If the earth lights up as a radio source in the early 20th century, but has gone dark again by the dawn of the 22nd because almost everything is now connected to fibre, what hope is there for SETI?
We might communicate with each other over fibre for the next, oh I dunno, thousand years or whatever, but that wouldn't stop us from listening out for a 100-year burst of radio from some other civilisation that went through more or less the same path that we did.
Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want. Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.
No, it's not, and conflating the two is extremely counter-productive.
Not all media purchasers are adults. Not all adult media purchasers are purchasing the media for their own use. A ratings system is they so they are able to make *educated decisions* about what it is they are purchasing. A ratings systems - in and of itself - does not prevent an adult from buying anything they want.
What a great idea. We should try it out in Australia. Yes, I know you go on to say as much, but this part of your post is pretty much spot-on about the problem as it is in Australia.
On the one hand Minchin refers to experts who say that the filtering will be of little help, and on the other hand he says that he installed a filter on his family computer to help protect his children.
Earth might be broken in some ways, but it is (most likely) a lot better environment than anything else out there. Earth is a far better starting position than Mars or whatever and fixing what's broken here would be far more achievable than trying to build a viable human-sustaining ecosystem on some other planet.
Exactly, and this is why trying to figure out a way to move on from the eggs-in-one-basket situation is a thoroughgoing waste of time. I mean, if a completely natural event manages to wipe out the entire biosphere, then that's completely different to humans managing to do it. I guess being wiped out by an asteroid or a nearby supernova doesn't count.
You'd still need to rate every page a browser would want to load up (including dynamically generated pages) otherwise the ratings/filtering "service" would have to presumptively block it because it didn't carry a rating.
And what's the difference between "give me a list of the perverts who failed to opt in" and "give me a list of the perverts who opted out"? How can you guarantee that such a list wouldn't end up being a marketing list for purveyors of fine pornographic products? Or a shopping list for law enforcement?
My neighbor has the right to paint his house any color he wishes, including purple. I welcome his creativity, and no I don't care if it devalues my home. My right to make a profit in my investment ends at his property.
Not trying to be a smart-arse (for a change), but doesn't your neighbour's painting his house purple and thereby devaluing your house therefore extend onto your property? Not trying to make a point, but to clarify one.
Too bad, apparently. "Seven of the world's biggest film studios and the Seven Network" seem to think that "authorized by failing to prevent" as a legal precedence is a great idea. You might want to moan at them about it. I'm going to.
You used the phrase, "protect kids in their care." The court used the phrase "risk of injury to a minor." Will people please stop this disingenuous rhetoric? What injury was risked? "Mental trauma" associated with seeing boobies? From what did these children need protecting?
Apropos of nothing in particular... Two golfers were out on the fairway when an electrical storm suddenly blew in. One of the golfers grabbed his one-iron club and held it in the air, pointed up. The other yelled at him, "are you nuts," to which the first replied "no, not even God can hit a one-iron."
"Hard core porn" is not a classification category in Australia. Neither is "kiddie porn", for that matter, but the point is that you need to be specific: there are some classifications of pornography are legally available for sale in some jurisdictions but not in others. Which leads to the question of whether we are to have state-by-state filters and how the bloody hell that's supposed to work. And which is a pointless question anyway because a) the filter can be trivially bypassed and b) the pr0n is just the foot-in-the-door excuse they think we're all stupid enough to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Great shot, kid! That was one in a million!
We might communicate with each other over fibre for the next, oh I dunno, thousand years or whatever, but that wouldn't stop us from listening out for a 100-year burst of radio from some other civilisation that went through more or less the same path that we did.
Give me one good moral reason why one shouldn't respond in that way to a cease and desist letter.
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram "
Let me be among the first to welcome you here and assure you that you'll fit right in.
What a great idea. We should try it out in Australia. Yes, I know you go on to say as much, but this part of your post is pretty much spot-on about the problem as it is in Australia.
Siebel. That is all.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to all the opprobrium an ill-informed opinion earns them.
No. Why legitimise such an ambit claim? If they had never made such a claim, you'd never offer a compromise of a law about simply taking photographs.
On the one hand Minchin refers to experts who say that the filtering will be of little help, and on the other hand he says that he installed a filter on his family computer to help protect his children.
Christ help them if they cross the, ummm, GPS signals.
...the rest of us keep our underpants on.
Tweak and take an image. As soon as it starts to suck, and assuming you take backups you know about, resume the image and restore. NEXT!
That's because they will still run some form of Windows. BSoD isn't something I want 200m above ground level.
Exactly, and this is why trying to figure out a way to move on from the eggs-in-one-basket situation is a thoroughgoing waste of time. I mean, if a completely natural event manages to wipe out the entire biosphere, then that's completely different to humans managing to do it. I guess being wiped out by an asteroid or a nearby supernova doesn't count.
Unless you're saying that liberals support fourth-trimester abortions, I think you may have meant "embryo".
And what if readers didn't respond to posts about... Damn!
<rolleyes>but you guys must really hate us coming there and exporting our pacific pesos into your economy.</rolleyes>
You'd still need to rate every page a browser would want to load up (including dynamically generated pages) otherwise the ratings/filtering "service" would have to presumptively block it because it didn't carry a rating.
And what's the difference between "give me a list of the perverts who failed to opt in" and "give me a list of the perverts who opted out"? How can you guarantee that such a list wouldn't end up being a marketing list for purveyors of fine pornographic products? Or a shopping list for law enforcement?
Not trying to be a smart-arse (for a change), but doesn't your neighbour's painting his house purple and thereby devaluing your house therefore extend onto your property? Not trying to make a point, but to clarify one.
Write to him anyway. Make it clear that this is a vote-changer for you, which it seems to be. Copy the Prime Minister and your local member.
Too bad, apparently. "Seven of the world's biggest film studios and the Seven Network" seem to think that "authorized by failing to prevent" as a legal precedence is a great idea. You might want to moan at them about it. I'm going to.
Dots on a screen.
And, undoubtedly, 3 PROFIT!!!
Apropos of nothing in particular... Two golfers were out on the fairway when an electrical storm suddenly blew in. One of the golfers grabbed his one-iron club and held it in the air, pointed up. The other yelled at him, "are you nuts," to which the first replied "no, not even God can hit a one-iron."
"Hard core porn" is not a classification category in Australia. Neither is "kiddie porn", for that matter, but the point is that you need to be specific: there are some classifications of pornography are legally available for sale in some jurisdictions but not in others. Which leads to the question of whether we are to have state-by-state filters and how the bloody hell that's supposed to work. And which is a pointless question anyway because a) the filter can be trivially bypassed and b) the pr0n is just the foot-in-the-door excuse they think we're all stupid enough to believe.