Or more accurately, even if viewing child porn causes not additional harm to the child depicted if people in a position to create child porn are aware there is a demand for it...So, yes, it is possible to view child pornography and not hurt anyone. However, in aggregate, the viewing of child pornography creates a demand for new images, and the filling of this demand results in child abuse.
This post is off-topic and deceitful (not to mention over-rated), and should be modded as such. The parent was talking about VIRTUAL child porn, not the kind with actual children in it, which you in no way acknowledge. Nobody in this thread even suggested that viewing REAL child porn was a victimless crime. We all know about the demand effect and consider it a real, harmful crime.
No, it's not a joke. The question asked was how many 70-year olds do I know that would have any idea of how to bypass a filter. Seeing as most of the older people I know are highly intelligent engineers and scientists, it's quite a high proportion. I never said it held true for the general population.
Ah, you got me. You did answer a "how many do you know" question, not a "how many in the population" question.
Chrome is the future because what could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of the Internet?...but the thought of them having the browser market share that IE currently has scares me...
What could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of our computers?
Apparently, the thought of a company having 95% desktop OS share and 90% browser share and a stated vision of taking over the world is less scary than a company having majority search engine share and majority browser share but who's motto is "do no evil"...
I am confused, how does me being afraid of the idea of Google having the share of the browser market that IE currently has indicate that I don't have very major problems with MS being as dominant as it was at its peak (or even now)?
You know MS gaining dominance in the PC market was such a great thing that we should welcome Google becoming similarly dominant.
Well you said "the browser market share that IE currently has" as though the status quo were perfectly unscary. I, for one, would MUCH rather have Google enjoy MS's market share...it may be scary but it's far less scary than the market we already have, at this moment.
That's the difference between people and a lobby. You, and many Christian PEOPLE, are against censorship. Who said the Christian LOBBY represents you? See the American Jewish Lobby for more information.
... if they're making that functionally impossible by requiring it in a non-print safe non-vendor neutral format, it shows they don't understand such issues...
I really hate to be a grammar Nazi, but here I feel I must. What you just described is a format which is safe (for non-print) and neutral (among non-vendors). If you want to turn a phrase into an adjective, you need a hyphen between the words, and if you want to add a non, that's another hyphen. It's the difference between a non-French language teacher (who could not come from France) or a non-French-language teacher (who teaches a language other than French).
...the ridiculousness of someone who claims to write a million lines of perfect code who couldn't even get through a sentence without spelling and grammar errors.
Maybe English grammar is harder than program grammar?
Most crappy programmers I know don't read Slashdot, nor do they read anything else that could be considered "industry material". Hard to stay crappy if you keep learning.
Ah, mistake number 1, my friend. You assume that reading Slashdot leads to learning....
Once they work for a while, get bitten a few times by their own crappy code, learn a few things, and realize just how worthless they actually were right after they graduated...they change their tune. It never fails.
Or maybe once they get old, tied down, and too mentally tired to learn new technologies at a rapid clip, they switch to a philosophy that makes them sound like these are strengths? It's really just a matter of interpretation which direction that phenomenon points...
Chrome is the future because what could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of the Internet?...but the thought of them having the browser market share that IE currently has scares me...
What could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of our computers?
Apparently, the thought of a company having 95% desktop OS share and 90% browser share and a stated vision of taking over the world is less scary than a company having majority search engine share and majority browser share but who's motto is "do no evil"...
It's a big lie that you'll ever use calculus for anything except for
specialised degrees (and if you were to use it for anything you
personally would want to do in your future, you would already be
interested in it). It's also profoundly strange that calculus seems to
be pinnacle of mathematical education if you're not going to go on to
study something like mathematics itself or physics.
No it's not. My degrees are in Chinese and history but I use calculus on a regular basis, just to understand the world around me. Mathematics is the language of nature, and calculus governs everything from how quickly a car stops to when the economy will start gaining jobs again. Anything that involves a rate of change which can itself change, cannot be understand without calculus.
Case in point, just today my Poli Sci Prof. told us not to take his course next semester if we haven't had calculus. I'm assuming you don't consider Poli Sci a branch of mathematics or physics.
Kid, I've browsed from one side of this Internet to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful equation controlling everything. There's no mystical feather field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple statistical tricks and nonsense.
In my experience, there's no such thing as nonsense.
Governments should follow the same basic economic rules like businesses do, if I don't have an Xbox does it make sense for me to pay for Xbox live which I will never use? No, of course not.
The problem is that governments provide services which are fundamentally different from those the private sector provides. Public goods (including common property goods, pure public goods, and toll goods) are systematically underprovided if people pay only for what they use, because they cause spillover benefits that will never be paid for. Often this is because it is impossible to measure how much people use them, or because it is impossible to exclude people from enjoying the benefit of the good. How is the military going to tell you you can't enjoy the benefits of our national defense if you don't pay your personal share of US military spending? Are they going to allow foreign countries to invade and pillage your yard specifically, but defend the rest of the country?
If it were possible for governments to "follow the same basic economic rules like businesses do", governments would be unnecessary and everything would be provided by the private sector. But roads are not like an Xbox, and clean air is not like a car. They are fundamentally different types of economic entities.
It's a big lie that you'll ever use calculus for anything except for
specialised degrees (and if you were to use it for anything you
personally would want to do in your future, you would already be
interested in it). It's also profoundly strange that calculus seems to
be pinnacle of mathematical education if you're not going to go on to
study something like mathematics itself or physics.
No it's not. My degrees are in Chinese and history but I use calculus on a regular basis, just to understand the world around me. Mathematics is the language of nature, and calculus governs everything from how quickly a car stops to when the economy will start gaining jobs again. Anything that involves a rate of change which can itself change, cannot be understand without calculus.
To put my frustration another way, why doesn't anybody ever ask
similar questions for sculpture, or Schaum's Outlines on Basket
Weaving or all the other myriad useless things we humans do for our
edification?
Because studying sculpture will only help you understand sculpting. Studying math will help you understand every field of study, possibly excluding the humanities (though I have personally found applications of mathematical theorems to philosophy and literature). Mathematics is the actual underpinning of everything from sociology to physics to computer science to molecular biology. It's just a shame some people spend too much time whining to look deeply and realize that.
If you're so committed to the proposition that mathematics is useless in daily life, I challenge you to stop using it. Good luck balancing your checkbook. Also, no programming universal Turing machines, or mathematically equivalent devices.
No, I believe math is interesting and important but the original statement was that "day to day" programming these days increasingly required math skills. My experience is exactly the opposite of this, these days most of the boring stuff that previously still required math skills to solve can now often be done simply by calling the right library function.
Was a joke. I was referring to your failure to realize that the $500 expenditure on development was a one-time cost while the $50 savings on hardware is a per-unit savings, so it only takes 10 units sold to make up the difference. Simple math. Ha ha. Joke.
Slashdot Mirror
She's an early ASCII bloomer.
We're _decades_ into thought crime within current generations:
...America has become a very strange place where it is the government's job to entice "those so inclined" into crime....
You know that thought crime is not the same as entrapment or undercover work, right?
...mine *is* right, rather...
The great thing about (moral) standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Just like religion! Of course, mine are right and yours is wrong, whichever one I choose.
victimless and harmless to real people
This is just it, it's not harmless.
Or more accurately, even if viewing child porn causes not additional harm to the child depicted if people in a position to create child porn are aware there is a demand for it...So, yes, it is possible to view child pornography and not hurt anyone. However, in aggregate, the viewing of child pornography creates a demand for new images, and the filling of this demand results in child abuse.
This post is off-topic and deceitful (not to mention over-rated), and should be modded as such. The parent was talking about VIRTUAL child porn, not the kind with actual children in it, which you in no way acknowledge. Nobody in this thread even suggested that viewing REAL child porn was a victimless crime. We all know about the demand effect and consider it a real, harmful crime.
No, it's not a joke. The question asked was how many 70-year olds do I know that would have any idea of how to bypass a filter. Seeing as most of the older people I know are highly intelligent engineers and scientists, it's quite a high proportion. I never said it held true for the general population.
Ah, you got me. You did answer a "how many do you know" question, not a "how many in the population" question.
Chrome is the future because what could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of the Internet?...but the thought of them having the browser market share that IE currently has scares me...
What could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of our computers? Apparently, the thought of a company having 95% desktop OS share and 90% browser share and a stated vision of taking over the world is less scary than a company having majority search engine share and majority browser share but who's motto is "do no evil"...
I am confused, how does me being afraid of the idea of Google having the share of the browser market that IE currently has indicate that I don't have very major problems with MS being as dominant as it was at its peak (or even now)? You know MS gaining dominance in the PC market was such a great thing that we should welcome Google becoming similarly dominant.
Well you said "the browser market share that IE currently has" as though the status quo were perfectly unscary. I, for one, would MUCH rather have Google enjoy MS's market share...it may be scary but it's far less scary than the market we already have, at this moment.
What percent of 70-year-olds you know would have the first clue about bypassing an Internet filter?
Probably around 25%. Among younger people, maybe 5-10%.
????
Is this a joke I don't get?
In my experience, literally about 25% of 70-year-olds would have the first clue about ACCESSING the internet.
????
Citation needed for these back room deals.
I am a Christian and am opposed to this filter. In fact, many Christians are arguing AGAINST this legislation because we have potentially unpopular views which could be silenced through future use of this scheme: http://solapanel.org/article/conroys_internet_filter_full_of_contradictions/
That's the difference between people and a lobby. You, and many Christian PEOPLE, are against censorship. Who said the Christian LOBBY represents you? See the American Jewish Lobby for more information.
...is going to be about as effective as denying sex education to kids in the belief that they'll not have sex if you don't tell them about it.
Wait...that doesn't work?
... if they're making that functionally impossible by requiring it in a non-print safe non-vendor neutral format, it shows they don't understand such issues...
I really hate to be a grammar Nazi, but here I feel I must. What you just described is a format which is safe (for non-print) and neutral (among non-vendors). If you want to turn a phrase into an adjective, you need a hyphen between the words, and if you want to add a non, that's another hyphen. It's the difference between a non-French language teacher (who could not come from France) or a non-French-language teacher (who teaches a language other than French).
...the ridiculousness of someone who claims to write a million lines of perfect code who couldn't even get through a sentence without spelling and grammar errors.
Maybe English grammar is harder than program grammar?
Most crappy programmers I know don't read Slashdot, nor do they read anything else that could be considered "industry material". Hard to stay crappy if you keep learning.
Ah, mistake number 1, my friend. You assume that reading Slashdot leads to learning....
You want bad programmers? Start a MUD/MUX/MUSH and advertise for coders, you'll get the damned scum of the earth, a Mos Eisley cantina of crap coders
Funny you should word it like that, the last MUX and the last MUSH I played on both took place largely in Mos Eisley...
Once they work for a while, get bitten a few times by their own crappy code, learn a few things, and realize just how worthless they actually were right after they graduated...they change their tune. It never fails.
Or maybe once they get old, tied down, and too mentally tired to learn new technologies at a rapid clip, they switch to a philosophy that makes them sound like these are strengths? It's really just a matter of interpretation which direction that phenomenon points...
Chrome is the future because what could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of the Internet?...but the thought of them having the browser market share that IE currently has scares me...
What could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of our computers?
Apparently, the thought of a company having 95% desktop OS share and 90% browser share and a stated vision of taking over the world is less scary than a company having majority search engine share and majority browser share but who's motto is "do no evil"...
Airport bathrooms around the country disagree.
No, just in Minneapolis.
You really need to watch The Business of Being Born. It will change your perspective on this.
Once again, SINAL. Ask one.
There, fixed that for you.
It's a big lie that you'll ever use calculus for anything except for specialised degrees (and if you were to use it for anything you personally would want to do in your future, you would already be interested in it). It's also profoundly strange that calculus seems to be pinnacle of mathematical education if you're not going to go on to study something like mathematics itself or physics.
No it's not. My degrees are in Chinese and history but I use calculus on a regular basis, just to understand the world around me. Mathematics is the language of nature, and calculus governs everything from how quickly a car stops to when the economy will start gaining jobs again. Anything that involves a rate of change which can itself change, cannot be understand without calculus.
Case in point, just today my Poli Sci Prof. told us not to take his course next semester if we haven't had calculus. I'm assuming you don't consider Poli Sci a branch of mathematics or physics.
Kid, I've browsed from one side of this Internet to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful equation controlling everything. There's no mystical feather field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple statistical tricks and nonsense.
In my experience, there's no such thing as nonsense.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Governments should follow the same basic economic rules like businesses do, if I don't have an Xbox does it make sense for me to pay for Xbox live which I will never use? No, of course not.
The problem is that governments provide services which are fundamentally different from those the private sector provides. Public goods (including common property goods, pure public goods, and toll goods) are systematically underprovided if people pay only for what they use, because they cause spillover benefits that will never be paid for. Often this is because it is impossible to measure how much people use them, or because it is impossible to exclude people from enjoying the benefit of the good. How is the military going to tell you you can't enjoy the benefits of our national defense if you don't pay your personal share of US military spending? Are they going to allow foreign countries to invade and pillage your yard specifically, but defend the rest of the country?
If it were possible for governments to "follow the same basic economic rules like businesses do", governments would be unnecessary and everything would be provided by the private sector. But roads are not like an Xbox, and clean air is not like a car. They are fundamentally different types of economic entities.
It's a big lie that you'll ever use calculus for anything except for specialised degrees (and if you were to use it for anything you personally would want to do in your future, you would already be interested in it). It's also profoundly strange that calculus seems to be pinnacle of mathematical education if you're not going to go on to study something like mathematics itself or physics.
No it's not. My degrees are in Chinese and history but I use calculus on a regular basis, just to understand the world around me. Mathematics is the language of nature, and calculus governs everything from how quickly a car stops to when the economy will start gaining jobs again. Anything that involves a rate of change which can itself change, cannot be understand without calculus.
To put my frustration another way, why doesn't anybody ever ask similar questions for sculpture, or Schaum's Outlines on Basket Weaving or all the other myriad useless things we humans do for our edification?
Because studying sculpture will only help you understand sculpting. Studying math will help you understand every field of study, possibly excluding the humanities (though I have personally found applications of mathematical theorems to philosophy and literature). Mathematics is the actual underpinning of everything from sociology to physics to computer science to molecular biology. It's just a shame some people spend too much time whining to look deeply and realize that.
If you're so committed to the proposition that mathematics is useless in daily life, I challenge you to stop using it. Good luck balancing your checkbook. Also, no programming universal Turing machines, or mathematically equivalent devices.
No, I believe math is interesting and important but the original statement was that "day to day" programming these days increasingly required math skills. My experience is exactly the opposite of this, these days most of the boring stuff that previously still required math skills to solve can now often be done simply by calling the right library function.
Was a joke. I was referring to your failure to realize that the $500 expenditure on development was a one-time cost while the $50 savings on hardware is a per-unit savings, so it only takes 10 units sold to make up the difference. Simple math. Ha ha. Joke.