Personally, this whole "disaster journalism" thing has gone too far. Must we know when a boy accosts a group of middle school girls? (See other posts.) No...not that this sort of thing is encouraged, but our Jerry Springer, "get-into-other-people's-lives-and-fuck-around" attitude is not healthy. Our society has deteriorated into a group of voyeurs, living vicariously through criminals. Well...maybe not so bad. But that is, without a doubt, the track we're on.
The solution, I believe, would be more reports on events outside the country. How about some reports on the EU? (In papers, not on live news.) Front page stories here in Bloomington, Indiana are more often about crimes or athletics than foreign affairs.
Ultimately, I think this censorship on the part of the police is a Bad Thing. We don't need confidentiality on the part of the police, but more good judgement and actual journalism on the part of the journalists. Dagnabbit.
FreeNet, as I understand, is a marvelous idea. A global (hopefully!) network, all sharing data. As I understand, it is similar to Napster, only that it is a be-all, end-all resource -- everything would be on FreeNet. This brings up an important issue: where do we get everything?
Before we decide where we get everything we have to settle on what everything is. Here are a few that puzzle me, possibly because of my only rudimentary understanding of FreeNet nodes and how it all works.
Should it include commercial things (advertisments, stores, etc.)? Personally, no -- companies involved means governments involved, governments involved mean regulations, and regulations are a Bad Thing for a network.
What about enyclopedias? What encyclopedia publisher would volunteer to have it's data available on FreeNet, for nothing in return?
FreeNet is a new beginning. While FreeNet would reside on the Internet (fabricating a network, even with Iridium, would be difficult), I think it would transcend it. The only way for that to happen, however, is if the golden rule is 'there are no rules.' Any sort of guidelines lay precedent for more, stricter guidelines. Any censorship would be disastrous. But we know that, we're/.
Finally, I'd just like to say that FreeNet seems great, so much of it because of the community participation aspect, much like that of Napster. Being part of a scheme so large and amazing has quite an allure to it, and I must say: I can't wait. Mikey G.
"the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts"
What...truth? Since when did it have to be true, so long as it is our opinion? I was under the impression that free speech was any kind of speech, regardless of truth or advancement provided. Personally, this is strange: I thought I was allowed to say whatever I want, assuming tim and manner is appropriate, as well as nothing libelous/slanderous. Since when did we all have to be 'productive' members of society?
Regardless of that, I suppose this is a partial victory merely because it is intellectually stimulating. It provides interesting questions: where is the line between function and expression? Who is to be the judge of what expression is? Isn't function inherently expression? It boggles the mind.
spankenstein wrote: In high school i would have been a prime target for this. I was a depressed, insomniac, geek/musician that had multi-colored hair in multiple spiky arrangements and a skateboard and a really bad attitude about life. I never went over the edge. But being persecuted like this could have easily pushed the wrong buttons. --
My name is Mike Greenberg, and I'm 15. I go to Bloomington High School North (BHSN) in Bloomington, Indiana, and am a freshman. I'll try not to ramble.:)
I am a geek -- I won't deny this. Ever since I was a little kid in kindergarten I was singled out as the 'smart' one. I was in my elementary school's 'gifted' program, and took advanced classes at my middle school. At BHSN I take all advanced classes. With no gratuitous arrogance, I am more advanced than the classes that I partake in, as the level is rather low.
Ever since fourth grade (my elementary school's gifted program didn't begin until fourth grade) I was ostracized from the 'other' kids and, in accordance with the will of the school administration, isolated from the other students, as well.
When I went to middle school, I was a 'punk.' While lacking in the dyed-hair department, I wore the 'attire' (pretty much anything that wasn't pop-culture at the time). I still am 'punk,' merely in the sense that my hair is pink and that I don't wear pop-culture clothes. For this, I am singled out.
Now, my school is pretty cohesive. We don't get a lot of fights after school, we haven't had a suicide shooting. That bond between the students is not universal, though. I am mocked, jeered, and despised by some. In my art class, I am mocked because I argue with the teacher about transcendentalism, for instance. I am not well-liked, and we'll leave it at that.
I am, as some might say, depressed. I'd really rather not go into it (especially not in a forum like this) but, as it is easy to guess, it involves girls...and drugs...and guys. Regardless of the semantics, I am depressed. I am upset at a variety of things, and look so -- I am often times not my perky, question-answering self, and this is clear to all of those around me.
Do I pose a danger? Should I be called into WAVE? I know that I would be, but that is not the question that I've posed. I know that I have the sense to not turn my depression and anger into violence. I think this is plainly obvious. But, out of spite and, perhaps, a little bit of fright, I would be reported -- and unjustly so.
My final question would be: what purpose does this serve? Do you think that a teenager incapable of doing so many things should be, of all things, a judge of his or her peers? Do you think that adults could handle this sort of responsibility? Sure, juries function. Juries, however, judge a single person, for a single crime. Is society capable of judging individuals? Should society have the right to judge individuals? Should teenagers, of all members of society to choose, have the right to judge individuals? I think not. --Mike Greenberg Thus spoke Zarathustra.
Ferdinand de Lesseps was the Frenchman in charge of building the Panama Canal. He elected himself to undertake the daunting project because he had recently completed the Suez Canal under budget and ahead of schedule; de Lesseps managed this because of the stroke of an engineer's genius. He counted upon a similar serendipitous event in a pathetic, humanist fashion. After almost forty years and a couple thousand men, the French gave up.
My point is that you shouldn't count on a bug being found. OpenBSD does code audits because it is necessary to be pro-active about bug and hole discovery. It's not enough to say "someone...will probably find the bug, and it'll be gone within a kernel release or two." You can't count on serendipity.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution, I believe, would be more reports on events outside the country. How about some reports on the EU? (In papers, not on live news.) Front page stories here in Bloomington, Indiana are more often about crimes or athletics than foreign affairs.
Ultimately, I think this censorship on the part of the police is a Bad Thing. We don't need confidentiality on the part of the police, but more good judgement and actual journalism on the part of the journalists. Dagnabbit.
Mikey G.
===================
Before we decide where we get everything we have to settle on what everything is. Here are a few that puzzle me, possibly because of my only rudimentary understanding of FreeNet nodes and how it all works.
Should it include commercial things (advertisments, stores, etc.)? Personally, no -- companies involved means governments involved, governments involved mean regulations, and regulations are a Bad Thing for a network.
What about enyclopedias? What encyclopedia publisher would volunteer to have it's data available on FreeNet, for nothing in return?
FreeNet is a new beginning. While FreeNet would reside on the Internet (fabricating a network, even with Iridium, would be difficult), I think it would transcend it. The only way for that to happen, however, is if the golden rule is 'there are no rules.' Any sort of guidelines lay precedent for more, stricter guidelines. Any censorship would be disastrous. But we know that, we're /.
Finally, I'd just like to say that FreeNet seems great, so much of it because of the community participation aspect, much like that of Napster. Being part of a scheme so large and amazing has quite an allure to it, and I must say: I can't wait. Mikey G.
===================
What...truth? Since when did it have to be true, so long as it is our opinion? I was under the impression that free speech was any kind of speech, regardless of truth or advancement provided. Personally, this is strange: I thought I was allowed to say whatever I want, assuming tim and manner is appropriate, as well as nothing libelous/slanderous. Since when did we all have to be 'productive' members of society?
Regardless of that, I suppose this is a partial victory merely because it is intellectually stimulating. It provides interesting questions: where is the line between function and expression? Who is to be the judge of what expression is? Isn't function inherently expression? It boggles the mind.
===================
My name is Mike Greenberg, and I'm 15. I go to Bloomington High School North (BHSN) in Bloomington, Indiana, and am a freshman. I'll try not to ramble. :)
I am a geek -- I won't deny this. Ever since I was a little kid in kindergarten I was singled out as the 'smart' one. I was in my elementary school's 'gifted' program, and took advanced classes at my middle school. At BHSN I take all advanced classes. With no gratuitous arrogance, I am more advanced than the classes that I partake in, as the level is rather low.
Ever since fourth grade (my elementary school's gifted program didn't begin until fourth grade) I was ostracized from the 'other' kids and, in accordance with the will of the school administration, isolated from the other students, as well.
When I went to middle school, I was a 'punk.' While lacking in the dyed-hair department, I wore the 'attire' (pretty much anything that wasn't pop-culture at the time). I still am 'punk,' merely in the sense that my hair is pink and that I don't wear pop-culture clothes. For this, I am singled out.
Now, my school is pretty cohesive. We don't get a lot of fights after school, we haven't had a suicide shooting. That bond between the students is not universal, though. I am mocked, jeered, and despised by some. In my art class, I am mocked because I argue with the teacher about transcendentalism, for instance. I am not well-liked, and we'll leave it at that.
I am, as some might say, depressed. I'd really rather not go into it (especially not in a forum like this) but, as it is easy to guess, it involves girls...and drugs...and guys. Regardless of the semantics, I am depressed. I am upset at a variety of things, and look so -- I am often times not my perky, question-answering self, and this is clear to all of those around me.
Do I pose a danger? Should I be called into WAVE? I know that I would be, but that is not the question that I've posed. I know that I have the sense to not turn my depression and anger into violence. I think this is plainly obvious. But, out of spite and, perhaps, a little bit of fright, I would be reported -- and unjustly so.
My final question would be: what purpose does this serve? Do you think that a teenager incapable of doing so many things should be, of all things, a judge of his or her peers? Do you think that adults could handle this sort of responsibility? Sure, juries function. Juries, however, judge a single person, for a single crime. Is society capable of judging individuals? Should society have the right to judge individuals? Should teenagers, of all members of society to choose, have the right to judge individuals? I think not.
--Mike Greenberg
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
===================
Ferdinand de Lesseps was the Frenchman in charge of building the Panama Canal. He elected himself to undertake the daunting project because he had recently completed the Suez Canal under budget and ahead of schedule; de Lesseps managed this because of the stroke of an engineer's genius. He counted upon a similar serendipitous event in a pathetic, humanist fashion. After almost forty years and a couple thousand men, the French gave up.
My point is that you shouldn't count on a bug being found. OpenBSD does code audits because it is necessary to be pro-active about bug and hole discovery. It's not enough to say "someone...will probably find the bug, and it'll be gone within a kernel release or two." You can't count on serendipity.
Mike Greenberg