I Don't think this is insightful. Utilizing parental controls is not letting "the media" do their work for them. It is giving parents an option of tools so that they can effectively do their work. Technology is suppose to make our lives easier, no? So why should technology not make different aspects of parenting easier too?
For as much as people claim that younger generations are "tech savvy", there are not. Yeah, they under stand how to "use" computers and tech devices. But a vast majority don't understand how to control tech devices. It's like driving a car. Most everyone knows how to. But don't understand the slightest about what goes on under the hood. For a handful of actually tech savvy people, they will find a work around. For the majority, they will either find a tech savvy friend or be SOL.
And Cops. The burden of proof to arrest and convict someone of a shooting is rather high. Especially with a culture that does not "snitch". This leaves the police unable to arrest & convict people they know committed crimes but cannot get anyone to testify to. Drug charges provide all the evidence needed. So police will arrest someone for a drug charge because they can't get them on the real crime they committed.
Here is a NYTimes article about how the US's Carbon emissions are at a 20 year low. Also notice how the US has been growing it's economy without growing its Carbon output.
Unfortunately, it is the people that don't learn - not Apple. Shady business tactics like that work great for Apple as they increase revenue. And the consumers say things like "this is how Apple ensures quality".
You certainly make good points. stopping the ability of Corporations to project speech while allowing groups like Fox News and MSNBC to openly project a point of view would be (in your words) "outlaw[ing] speech by anyone who doesn't own a printing press".
Which is why I think that the DISCLOSE Act is a good idea. Allowing Corporations access to their protected speech. But not allowing them to hide that Protect Speech behind a SuperPAC. If a Corporation wants to exert its right to speech, let the Corporation take credit for what it promotes.
The Argument against would be that the people have rights, not the Corporation. Restriction rights of a Corporation does not infringe on the rights of he Individuals.
Saying that Corporations could not donate to Political Campaigns would not infringe on individuals making donations in their own names.
Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees with this position.
Furthermore, Apple isn't abusing it's power since it's their store and they can do whatever they want.
That's a pretty poor argument. Doing whatever you want is what entities that abuse power do. See Microsoft and the Explorer situation. It was their Operating System, they could do what ever they wanted. What they wanted to do and did was abusing their power.
The problem is that people hold some careers to an impossible standard. Parents will complain about teachers drinking at bars. Teachers the parents saw while they were drinking at a bar also.
Unfortunately, someone would be chosen. Remember, you don't actually vote for the President, the Electors for your State vote for the President in the Electoral College.
However, I do wish more people that were unhappy with those in power would go and vote and write in "no one" or some such nonsense. It wont have a bearing on who is elected - just like staying home - but it will at least let those that are elected and those that lost know that you are unhappy and not just lazy. And maybe they will start to court your vote.
How is the information wrong? It has multiple names. The majority of users chose to go with the North American name. The pages still shows the logo for both names, and even makes mention of both names in the first sentence. There has been no altering of facts.
No. They are arguing that verifiable information is better then "Take my word for it" information.
In an ideal world, if the "take my word for it" information is true, then it should get tested, verified, and published somewhere so that it can move into the "verifiable" information category.
Slashdot Mirror
Its an easy way for parents to ensure that their student isn't using their phones during class. Something a parent should care about.
I Don't think this is insightful. Utilizing parental controls is not letting "the media" do their work for them. It is giving parents an option of tools so that they can effectively do their work. Technology is suppose to make our lives easier, no? So why should technology not make different aspects of parenting easier too?
Ahh but they added "on a mobile device". It's the newest version of "on the internet".
For as much as people claim that younger generations are "tech savvy", there are not. Yeah, they under stand how to "use" computers and tech devices. But a vast majority don't understand how to control tech devices. It's like driving a car. Most everyone knows how to. But don't understand the slightest about what goes on under the hood. For a handful of actually tech savvy people, they will find a work around. For the majority, they will either find a tech savvy friend or be SOL.
haha
And Cops. The burden of proof to arrest and convict someone of a shooting is rather high. Especially with a culture that does not "snitch". This leaves the police unable to arrest & convict people they know committed crimes but cannot get anyone to testify to. Drug charges provide all the evidence needed. So police will arrest someone for a drug charge because they can't get them on the real crime they committed.
The show ended with the discovery that all modern humans traced their linage back to 1 ancestor - The human/cylon hybrid child.
That could have been a great series.
One of the main reasons for this is LEGO cannot patent it's bricks. But they can copyright a licensed set like starwars.
Side note (Because of your sig)
Why would you want to repeal the 17th Amendment? I don't see the benefit to the American Government by becoming LESS democratic.
Here is a NYTimes article about how the US's Carbon emissions are at a 20 year low. Also notice how the US has been growing it's economy without growing its Carbon output.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/a-20-year-low-in-u-s-carbon-emissions/
Unfortunately, it is the people that don't learn - not Apple. Shady business tactics like that work great for Apple as they increase revenue. And the consumers say things like "this is how Apple ensures quality".
I believe you meant Apple when you said Microsoft.
OR maybe you and Steven Drozd enjoying using sucky apps?
You certainly make good points. stopping the ability of Corporations to project speech while allowing groups like Fox News and MSNBC to openly project a point of view would be (in your words) "outlaw[ing] speech by anyone who doesn't own a printing press".
Which is why I think that the DISCLOSE Act is a good idea. Allowing Corporations access to their protected speech. But not allowing them to hide that Protect Speech behind a SuperPAC. If a Corporation wants to exert its right to speech, let the Corporation take credit for what it promotes.
The Argument against would be that the people have rights, not the Corporation. Restriction rights of a Corporation does not infringe on the rights of he Individuals.
Saying that Corporations could not donate to Political Campaigns would not infringe on individuals making donations in their own names.
Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees with this position.
Furthermore, Apple isn't abusing it's power since it's their store and they can do whatever they want.
That's a pretty poor argument. Doing whatever you want is what entities that abuse power do. See Microsoft and the Explorer situation. It was their Operating System, they could do what ever they wanted. What they wanted to do and did was abusing their power.
The problem is that people hold some careers to an impossible standard. Parents will complain about teachers drinking at bars. Teachers the parents saw while they were drinking at a bar also.
Eh. Technically you still uploaded. Working to diminish your uploading while still uploading does not negate that you were uploading.
Well, for many people (like teachers and public figures) it could ruin their careers.
Unfortunately, someone would be chosen. Remember, you don't actually vote for the President, the Electors for your State vote for the President in the Electoral College.
However, I do wish more people that were unhappy with those in power would go and vote and write in "no one" or some such nonsense. It wont have a bearing on who is elected - just like staying home - but it will at least let those that are elected and those that lost know that you are unhappy and not just lazy. And maybe they will start to court your vote.
True... That is what posting on the internet is all about.
How is the information wrong? It has multiple names. The majority of users chose to go with the North American name. The pages still shows the logo for both names, and even makes mention of both names in the first sentence. There has been no altering of facts.
No. They are arguing that verifiable information is better then "Take my word for it" information.
In an ideal world, if the "take my word for it" information is true, then it should get tested, verified, and published somewhere so that it can move into the "verifiable" information category.
Thank you for this. That gave me an actually good out loud laugh.