Oh-so-clever non-technical solution, to the terrible-sounding technical problem you claim exists:
Just put the phone near your mouth.
Works great. Even in "noisy" areas.
The issue is not "dont wish to see". that's just euphemistic phrasing. The issue is "morally harmful", in conjunction with "children".
If there were an entire part of the library that was restricted to only adult patrons, then in theory, there would be no need for any restrictions in that area. Trouble is, most libraries arent carved up that way, nor does their internal architecture and available space support reconfiguring the library in that way.
and personally, I think it would be a waste of space and effort to do so. Library resources could be put to better use in other ways.
I've seen some places with these, and they are a pathetic joke. it's just a political ploy to justify continuing what they were oding.
The "shields" approach doesnt work unless they extend from the monitor practically all the way to the person's face.
Now, polarized view screens, on the other hand, are much more effective. THey restrict the viewing angle so that you have to be pretty much right in front of the computer. That being said, a true good-faith effort to doing this, would require that the library also have to restrict people walking behind the computer, in case they might accidentally see some objectionable content as they walk past.
It's a mess. simpler and better to just not allow porn in libraries. leave it to the "art houses" and what not. To the librarian's creed of allowing access to "all forms of information" or whatever... It's not "information", it's "art", after all.
Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept
That is idiotic.
"art as (political/'free') speech" is as disgustingly twisted a concept as "a corporation is a person".
Both have been legally accepted, but in any sane world, both are bunk.
People who resort to invoking "art as speech" for their so-called art, are either just clamoring for attention, or are trying to make a buck out of it.
If you want to communicate an actual idea, there's a radical concept that might be considered. It's called "words".
Rumor has it, it works quite well.
The irony in your post is that it emphasizes "POLITICAL SPEECH". As such, you imply that you recognize that the first amendment was crafted to only protect political speech, not "art".
As I posted elsewhere.. the society one lives in, detemines what is "harmful". If you feel so strongly that the bible is harmful, then you should go move to a society that agrees with you.
It's interesting, or ironic, though, that all the places that are the most severely anti-bible, are the places you'd probably least like to be in. China, Iran, saudi arabia, etc.
The issue is not that "we're not animals". It is that humans are supposed to be BETTER than your average animals.
Contrariwise, if you want to say 'but we are animals, so anything derived from animal behavior is fine", then it should be similarly fine for that guy standing behind you to rip your neck open and take all your stuff. Or, if you prefer, grab your arms, sodomize you, and THEN take your stuff, while you're busy looking for a rectal band-aid.
So which would you prefer? "we're just animals", or "we're better than mere animals"?
To make this post a more slashdot/techie post.. you'll probably whine about "harm to an individual" somehow being different.. to which I will counter with Asimov's humanistic "zeroth law", which it is postulated that "harm to humanity" is of even greater concern, than "harm to an individual".
The collective members of a particular society, get to deem what is "harmful to humanity". If you dont like the definitions of the society you live in.. then perhaps you should go move to Sweden.
What "stuff"? Give actual, useful comparisons. Otherwise, your comment can be reduced to, "I am most familiar with linux. Therefore, using linux is easier for me"
"morally wrong"? I dont think you have a proper understanding of the word "moral". Are you perhaps under 20? Or at most, under 25?
You seem to have the implied belief of, "Anything that stops me from doing what I want to do, is 'morally wrong'"
Which is actually the exact opposite of morals. Morals exist primarily for the reason of countering the typical human selfish desire of, "I wanna do whatever I wanna do".
Eh... there's still something very positive to be had, from engineers who can rightfully say, "my most useful/helpful/... boss did (this) on a regular basis"
These people making these arguments are the same kind of people that think that...
No, "they" are not. (not all of them, anyways)
The interesting irony, is that when you decide to write off people like that with your additional buch of personal (rather than factual) attacks, is that you are displaying in yourself a fine example of bigotry and prejudice.
Traits that you imply you are against, when "they" display such traits.
http://india.blurtit.com/q573968.html
claims India gained independance through Ghandi's efforts,
and blood shed of thousands of brave Indian Soldiers.
In Libya, as you yourself pointed out, the protests were only useful to the degree that they incited active rebellion.
As far as Egypt goes.. that didnt change because a bunch of people sat around obstructing pedestrian traffic and singing "Kumbaya", to so speak. According to wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#2011_revolution,
it was as a result of "very large number of people and mainly consisting of continuous mass demonstrations".
Additionally, the army passively sided with the demonstrators.
It was fairly clear that at some point, it WOULD eventually turn into physical hostilities such as in libya, etc. so Mubarak ran away, in fear for his life, basically.
And oh by the way the military took control.
This was no "peaceful transition". There was not massive loss of life or anything. But at the same time, it sounds pretty "hostile" to me. It became basically a military coup. Just with a lot less shots fired than the average one.
If the army had sided with mubarak, he would still be in power.
Protests like this change nothing , in the big scheme of things. They dont threaten the status quo politically,and they dont threaten it physically.
Replace "damn hippies" with "useless hippies", and it would be more accurate.
There are only two things that really effect change:
1. When "the person in charge" decides to do things differently
2. when a large group of people decide to bring their guns to forcibly change who "the person in charge" is.
Look at all the various regime changes lately in the middle east. How many happened through "peaceful demonstrations"? How many happened because weapons got involved?
How did the soviet union change into what it is today? By force.
People think that's because "that's the East, and we're the West". But it's actually the same here as well. Politicians only do big changes, when their power is threatened. A bunch of people "protesting" does not do that in any way.
The US is held captive by a duopoly of regimes. They are basically "frenemies", taking turns in keeping power for "the 1%".
They will never willingly "vote in" changes to take away power for themseles.
So all these idiotic "Protests" accomplish pretty much nothing. Especially due to the fact that they pride themselves for having "no organization" and "no goals".
In contrast, the tea party could theoretically attain some significant level of regime change, if it kept momentum, by gradually replacing more and more "career politicians", with real people. However, it will most likely never achieve enough of a percentage to seriously change anything either, given that it would require a majority of voters, to vote in a majority of tea party candidates, and half the voters are Democrats who seem to be against anything but Democrat candidates.
"My party, right or wrong", has become the new "My country, right or wrong".
The whole "M.A.D." thing.. only works, if your counterpart, is NOT "mad".
However, the strategies correctly judged that it was only a matter of time before some mad dictator got their hands on an ICBM.
If you're not prepared beforehand, you're screwed.
Better to be prepared before you "need" it.
One reply: can you show me a modern functioning democracy?
Hint: The united states is not a democracy. Neither by function, nor by design.
Right from the start, it's a republic. and it acts that way too.
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text.
This is the actual problem.
That the MAJORITY of people these days, cannot parse factual statements, let alone analyze and cross compare them.
Plato feared that the majority of people were too stupid to be allowed to have a vote.
In 2,000 years, while the amount of knowledge AVAILABLE to people has increased; sadly, the basic intelligence of people has not.
What you seem to be saying is, "common laborers are the most useful tools for science".
To which I reply, yup, that's pretty much how things work. For all kinds of science. *especially* "political science".
A body cant get elected, without a bunch of tools voting for them these days...
Congratulations, scientists. After thousands of years to hone your skills, you have achieved the ultimate pinnacle of biological knowlege:
Turns out, a uterus is a good idea for growing organic things.
In another thousand years, they might come up with an equally brilliant invention: a "post-uteral sustanance device, with intuitive interface" They could call it a Biogrowth-Optimized Organic Bladdersack
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, iPhone has some noise reduction, but it's not nearly as good in speakerphone mode - which is the mode most likely to be used with Siri.
So what? In the grand apple spirit of denying users what works poorly... simply disable speakerphone mode for siri on older phones.
Oh-so-clever non-technical solution, to the terrible-sounding technical problem you claim exists: Just put the phone near your mouth. Works great. Even in "noisy" areas.
To support the parent post, please note this:
http://www.vlingo.com/apps/iphone
It's free. It does voice recognition. It does web searches, map searches, texts, emails, and facebook/twitter updates.
And it somehow manages to run okay on the iphone 4...
AND EVEN THE 3GS.
The only thing it lacks is the fancy-schmancy siri AI back-end. Which is no no way dependant on the cpu front end you hold in your hand.
The issue is not "dont wish to see". that's just euphemistic phrasing. The issue is "morally harmful", in conjunction with "children".
If there were an entire part of the library that was restricted to only adult patrons, then in theory, there would be no need for any restrictions in that area.
Trouble is, most libraries arent carved up that way, nor does their internal architecture and available space support reconfiguring the library in that way.
and personally, I think it would be a waste of space and effort to do so. Library resources could be put to better use in other ways.
I've seen some places with these, and they are a pathetic joke. it's just a political ploy to justify continuing what they were oding.
The "shields" approach doesnt work unless they extend from the monitor practically all the way to the person's face.
Now, polarized view screens, on the other hand, are much more effective. THey restrict the viewing angle so that you have to be pretty much right in front of the computer.
That being said, a true good-faith effort to doing this, would require that the library also have to restrict people walking behind the computer, in case they might accidentally see some objectionable content as they walk past.
It's a mess. simpler and better to just not allow porn in libraries. leave it to the "art houses" and what not.
To the librarian's creed of allowing access to "all forms of information" or whatever... It's not "information", it's "art", after all.
Just because you cannot imagine what someone is "saying" by whacking off in front of you doesn't mean he isn't trying to express some constitutionally protected concept
That is idiotic. "art as (political/'free') speech" is as disgustingly twisted a concept as "a corporation is a person". Both have been legally accepted, but in any sane world, both are bunk. People who resort to invoking "art as speech" for their so-called art, are either just clamoring for attention, or are trying to make a buck out of it.
If you want to communicate an actual idea, there's a radical concept that might be considered. It's called "words". Rumor has it, it works quite well.
The irony in your post is that it emphasizes "POLITICAL SPEECH". As such, you imply that you recognize that the first amendment was crafted to only protect political speech, not "art".
Your workplace has not inflicted sufficient anti-harrassment training on you.
Allowing people to view pornography in the workplace, IS grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit by the other people.
What about if someone came in requesting information how how best to torch a public library, and be completely untracable after the fact?
or how to stalk, rape,and kill librarians?
A lot of these "all information without restriction" zealots really need a reality check.
As I posted elsewhere.. the society one lives in, detemines what is "harmful". If you feel so strongly that the bible is harmful, then you should go move to a society that agrees with you.
It's interesting, or ironic, though, that all the places that are the most severely anti-bible, are the places you'd probably least like to be in.
China, Iran, saudi arabia, etc.
The issue is not that "we're not animals". It is that humans are supposed to be BETTER than your average animals.
Contrariwise, if you want to say 'but we are animals, so anything derived from animal behavior is fine", then it should be similarly fine for that guy standing behind you to rip your neck open and take all your stuff. Or, if you prefer, grab your arms, sodomize you, and THEN take your stuff, while you're busy looking for a rectal band-aid.
So which would you prefer? "we're just animals", or "we're better than mere animals"?
To make this post a more slashdot/techie post.. you'll probably whine about "harm to an individual" somehow being different.. to which I will counter with Asimov's humanistic "zeroth law", which it is postulated that "harm to humanity" is of even greater concern, than "harm to an individual".
The collective members of a particular society, get to deem what is "harmful to humanity".
If you dont like the definitions of the society you live in.. then perhaps you should go move to Sweden.
What "stuff"?
Give actual, useful comparisons.
Otherwise, your comment can be reduced to,
"I am most familiar with linux. Therefore, using linux is easier for me"
You should probably amend your post to mention *which version* of KDE is "just perfect" on your 512mb system.
"morally wrong"?
I dont think you have a proper understanding of the word "moral".
Are you perhaps under 20? Or at most, under 25?
You seem to have the implied belief of, "Anything that stops me from doing what I want to do, is 'morally wrong'"
Which is actually the exact opposite of morals. Morals exist primarily for the reason of countering the typical human selfish desire of, "I wanna do whatever I wanna do".
Eh... there's still something very positive to be had, from engineers who can rightfully say, "my most useful/helpful/... boss did (this) on a regular basis"
didn't look very crashed to me.
Exactly. Seems like this could be a way for obama to give his muslim buddies drone technology while at the same time attempting plausible denyability.
How does one of these things NOT have some kind of auto-self-destruct??? Surely it's been tampered with?
These people making these arguments are the same kind of people that think that...
No, "they" are not. (not all of them, anyways)
The interesting irony, is that when you decide to write off people like that with your additional buch of personal (rather than factual) attacks, is that you are displaying in yourself a fine example of bigotry and prejudice. Traits that you imply you are against, when "they" display such traits.
In Libya, as you yourself pointed out, the protests were only useful to the degree that they incited active rebellion.
As far as Egypt goes.. that didnt change because a bunch of people sat around obstructing pedestrian traffic and singing "Kumbaya", to so speak. According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#2011_revolution, it was as a result of "very large number of people and mainly consisting of continuous mass demonstrations". Additionally, the army passively sided with the demonstrators. It was fairly clear that at some point, it WOULD eventually turn into physical hostilities such as in libya, etc. so Mubarak ran away, in fear for his life, basically. And oh by the way the military took control. This was no "peaceful transition". There was not massive loss of life or anything. But at the same time, it sounds pretty "hostile" to me. It became basically a military coup. Just with a lot less shots fired than the average one.
If the army had sided with mubarak, he would still be in power.
Protests like this change nothing , in the big scheme of things. They dont threaten the status quo politically,and they dont threaten it physically.
Replace "damn hippies" with "useless hippies", and it would be more accurate.
There are only two things that really effect change:
1. When "the person in charge" decides to do things differently
2. when a large group of people decide to bring their guns to forcibly change who "the person in charge" is.
Look at all the various regime changes lately in the middle east. How many happened through "peaceful demonstrations"? How many happened because weapons got involved?
How did the soviet union change into what it is today? By force.
People think that's because "that's the East, and we're the West". But it's actually the same here as well. Politicians only do big changes, when their power is threatened. A bunch of people "protesting" does not do that in any way.
The US is held captive by a duopoly of regimes. They are basically "frenemies", taking turns in keeping power for "the 1%". They will never willingly "vote in" changes to take away power for themseles. So all these idiotic "Protests" accomplish pretty much nothing. Especially due to the fact that they pride themselves for having "no organization" and "no goals".
In contrast, the tea party could theoretically attain some significant level of regime change, if it kept momentum, by gradually replacing more and more "career politicians", with real people. However, it will most likely never achieve enough of a percentage to seriously change anything either, given that it would require a majority of voters, to vote in a majority of tea party candidates, and half the voters are Democrats who seem to be against anything but Democrat candidates.
"My party, right or wrong", has become the new "My country, right or wrong".
You are confusing "Dogfooding" with "NIH syndrome"
The whole "M.A.D." thing.. only works, if your counterpart, is NOT "mad". However, the strategies correctly judged that it was only a matter of time before some mad dictator got their hands on an ICBM. If you're not prepared beforehand, you're screwed. Better to be prepared before you "need" it.
One reply: can you show me a modern functioning democracy? Hint: The united states is not a democracy. Neither by function, nor by design. Right from the start, it's a republic. and it acts that way too.
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text.
This is the actual problem. That the MAJORITY of people these days, cannot parse factual statements, let alone analyze and cross compare them.
Plato feared that the majority of people were too stupid to be allowed to have a vote. In 2,000 years, while the amount of knowledge AVAILABLE to people has increased; sadly, the basic intelligence of people has not.
Science - It's full of tools
What you seem to be saying is, "common laborers are the most useful tools for science".
To which I reply, yup, that's pretty much how things work. For all kinds of science. *especially* "political science". A body cant get elected, without a bunch of tools voting for them these days...
Congratulations, scientists.
After thousands of years to hone your skills, you have achieved the ultimate pinnacle of biological knowlege:
Turns out, a uterus is a good idea for growing organic things.
In another thousand years, they might come up with an equally brilliant invention: a "post-uteral sustanance device, with intuitive interface"
They could call it a Biogrowth-Optimized Organic Bladdersack
if you drive, petrol here is £1.34/L.
and do note that comes out to about £5/US gallon. which is about $8/gallon.
now try complaining about "high gasoline prices" in the US. (odd about the mangled bit before the pound sign. it isnt in my editing box)