1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it.
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
Being made of Lego raises the coolness of an object to it's own power. So if a machine solving a Rubik's Cube had a coolness factor of say, 100, then a machine solving a Rubik's Cube MADE OF LEGO would be 100 ^ 100, or:
Anyone who attributes a single event to global warming is being just plain silly. The media and simple minded laymen on both sides of the issue do this all the time. No individual event proves anthropogenic global warming true or false any more than any individual fossil proves the theory of evolution.... that's why the people at Copenhagen didn't go "Oh wow, look at the snow outside? No global warming... might as well go home."
That aside, I would be fascinated to hear from the climatology community how they consider the theory of AGW to be falsifiable. I can appreciate it being HARD to falsify (in the sense of it being difficult to construct an objective test which would falsify it), given that it's a hugely inexact science with many unknowns, but there should be some theoretical data which would set it to rest once and for all.
-Brendan
P.S. And let's not aggravate the issue by calling unfalsifiable stuff "religion", or climatologists "religious". We might as well just start throwing buckets of paint at each other.
Let's be real for a moment. None of this would increase a downloader's chance of purchasing something. Downloaders download for convenience and cost, not because of some ambient disgruntledness with the quality, DRM or the fact that so many movies are remakes.
DRM is like a debt collection department - a necessary evil of any corporation to protect their income stream.
The US Government has thousands of people working on thousands of project at any given time.
Anyone can walk up and say "why bother working on this one over here when this completely unrelated one over here managed by completely different people with completely different responsibilities could be worked on instead?"
Why bother issuing parking fines when the economy is on the brink of destruction? Gee, maybe because they've pretty much got nothing whatsoever to do with each other?
IIANM, the savings are from less energy to power air conditioners in homes.
Painting pavements would have no benefit unless we turned off all of the air conditioners we have installed next to pavements of which basically there are none.
The first and foremost rule of good programming I've taught to my staff is:
**GET RID OF DUPLICATED CODE**
Every piece of duplicated code is a carnal sin. Even if a single line of code is duplicated, this is an offense. Deduplicating code has the following benefits:
* Usually results in less code to maintain * Code you've written before is easily accessible to code you write in future * Less errors - if you make an adjustment to the code but forget to adjust it in all the other locations, bugs can make their way into production ("I'm sure I fixed that bug!?!") * It naturally results in a more structured architecture, which is vital for enterprise systems (or almost everywhere, IMO)
Recently we outsourced a project to a software house. When they returned the code, I found that huge, huge chunks of code had been duplicated, all over the place. After much profuse swearing, I rewrote the software myself, from scratch, making the program more functional, friendly, flexible and reliable - and in about a third as much code.
I'm obsessed about this principle, and take it to an extreme, and it's treated me exceptionally well.
Firstly, the "purpose of life" isn't to survive. Rather, we feel an urge to survive (and procreate) simply because our mutated ancestors felt this urge, and outsurvived their peers as a result.
Secondly, I don't see how spreading colonizing space will solve problems on earth. It may protect humanity from extinction in case disaster strikes at earth - but will hardly contribute to any overcrowding problems, unless we can feasibly relocate people in their billions.
And until wormhole technology starts taking off, I don't see how that's possible.
Thirdly - yes, we must shed not only stone age mentality, but also our primate and reptilian urges.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it.
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
(oh yeah...)
Yes but because I made the number with LEGO, this minor detail is overwhelmed by it's awesome coolness.
Um
It's made of LEGO dude.
Being made of Lego raises the coolness of an object to it's own power. So if a machine solving a Rubik's Cube had a coolness factor of say, 100, then a machine solving a Rubik's Cube MADE OF LEGO would be 100 ^ 100, or:
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
I mean I don't even care if it's fake... it's still epickly cool.
I'm pretty sure this bug has been there since Outlook 2003.
*waits for 4GB PST file to back up over the network*
.
.
(*places spare change into piggy bank to save up for MS Exchange*)
Anyone who attributes a single event to global warming is being just plain silly. The media and simple minded laymen on both sides of the issue do this all the time. No individual event proves anthropogenic global warming true or false any more than any individual fossil proves the theory of evolution.... that's why the people at Copenhagen didn't go "Oh wow, look at the snow outside? No global warming... might as well go home."
That aside, I would be fascinated to hear from the climatology community how they consider the theory of AGW to be falsifiable. I can appreciate it being HARD to falsify (in the sense of it being difficult to construct an objective test which would falsify it), given that it's a hugely inexact science with many unknowns, but there should be some theoretical data which would set it to rest once and for all.
-Brendan
P.S. And let's not aggravate the issue by calling unfalsifiable stuff "religion", or climatologists "religious". We might as well just start throwing buckets of paint at each other.
Let's be real for a moment. None of this would increase a downloader's chance of purchasing something. Downloaders download for convenience and cost, not because of some ambient disgruntledness with the quality, DRM or the fact that so many movies are remakes.
DRM is like a debt collection department - a necessary evil of any corporation to protect their income stream.
Let's be reasonable for a moment...
The US Government has thousands of people working on thousands of project at any given time.
Anyone can walk up and say "why bother working on this one over here when this completely unrelated one over here managed by completely different people with completely different responsibilities could be worked on instead?"
Why bother issuing parking fines when the economy is on the brink of destruction? Gee, maybe because they've pretty much got nothing whatsoever to do with each other?
Come on.
IIANM, the savings are from less energy to power air conditioners in homes.
Painting pavements would have no benefit unless we turned off all of the air conditioners we have installed next to pavements of which basically there are none.
What's sad is that you took the time to work that out.
What's even sadder is that I took the time to verify it.
And you're right. It's about 70 pages per person.
The first and foremost rule of good programming I've taught to my staff is:
**GET RID OF DUPLICATED CODE**
Every piece of duplicated code is a carnal sin. Even if a single line of code is duplicated, this is an offense. Deduplicating code has the following benefits:
* Usually results in less code to maintain
* Code you've written before is easily accessible to code you write in future
* Less errors - if you make an adjustment to the code but forget to adjust it in all the other locations, bugs can make their way into production ("I'm sure I fixed that bug!?!")
* It naturally results in a more structured architecture, which is vital for enterprise systems (or almost everywhere, IMO)
Recently we outsourced a project to a software house. When they returned the code, I found that huge, huge chunks of code had been duplicated, all over the place. After much profuse swearing, I rewrote the software myself, from scratch, making the program more functional, friendly, flexible and reliable - and in about a third as much code.
I'm obsessed about this principle, and take it to an extreme, and it's treated me exceptionally well.
Firstly, the "purpose of life" isn't to survive. Rather, we feel an urge to survive (and procreate) simply because our mutated ancestors felt this urge, and outsurvived their peers as a result. Secondly, I don't see how spreading colonizing space will solve problems on earth. It may protect humanity from extinction in case disaster strikes at earth - but will hardly contribute to any overcrowding problems, unless we can feasibly relocate people in their billions. And until wormhole technology starts taking off, I don't see how that's possible. Thirdly - yes, we must shed not only stone age mentality, but also our primate and reptilian urges.