Man, if that were how it worked I know a few lawyers who would immediately send out friend requests to certain judges. "Wait, I never have to deal with _____ again? SCORE!"
I keep hearing about awesome revolutionary inventions that are cheap, flexible, and tiny. Super efficient solar panels, screens, memory, everything.
And yet, somehow, years pass and I never see them actually used in consumer electronics.
Obviously that's not always the case. E-Ink is something I would have put into that category had it never materialized, for example. But in a general sense I just have trouble getting excited these days.
Diesel will burn but getting it to go boom requires a bit more effort than a firecracker.
That example was based off of (but was not exactly) an actual event. In the real case I can't swear it was diesel, just that it was a fuel of some sort and the jug was nearly empty - my understanding is that the fumes caused the boom. Also, in the real case the kid didn't lose a hand - though I was told there was permanent damage to it in some way. Not sure if that means he lost the tip of a finger, or lost some sensation due to burn scars or what.
I agree with nearly everything you said, except the part where you said I was wrong. We agree for the most part, clearly - I'm just saying that there are situations where, no matter how well you have educated your kid, they will make a really bad choice. Some of this puts them in physical harm (I'm picturing my brother climbing over the railing at the GRAND CANYON so he could get a better look at the massive drop - yeah, that happened) and others are more about emotions and psychology... humans are wired very strangely when it comes to sex. I'm all on board with the whole "it's natural, etc." talk and I don't want it to be a taboo - but I don't think it's censorship to do my best to prevent a five year old from watching that "two girls one cup" video everyone on YouTube is talking about. I honestly believe that can do actual lasting damage. So that's the line you have to draw, and everyone will draw it differently. Education, yes. Understanding, yes. Maturity, sure. But kids can't decide what they're ready for - that's the job of a parent - and so sometimes you have to protect them from it. There are mistakes you learn from, and mistakes you never recover from.
For what it's worth, the kid (now nearly thirteen) seems to be spectacularly well-balanced and we've reached a point where we don't worry about letting her do whatever it is she does online - and for things that are omnipresent but still... distateful... we just don't make our opinions or the reasoning for those opinions secret.
Actually, no, kids aren't stupid. Kids are ignorant a lot of the time, but they aren't stupid. Your average 10-year-old is absorbing information like a sponge.
Obviously YMMV, but virtually all of the kids I've met (including myself when I was one, and the many many kids I worked with as a counselor at a summer camp) were stupid.
For example, if you were to ask one "What would happen if you put a fire cracker in a container used for diesel fuel?" they would be able to access the information they had absorbed and correctly tell you that it would explode, injuring anyone stupid enough to do such a thing.
If, however, you don't ask them what would happen but instead just leave them alone with the firecracker, the match, and the jug of fuel... they'll lose a hand.
Kids are stupid not due to ignorance or lack of information, but because they take longer than a lot of people realize to develop the ability to think ahead and make good decisions. That's why you can so often hear people say, "Why would you do that? YOU KNOW BETTER!" Yes, they do, but they're stupid.
Why do people insist on trying to control everything their children do?
Because kids are stupid. Really, really stupid. Left to their own devices, kids would get themselves killed at an impressive rate. I agree with you that it's good to "teach them how to deal with things they may not understand, and educate them on what you don't like and why you don't like it". Absolutely. But that doesn't take the place of stepping in and trying to prevent them from doing things that you feel are physically, mentally, or emotionally bad for them.
I'm not for a second saying that parents shouldn't take responsibility, but I have to say I've been humbled somewhat in this area and do think that whenever possible people should help parents do this by giving them the tools they need.
Not too long ago my house gained an eleven year old. Before that I just rolled my eyes and said "Parents need to just keep track of what the kids are watching"... once she was there I suddenly became aware of just how hard that is. The commercials that play during otherwise acceptable shows, for example - not to mention all the problems with knowing what is and is not possible in an online game.
I don't want to see things censored, but I welcome voluntary attempts to make the colossal task of monitoring easier for parents.
So if someone set up a similar site in your name it, you'd rest with the decision that it was parody and legal?
Absolutely. I would look at it, decide it was parody, and take one of two actions depending on the circumstances:
1. Ignore it entirely, hoping that without any attention it will go away (and knowing that any attention I give it is still serving it)
2. Publicly laugh about it and act like a good sport (if I think people are going to see it either way) so that I'm at least seen as someone who can take a joke.
With the big increase in 3D movies and the obvious potential for games, I think there's real promise here.
The problem (as always) is that until more is done with these laptops in mind it's just a novelty - and until it's no longer a novelty more won't be done for these laptops.
That means the question is which side will blink first. So long as the functionality is relatively cheap and is optional (nobody wants to be wearing the glasses all the time) I think it has a good chance of catching on.
Of course, I didn't read TFA (blocked from work) so I don't know what kind of price increase this brings or if they are partnered with anyone to make software.
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
Right. That's what this is. The changes are requiring the ads to *educate* the consumers regarding the strings attached to "endorsements". It's a really good thing, that will make it a little bit harder to lie or mislead people. Seriously, nobody is trying to take away your free speech or say that you can't endorse things all that you want. This is just about increasing the amount of truth in advertising.
FTA: "If someone broke a door to rob a store, he said, it was usual to charge them the cost of the door."
Okay, so I can agree with paying for a broken door. Furthermore, I can say that there could be real costs involved in doing security checks to see what damage might have been done - so I'd be okay with that argument. I think they need to draw the line there, between "money spent checking what damage was done" and "money spent making sure someone else can't do the same thing". It's not entirely clear from the article what side this situation falls on, and while 700,000 dollars sounds absurdly high part of that is other more direct "damages" in theory.
Well, stomach tubes are actually very common. Some of the kids in my wife's classroom are tube-fed, including some that are by no means vegitative.
The other issue - and this could just be because you didn't want to go into a more detailed definition here - is that by your definition of 'extraordinary' a huge percentage of us will fit into that at some point.
You are probably discounting anything short-term but the definition of short-term needs to be clarified in that case and you are still left with the fact that the *expected* length and *actual* length are often different.
Whatever system you use there will be people that fit *technically* but that you still want to make an exception for. It's a big ugly mess.
My wife is a teacher in a classroom of severely disabled kids. She's had a few that some would call 'vegitative' despite having some awareness of their surroundings.
This study probably won't change anything, because most people decide what does and doesn't count as 'alive' on a gut level. You'll even find people way at the ends of the bell curve, saying relatively high-functioning people should be put to sleep or insisting that someone whose brain has been removed entirely is still alive somewhere "in there".
Personally, I lean to the "still alive" end of things - possibly further than logic anc science would support.
Certainly I've disliked some Google stuff, or liked but been unimpressed by it.
I am quite impressed with Gmail, especially when viewed alongside things like Hotmail. You already mentioned the search engine and google maps. Honestly, I'd say those three are enough for the general public, right or wrong, to mark them with the 'excellence' tag.
Reputations are never entirely accurate, they just need some grain of truth to be grounded on and a lot of PR.
I saw footage of a spider being levetated as well, I think by the same people who floated the frog (can't follow the link right now, but it may be there). It flailed around for just a split second, and then folded its legs around itself so that it was just a ball. Kind of a cool reaction.
Security like that for a business like theirs is just for show. It's there for all the "foreign dignitaries" with their big pocket books.
For show or not, it really is a more-secure-than-average place. Until recently I worked for the company that cleans it and while I don't have (and wouldn't give) details I know I was told the security is closer to a bank than an office building.
The president of the company was also told that if he volunteered to be Tazed they would give him a free shirt. He passed.
If your kids are old enough to read and understand the porn references when you type some URL I think they are old enough to find porn themselves anyway. The thing is, kids are not interested in this stuff. And as soon as they are you better educate them about it.
Wow, I totally disagree. First of all, they may not understand that "Hotmale.com" isn't the same as "Hotmail.com" and when it pops up they may click it by mistake. Second of all, they may understand what "zomgpornpornporn.com" means but click on it out of curiosity when they would not have otherwise looked it up. Then comes the mental trauma, and the questions about what all those women were doing to that poor, poor donkey...
> The original poster was concerned about their wife and kids seeing their porn links.
Wrong! I'm not concerned about that at all because I don't have any porn links in my browser and don't have children.
I was replying to someone mentioning porn concerns at work, and pointing out that there could be legitimate porn concerns at home as well. As for the alternative of not doing it, that's beside the point. They could also use a different browser, or stick to paper porn (meaning printed, not some kind of wood pulp fetish). But the actual request is more about a change in an existing product making an existing strategy that was previously working no longer behave like they wanted.
It's absurd that a company dedicated to providing ratings information doesn't properly track actual viewing. DVR in particular should be closely tracked, so that they can see what happens as more and more programs slip the advertising into the show itself (though hopefully in a more subtle way that Eureka! has).
Slashdot Mirror
Man, if that were how it worked I know a few lawyers who would immediately send out friend requests to certain judges. "Wait, I never have to deal with _____ again? SCORE!"
I keep hearing about awesome revolutionary inventions that are cheap, flexible, and tiny. Super efficient solar panels, screens, memory, everything.
And yet, somehow, years pass and I never see them actually used in consumer electronics.
Obviously that's not always the case. E-Ink is something I would have put into that category had it never materialized, for example. But in a general sense I just have trouble getting excited these days.
Diesel will burn but getting it to go boom requires a bit more effort than a firecracker.
That example was based off of (but was not exactly) an actual event. In the real case I can't swear it was diesel, just that it was a fuel of some sort and the jug was nearly empty - my understanding is that the fumes caused the boom. Also, in the real case the kid didn't lose a hand - though I was told there was permanent damage to it in some way. Not sure if that means he lost the tip of a finger, or lost some sensation due to burn scars or what.
I agree with nearly everything you said, except the part where you said I was wrong. We agree for the most part, clearly - I'm just saying that there are situations where, no matter how well you have educated your kid, they will make a really bad choice. Some of this puts them in physical harm (I'm picturing my brother climbing over the railing at the GRAND CANYON so he could get a better look at the massive drop - yeah, that happened) and others are more about emotions and psychology... humans are wired very strangely when it comes to sex. I'm all on board with the whole "it's natural, etc." talk and I don't want it to be a taboo - but I don't think it's censorship to do my best to prevent a five year old from watching that "two girls one cup" video everyone on YouTube is talking about. I honestly believe that can do actual lasting damage. So that's the line you have to draw, and everyone will draw it differently. Education, yes. Understanding, yes. Maturity, sure. But kids can't decide what they're ready for - that's the job of a parent - and so sometimes you have to protect them from it. There are mistakes you learn from, and mistakes you never recover from.
For what it's worth, the kid (now nearly thirteen) seems to be spectacularly well-balanced and we've reached a point where we don't worry about letting her do whatever it is she does online - and for things that are omnipresent but still... distateful... we just don't make our opinions or the reasoning for those opinions secret.
Actually, no, kids aren't stupid. Kids are ignorant a lot of the time, but they aren't stupid. Your average 10-year-old is absorbing information like a sponge.
Obviously YMMV, but virtually all of the kids I've met (including myself when I was one, and the many many kids I worked with as a counselor at a summer camp) were stupid.
For example, if you were to ask one "What would happen if you put a fire cracker in a container used for diesel fuel?" they would be able to access the information they had absorbed and correctly tell you that it would explode, injuring anyone stupid enough to do such a thing.
If, however, you don't ask them what would happen but instead just leave them alone with the firecracker, the match, and the jug of fuel... they'll lose a hand.
Kids are stupid not due to ignorance or lack of information, but because they take longer than a lot of people realize to develop the ability to think ahead and make good decisions. That's why you can so often hear people say, "Why would you do that? YOU KNOW BETTER!" Yes, they do, but they're stupid.
Why do people insist on trying to control everything their children do?
Because kids are stupid. Really, really stupid. Left to their own devices, kids would get themselves killed at an impressive rate. I agree with you that it's good to "teach them how to deal with things they may not understand, and educate them on what you don't like and why you don't like it". Absolutely. But that doesn't take the place of stepping in and trying to prevent them from doing things that you feel are physically, mentally, or emotionally bad for them.
I'm not for a second saying that parents shouldn't take responsibility, but I have to say I've been humbled somewhat in this area and do think that whenever possible people should help parents do this by giving them the tools they need.
... once she was there I suddenly became aware of just how hard that is. The commercials that play during otherwise acceptable shows, for example - not to mention all the problems with knowing what is and is not possible in an online game.
Not too long ago my house gained an eleven year old. Before that I just rolled my eyes and said "Parents need to just keep track of what the kids are watching"
I don't want to see things censored, but I welcome voluntary attempts to make the colossal task of monitoring easier for parents.
You don't want to know how expensive the toner is.
You also don't want to know how gorey the remake of Office Space will be.
It'd be like throwing a basketball to a paraplegic.
Pssst! You probably meant QUADriplegic. Generally speaking, paraplegics can catch basketballs just fine.
Wait... an anal rape joke gets modded Informative"? Makes you wonder what "Insightful" is.
Also, [ontopic] Google. [/ontopic]
So if someone set up a similar site in your name it, you'd rest with the decision that it was parody and legal?
Absolutely. I would look at it, decide it was parody, and take one of two actions depending on the circumstances:
1. Ignore it entirely, hoping that without any attention it will go away (and knowing that any attention I give it is still serving it)
2. Publicly laugh about it and act like a good sport (if I think people are going to see it either way) so that I'm at least seen as someone who can take a joke.
Looks like someone has been watching The Dark Knight.
Hooray, Batman science!
With the big increase in 3D movies and the obvious potential for games, I think there's real promise here.
The problem (as always) is that until more is done with these laptops in mind it's just a novelty - and until it's no longer a novelty more won't be done for these laptops.
That means the question is which side will blink first. So long as the functionality is relatively cheap and is optional (nobody wants to be wearing the glasses all the time) I think it has a good chance of catching on.
Of course, I didn't read TFA (blocked from work) so I don't know what kind of price increase this brings or if they are partnered with anyone to make software.
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
Right. That's what this is. The changes are requiring the ads to *educate* the consumers regarding the strings attached to "endorsements". It's a really good thing, that will make it a little bit harder to lie or mislead people. Seriously, nobody is trying to take away your free speech or say that you can't endorse things all that you want. This is just about increasing the amount of truth in advertising.
FTA: "If someone broke a door to rob a store, he said, it was usual to charge them the cost of the door."
Okay, so I can agree with paying for a broken door. Furthermore, I can say that there could be real costs involved in doing security checks to see what damage might have been done - so I'd be okay with that argument. I think they need to draw the line there, between "money spent checking what damage was done" and "money spent making sure someone else can't do the same thing". It's not entirely clear from the article what side this situation falls on, and while 700,000 dollars sounds absurdly high part of that is other more direct "damages" in theory.
Well, stomach tubes are actually very common. Some of the kids in my wife's classroom are tube-fed, including some that are by no means vegitative.
The other issue - and this could just be because you didn't want to go into a more detailed definition here - is that by your definition of 'extraordinary' a huge percentage of us will fit into that at some point.
You are probably discounting anything short-term but the definition of short-term needs to be clarified in that case and you are still left with the fact that the *expected* length and *actual* length are often different.
Whatever system you use there will be people that fit *technically* but that you still want to make an exception for. It's a big ugly mess.
My wife is a teacher in a classroom of severely disabled kids. She's had a few that some would call 'vegitative' despite having some awareness of their surroundings.
This study probably won't change anything, because most people decide what does and doesn't count as 'alive' on a gut level. You'll even find people way at the ends of the bell curve, saying relatively high-functioning people should be put to sleep or insisting that someone whose brain has been removed entirely is still alive somewhere "in there".
Personally, I lean to the "still alive" end of things - possibly further than logic anc science would support.
Certainly I've disliked some Google stuff, or liked but been unimpressed by it.
I am quite impressed with Gmail, especially when viewed alongside things like Hotmail. You already mentioned the search engine and google maps. Honestly, I'd say those three are enough for the general public, right or wrong, to mark them with the 'excellence' tag.
Reputations are never entirely accurate, they just need some grain of truth to be grounded on and a lot of PR.
I saw footage of a spider being levetated as well, I think by the same people who floated the frog (can't follow the link right now, but it may be there). It flailed around for just a split second, and then folded its legs around itself so that it was just a ball. Kind of a cool reaction.
Security like that for a business like theirs is just for show. It's there for all the "foreign dignitaries" with their big pocket books.
For show or not, it really is a more-secure-than-average place. Until recently I worked for the company that cleans it and while I don't have (and wouldn't give) details I know I was told the security is closer to a bank than an office building. The president of the company was also told that if he volunteered to be Tazed they would give him a free shirt. He passed.
So, first we have a story about reverse-pickpockets, and now reverse-policing.
Oh no... watch out for the fire department!
If your kids are old enough to read and understand the porn references when you type some URL I think they are old enough to find porn themselves anyway. The thing is, kids are not interested in this stuff. And as soon as they are you better educate them about it.
Wow, I totally disagree. First of all, they may not understand that "Hotmale.com" isn't the same as "Hotmail.com" and when it pops up they may click it by mistake. Second of all, they may understand what "zomgpornpornporn.com" means but click on it out of curiosity when they would not have otherwise looked it up. Then comes the mental trauma, and the questions about what all those women were doing to that poor, poor donkey...
> The original poster was concerned about their wife and kids seeing their porn links.
Wrong! I'm not concerned about that at all because I don't have any porn links in my browser and don't have children.
I was replying to someone mentioning porn concerns at work, and pointing out that there could be legitimate porn concerns at home as well. As for the alternative of not doing it, that's beside the point. They could also use a different browser, or stick to paper porn (meaning printed, not some kind of wood pulp fetish). But the actual request is more about a change in an existing product making an existing strategy that was previously working no longer behave like they wanted.
That would certainly be a problem, but I think for most people porn and work are kept separate and yet they still have those concerns:
1. Maybe you don't want your wife and kids to have porn urls popping up on the browser
2. Maybe you don't want slashdot popping up at work, thereby allowing them to realize that it's not blocked like every other site.
It's absurd that a company dedicated to providing ratings information doesn't properly track actual viewing. DVR in particular should be closely tracked, so that they can see what happens as more and more programs slip the advertising into the show itself (though hopefully in a more subtle way that Eureka! has).