't contribute money to it. When everyone agrees with you that it's wrong, and stops spending money on it, it will fade away. Until then, unless it is provably causing harm (and if you define it as broadly as I expect, there are many forms of porn that are only "proven" to cause harm by those who go into their studies already knowing the results) it's protected by the constitution. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.
3)"Islamic Fundamentalists"...where can we start with the inherent racism in THAT statement? There are plenty of American Militias that wouldn't mind destroying America, at least what they see as the wrong parts of America. There are plenty of Christian Fundamentalists who don't have any problem killing gays or workers at abortion clinics (even those who don't perform abortions themselves), and even some who use Christianity to defend their racism and attacks on people who are different colors than they are. And let's go back to looking at what was going on in Franklin's time...there were British Troops looking to "destroy America" with direct warfare. That's a much more direct and credible and immediate threat than we have today, but he didn't advocate draconian measures to address it, that's why he made the statement in the first place.
4)Commonplace crime and murder...I guess you've never read much about large cities from years gone by. With fewer people it was probably easier to hide the crime and murder, but it definitely happened all the same, and in every era it has always been decried by those who believe we could be a better human race. You need to actually study some history instead of assuming that the idyllic (idullic? heh) stereotypes portrayed widely today were real.
Your arrogance in claiming to speak for Franklin and what he'd think if he lived today is amazing. He did not think we needed a big daddy government then, and we still don't need one today. There are good cases to be made that in fact a large percentage of the "modern" problems are directly RESULTING from the government trying to be big daddy. It should be obvious that if someone is forced to accept overarching and misguidedly excessive parentalism, they'll never grow up, and when something happens to leave them unsupervised they won't have learned any of the skills of self control because they didn't have to. That's when things get really ugly.
To quote one of our founders (it always gets confused as to which one):
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither
You can rant all you like about the FBI "just doing their jobs". That is roughly equivalent to the same statement about the guards at Auschwitz. What they are doing is not authorized by the constitution, it's unreasonable search & seizure. Sure, they have to have a warrant to use the box, but once it's in place how can it be proven that they're ONLY gathering the data approved by the warrant? It sees everything, and it doesn't seem too difficult to have it squirrel things away that are convenient. Oh, and do we want to claim these boxes are hacker-proof? I wouldn't bet anything on that. What do we do when hackers get access to a machine that watches EVERY DAMN PACKET?
Until a study is done proving that Napster is the CAUSE of this increase in CD sales, your argument there means jack shit. Perhaps you should read your own.sig again.
The whole thing about napster users buying MORE CDs has one point: RIAA claims they are LOSING money due to napster because people can download the music free. BUT, in an apparent contradiction to that, napster users buy MORE music than average, and STILL buy more music than average EVEN after downloading music for free. So RIAA's logic is wrong.
NOBODY has done a study proving EITHER side, and god only knows if you even could.
From the rebuttal that napster is protected by the DCMA:
Diamond also held that MP3 files contained on computer hard drives are not digital musical recordings. 180 F.3d at 1076-77. Thus, under Diamond, a computer is not a covered device, and a copy made by one Napster user of an MP3 file residing on another Napster user s computer hard drive is not a copy of a digital musical recording, and is not covered by Section 1008. 17 U.S.C. 1001(4)(A).
So....if an MP3 file is not a copy of a digital musical recording, WHAT THE HELL IS IT???
but are people willing to tolerate restrictions such as paying more for music that they can share with friends?
I already pay in many cases more then 10 times what it costs to manufacture a CD, if I want it while it's new and before people are sick enough of it to dump it in the used bins (or more often I pay even more for things that are hard to get due to being import only releases, etc).
What I'm paying now is already the most I would be willing to pay for most of the product, for full rights to do what I want with it. As long as I'm not reselling it, I should be within my rights.
Industry Standards" usually implies that there's an 'Industry' with quite a number of participants who hammer out their differences and arrive at a common standard.
It does not usually denote a situation where there are two monolithic 'competitors' and one carping, whining board of academics defining a 'standard' from an ivory tower.
Last time I checked, the whole WWW was originally established as a standard by that "carping whining board of academics". If it hadn't been for those academics, we would'nt HAVE a web to browse.
If Microsoft wants to innovate, the least they could do is pay attention to things like CSS that are useful, innovative, and shouldn't be ignored just because they weren't invented at Microsoft.
I'm curious why I haven't seen any newsbites alluding to the assertion by napster's council that music trading is claerly legal based on law congress passed not that long ago. That, and the restraint of trade being applied by trying to get a preliminary injunction against Napster seemed to be the keystones of Napster's defense, and they simply don't show up in the media.
I couldn't even get IDSL service *installed* due to communications screwups of a really basic nature between the ISP (Internet Express), the intermediary (Covad), and the phone company (Southwestern Bell). At this point I don't care whose fault it was, I cancelled my service. When someone figures out how to provide actual customer service in this market, then I'll come back to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Um...not sure if you realize it or not, but the original Burton Batman was based about as much on the Dark Night Returns as Hollywood is likely to see....
Is there a link to the study? If so please post. I suspect they're only showing correlative relationships, which as I said, are easy to demonstrate. A violent kid will like violent games, but that doesn't mean the games made him that way.
I'm not going to defend Peacfire's "freedom at all costs" stance, but I'll be damned if I use software to "protect" my child that 1) I cannot verify what it is protecting them from and 2) is so bloody easily circumvented.
Since the companies that block sites seem to spend much of their effort blocking unrelated sites or sites that I see as no problem, I don't see how their software provides any useful function. Go back and read over the Cyber Patrol 4 hack (I'm sure there are mirrors out there SOMEWHERE) and see what I mean. I'll write my own firewall rules before I trust that junk.
BAH! Where is your proof?
I saw an interesting graph recently, that linked most violent actions (54+ %) to FAMILY issues, and only something like 5% to violent video games. Certainly no less biased than you, but just as valid until those making this claim provide some PROOF. There may well be correlation and I'm sure that's easily demonstrable. A causal link is another kettle of wombats.
As far as it goes, I don't have a problem with K-Mart enforcing the ratings, as you say that's why they were created. But please save us the rants about things unproven.
Excellent point. You would not BELIEVE how many times I've had to explain to customers that just because we actually release more patches for our OS than some of the other competing vendors does NOT mean we have a worse product. We simply believe in being up front about getting the fixes out the door. I had to support HP hardware for a time before I started working for Sun, and I had to be tripping all over a problem before I could get them to supply me with a patch. Sun makes the patches available up front, and recommends that you keep them up to date. I won't claim we're perfect on all scores, but in this case I know we've been doing our level best to do the right thing for all our customers with this problem.
Ecache parity errors cause panics, not hangs. Hit Stop-A, get a corefile, and have Sun analyze it if you want a correct answer to your problem.
Step 1 is to do a core analysis. This is done by the kernel group. No surprises, no coverups on anyone's part. You reported a crash and a corefile, so you got the kernel group, end of story.
So, seeing as how CompUSA is actually somewhat enlightened about return policies, I took it back, got a different brand card, installed it and its drivers, and now the Micro$oft driver DOES recognize my camera.
Query: Was this a hardware or a software problem? Please tell me how the lovely legislation protects me (obviously I don't NEED protection, since CompUSA, despite incredibly an incredibly inefficient return desk, did allow me to return/exchange the item in question).
Well the article hasn't been pulled, but the link sure has. I checked it at 18:30 CDT and no link to worldwide mirrors of DeCSS.
Not to mention, www.cindymargolis.com is one of those damn sites that never lets you back out.... Microsoft must be making that a standard feature of their server, right?
Jon, where the hell have you been for the last 50 years? Academe has been being bought for quite some time!!
By your definition there are probably 100,000 non-criminals in this country. Y'all gonna lock the rest of us up?
There's PLENTY of ways to break the law technically without doing anything morally wrong. Even by such strict moral standards as you profess to have. Of course by the "deserves whatever they get" standard, seems like most lawbreakers should just get the death penalty. Hey, they deserve it right?
Ah, and here we see the rub. The problem is that it many cases, you are projecting your own opinion that women who are in the "industry" are sluts. There is plenty of pornography that does not make that assumption--a simple picture of a naked woman makes no perjorative prejudgement of her moral character, unlike you.
Those of us who still believe in decency need to fight those who would push their immoral filth onto society.
Um....nobody forces you to buy porn, Dan. Or do you mean that because something exists and is legal, it's forced on society? Personally, I'm more offended by those who would force Barney onto society. That, and religious people who think they are the only ones who know the ultimate truth and I have to be forced at gun point (that's what law does after all, in its final analysis) to behave by their rules.
Good god. The problems with your assertions are innumerable and amazing. I hope you're just trolling, but I doubt it.
Let's see 1) children attacked and killed every day...never mind the children's crusade, the horrible state of orphans in, for example, victorian england, etc. Methinks that most children today are overall better off than in Franklin's time. If you want to bring all of culture down to the level of children, hey, have fun watching Barney for the rest of your life.
2) pornographers make lots of money...SO WHAT? How do *you* define pornography? What exactly is wrong with pornography as you define it (pretty broadly I'd guess)? If you don't like it, don't watch it, don't contribute money to it. When everyone agrees with you that it's wrong, and stops spending money on it, it will fade away. Until then, unless it is provably causing harm (and if you define it as broadly as I expect, there are many forms of porn that are only "proven" to cause harm by those who go into their studies already knowing the results) it's protected by the constitution. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.
3)"Islamic Fundamentalists"...where can we start with the inherent racism in THAT statement? There are plenty of American Militias that wouldn't mind destroying America, at least what they see as the wrong parts of America. There are plenty of Christian Fundamentalists who don't have any problem killing gays or workers at abortion clinics (even those who don't perform abortions themselves), and even some who use Christianity to defend their racism and attacks on people who are different colors than they are. And let's go back to looking at what was going on in Franklin's time...there were British Troops looking to "destroy America" with direct warfare. That's a much more direct and credible and immediate threat than we have today, but he didn't advocate draconian measures to address it, that's why he made the statement in the first place.
4)Commonplace crime and murder...I guess you've never read much about large cities from years gone by. With fewer people it was probably easier to hide the crime and murder, but it definitely happened all the same, and in every era it has always been decried by those who believe we could be a better human race. You need to actually study some history instead of assuming that the idyllic (idullic? heh) stereotypes portrayed widely today were real.
Your arrogance in claiming to speak for Franklin and what he'd think if he lived today is amazing. He did not think we needed a big daddy government then, and we still don't need one today. There are good cases to be made that in fact a large percentage of the "modern" problems are directly RESULTING from the government trying to be big daddy. It should be obvious that if someone is forced to accept overarching and misguidedly excessive parentalism, they'll never grow up, and when something happens to leave them unsupervised they won't have learned any of the skills of self control because they didn't have to. That's when things get really ugly.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither
You can rant all you like about the FBI "just doing their jobs". That is roughly equivalent to the same statement about the guards at Auschwitz. What they are doing is not authorized by the constitution, it's unreasonable search & seizure. Sure, they have to have a warrant to use the box, but once it's in place how can it be proven that they're ONLY gathering the data approved by the warrant? It sees everything, and it doesn't seem too difficult to have it squirrel things away that are convenient. Oh, and do we want to claim these boxes are hacker-proof? I wouldn't bet anything on that. What do we do when hackers get access to a machine that watches EVERY DAMN PACKET?
The whole thing about napster users buying MORE CDs has one point: RIAA claims they are LOSING money due to napster because people can download the music free. BUT, in an apparent contradiction to that, napster users buy MORE music than average, and STILL buy more music than average EVEN after downloading music for free. So RIAA's logic is wrong.
NOBODY has done a study proving EITHER side, and god only knows if you even could.
Seems to me if it's not a copy, how could it be a copyright infringement?
They can't have their cake and eat it too.....
Diamond also held that MP3 files contained on computer hard drives are not digital musical recordings. 180 F.3d at 1076-77. Thus, under Diamond, a computer is not a covered device, and a copy made by one Napster user of an MP3 file residing on another Napster user s computer hard drive is not a copy of a digital musical recording, and is not covered by Section 1008. 17 U.S.C. 1001(4)(A).
So....if an MP3 file is not a copy of a digital musical recording, WHAT THE HELL IS IT???
And MacOS X is based on BSD too....
I already pay in many cases more then 10 times what it costs to manufacture a CD, if I want it while it's new and before people are sick enough of it to dump it in the used bins (or more often I pay even more for things that are hard to get due to being import only releases, etc).
What I'm paying now is already the most I would be willing to pay for most of the product, for full rights to do what I want with it. As long as I'm not reselling it, I should be within my rights.
It does not usually denote a situation where there are two monolithic 'competitors' and one carping, whining board of academics defining a 'standard' from an ivory tower.
Last time I checked, the whole WWW was originally established as a standard by that "carping whining board of academics". If it hadn't been for those academics, we would'nt HAVE a web to browse.
If Microsoft wants to innovate, the least they could do is pay attention to things like CSS that are useful, innovative, and shouldn't be ignored just because they weren't invented at Microsoft.
I'm curious why I haven't seen any newsbites alluding to the assertion by napster's council that music trading is claerly legal based on law congress passed not that long ago. That, and the restraint of trade being applied by trying to get a preliminary injunction against Napster seemed to be the keystones of Napster's defense, and they simply don't show up in the media.
How does an UNIX Guru have Sex ?
unzip ; strip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep
I couldn't even get IDSL service *installed* due to communications screwups of a really basic nature between the ISP (Internet Express), the intermediary (Covad), and the phone company (Southwestern Bell). At this point I don't care whose fault it was, I cancelled my service. When someone figures out how to provide actual customer service in this market, then I'll come back to it.