No, it's not. When you look at someone, you immeadiatly judge them upon their looks and composure, even if you think you don't. For instance, for many (not everyone, I stress that, not everyone) people, on the immeadiate contact with a woman, they check if the person is good-looking, hair-color, bosom size, etc. If they fufill the critery, they'll listen to the person no matter what they're saying. Another example, let's say there's a really smart twelve year old. If he came up to you at the moment in real life with something pretty important and well-informed to say, you'd immeadiatly brush him off, no matter what he was saying. Why? Because he's younger, and probably 99% of younger people don't know what they're talking about. But, on the internet, this twelve year-old can speak freely and anonymously and have people judge him ONLY on what he is saying. This anonimity protects his write to speak freely and be heard. There ARE people who would like to remain anonymous without transacting porn, I'm sure there are plenty of people on this message board who feel that way. I would really rather not give you my real name (easy to find out, of course, but you should at least have to go through a small amount of effort if you want it). I MUST go hunting for porn every night, musn't I? Another problem, isn't this going to make it easier for stalkers and other people that are major problems on the internet. *Mr. Psycho enters the chat room, he checks the list. Bingo! Right clicking on the name of a chatter who had to madantorily give their real name and age or face legal consequences, he finds out she's 10 years old. Time to reel her in, he private messages her and makes his age 10 years old as well through the program to mess around with his ID he downloaded off of one of numerous sites. He asks to see her, she bites. She gives her address...* It wouldn't even be this hard. He could find out all of this stuff even without asking her! Granted, this is a rare case, but should we really make it any easier for people like this and others. The requirment would only force law-abiding citizens to give up their anonimity, criminals arn't going to go placidly along with this.
Not to contradict you, but, I think in Britain you are guilty until proven innocent in all crimes, so the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the defendant. So, this would not exactly be a big step, just applying the same law standards they've used before on the internet. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but, from a legal perspective, this isn't anything too radical on the part of Britain. I'm not sure of this, however, could anyone from Britain verify this or deny it?
And this is not a flame, but, none the less, you're incorrect. If it wern't for UNIONS and social activism, we'd still be working in factories at minimum wage. Big buisness is the epitomy of capitalism, it is the end product. Remember exactly what was going on near the end of the industrial revolution. Big buisnesses were providing plenty of jobs for people, but those people had to work in unsanitary conditions, for low pay, and they had no choice. It was either the factories, or the streets. Unions and socialist ideas changed all of that (all though the unions soon became corrupt, but that's a different story). The big buisnesses didn't just decide one day, "Hey, why don't we provide sanitary conditions for our workers and pay them fair wages and stop making children work, losing quite a bit of revenue at the same time!". They're function is to gain money, and that's it. Sometimes, if the right person is in control, they'll try to do this without screwing the workers, but usually, not. That is why there has to be a counter-balance of social activism to offset this money-making policy. And the same thing applies today. The big buisness will be given a major advantage with this UCITA bill, and they WILL use it. If there was something to counter-balance this new bill, then everything would be just peachy, but there isn't. So, this bill is not going to be beneficial to consumers.
Heh heh, what's ironic beyond just the song is that this is what the entire movie itself was about. There's a quote from the movie that pretty clearly describes the situation, "Remember what the MPAA says, massive, deplorable violence is ok as long as there are no swear words" (Not exact, but close enough) Since the subject seems to be heading in this direction, why are people so uppity about swear words? IMHO they are useful as a way of expressing a greater level of emotion over some subject. Remember why they're called swear words, swear is a synynom for oath and the oath was used to add credibility or emphasis to a statement. And that, in my book, does not make them immoral in any way. Unfortunatly, for some reason, people love to avoid thinking about things, and the immorality of swear words is one of those things. "They're just bad! There's no argument! They're just bad and evil and I don't want my kids hearing then or any kids hearing them to come near my kids!".
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. When you look at someone, you immeadiatly judge them upon their looks and composure, even if you think you don't. For instance, for many (not everyone, I stress that, not everyone) people, on the immeadiate contact with a woman, they check if the person is good-looking, hair-color, bosom size, etc. If they fufill the critery, they'll listen to the person no matter what they're saying. Another example, let's say there's a really smart twelve year old. If he came up to you at the moment in real life with something pretty important and well-informed to say, you'd immeadiatly brush him off, no matter what he was saying. Why? Because he's younger, and probably 99% of younger people don't know what they're talking about. But, on the internet, this twelve year-old can speak freely and anonymously and have people judge him ONLY on what he is saying. This anonimity protects his write to speak freely and be heard. There ARE people who would like to remain anonymous without transacting porn, I'm sure there are plenty of people on this message board who feel that way. I would really rather not give you my real name (easy to find out, of course, but you should at least have to go through a small amount of effort if you want it). I MUST go hunting for porn every night, musn't I? Another problem, isn't this going to make it easier for stalkers and other people that are major problems on the internet. *Mr. Psycho enters the chat room, he checks the list. Bingo! Right clicking on the name of a chatter who had to madantorily give their real name and age or face legal consequences, he finds out she's 10 years old. Time to reel her in, he private messages her and makes his age 10 years old as well through the program to mess around with his ID he downloaded off of one of numerous sites. He asks to see her, she bites. She gives her address...* It wouldn't even be this hard. He could find out all of this stuff even without asking her! Granted, this is a rare case, but should we really make it any easier for people like this and others. The requirment would only force law-abiding citizens to give up their anonimity, criminals arn't going to go placidly along with this.
Not to contradict you, but, I think in Britain you are guilty until proven innocent in all crimes, so the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the defendant. So, this would not exactly be a big step, just applying the same law standards they've used before on the internet. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but, from a legal perspective, this isn't anything too radical on the part of Britain. I'm not sure of this, however, could anyone from Britain verify this or deny it?
And this is not a flame, but, none the less, you're incorrect. If it wern't for UNIONS and social activism, we'd still be working in factories at minimum wage. Big buisness is the epitomy of capitalism, it is the end product. Remember exactly what was going on near the end of the industrial revolution. Big buisnesses were providing plenty of jobs for people, but those people had to work in unsanitary conditions, for low pay, and they had no choice. It was either the factories, or the streets. Unions and socialist ideas changed all of that (all though the unions soon became corrupt, but that's a different story). The big buisnesses didn't just decide one day, "Hey, why don't we provide sanitary conditions for our workers and pay them fair wages and stop making children work, losing quite a bit of revenue at the same time!". They're function is to gain money, and that's it. Sometimes, if the right person is in control, they'll try to do this without screwing the workers, but usually, not. That is why there has to be a counter-balance of social activism to offset this money-making policy. And the same thing applies today. The big buisness will be given a major advantage with this UCITA bill, and they WILL use it. If there was something to counter-balance this new bill, then everything would be just peachy, but there isn't. So, this bill is not going to be beneficial to consumers.
Heh heh, what's ironic beyond just the song is that this is what the entire movie itself was about. There's a quote from the movie that pretty clearly describes the situation, "Remember what the MPAA says, massive, deplorable violence is ok as long as there are no swear words" (Not exact, but close enough) Since the subject seems to be heading in this direction, why are people so uppity about swear words? IMHO they are useful as a way of expressing a greater level of emotion over some subject. Remember why they're called swear words, swear is a synynom for oath and the oath was used to add credibility or emphasis to a statement. And that, in my book, does not make them immoral in any way. Unfortunatly, for some reason, people love to avoid thinking about things, and the immorality of swear words is one of those things. "They're just bad! There's no argument! They're just bad and evil and I don't want my kids hearing then or any kids hearing them to come near my kids!".