Perhaps I can clarify. The V chip (as I understand it) allows the TV owner to block out programs that exceed one or more levels of rating categories. For instance, I set my TV to block programs with a Violence index of 4. I don't know the number of categories off the top of my head, but I believe it's things like sex, violence, profanity, etc.
In and of itself, it seems pretty harmless. The concerns are things like:
Who rates the individual programs?
On what basis do they do so?
Will that basis be publically available.
Will there be an appeal process?
How will this rating system affect what programs are produced?
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see nudity and sex treated in a realistic manner, rather than having it glamorized and reviled at the same time. As for violence, let's make things more realistic (i.e. f you get shot in the shoulder, you aren't going to be walking around any time soon). Others out there have different ideas about what they want television to be. The fear is that a rating system and V-chip combo will influence programmers to produce, well, pablum. They will strive to not offend anyone, so we are left with the lowest common denominator (even more than now). The ratings system could result in TV being even more afraid to challenge, to question, to take chances.
Here's one scenario: people set their V-chips to some level suitable for their children -> not wanting to be bothered, they leave it there -> programs that don't meet this criteria don't get watched -> programmers stop making programs that don't satisfy the thresholds most people use -> everyone, whether they have kids or not, whether they have a V-chip or not, has to watch the same programming, because that's all that's being made. Unlikely? Perhaps, but that gives you some idea of what people are concerned about.
There are other powerful motivating forces out there (within us?) besides greed or fear. Curiosity, for one. Some of us push ourselves to achieve more for the sake of the sense of accomplishment we get when we reach our goals. Frankly, if the only reason the human race can find to get out of bed in the morning is fear, perhaps we should just climb back into the trees and forget the whole thing.
I admit it: I'm an optimist. The way I see it, the reason that greed is seen as such a powerful force is that it is an expression of an even more primal and powerful 'force': fear. Think about it, if you weren't afraid of running out of stuff (food, shelter, software), or afraid that someone or something would take your stuff from you, would greed make any sense?
I hope for a day when the human race stops being afraid, and puts aside the many evils that stem from it.
That's true. But once something is GPL, everybody can benefit from my work, regardless of their contribution to the "system". This is precisely why communism doesn't work.
I'm confused. I haven't written any Linux code, and I am certainly benefitting from it. And yet, open source software certainly seems to be working. As far as communism goes, I thought the idea was that everyone contributes, and everyone gains (at least in the ideal). That sounds pretty good to me. Mind you, the attempts at practical implementation have been disappointing (to say the least).
There are other sorts of compensation besides monetary, even in the "real world." The satisfaction of a job well done, the respect of your colleagues, etc. Have you ever given to someone without expecting something in return?
It has been my experience that life is not a zero-sum game: if one wins, it is not automatic that someone else loses. Likewise, one can "win" in all sorts of ways that don't result in more money in your pocket.
It's 1999, and some of us are STILL trying to use the term "Communism" as some sort of epiphet.
Bah, I say! My parents were driven out of Cuba because Fidel Castro, a self-styled Communist, managed to take power. You won't find a more anti-communist environment than South Florida (were many of the older generation still refer to themselves as "in exile"). Whether what goes on in Cuba would be what Marx called Communism is another matter.I spent the first 27 years of my life hearing about the evils of Communism, and seeing its effects on those who made it here. I certainly am no friend of Communism as it has been implemented in the real world. You'd think I'd automatically end up a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-communist. Guess what...
Let's get this straight once and for all: Communism is a political ideology. It is NOT synonymous with "evil" or "baby killer" or whatever the hell else people want to label it as so as to better hitch their ideological little red wagons to.
You disagree with someone's politics? Fine. Just don't be so lazy as to throw the term "communism" around as a substitute for rational thought. The only "Evil Empire" we face today is Darth Vader's. Rational people of good conscience should be able to discuss politics (even as heretical a concept as "capitalism has flaws") in a civilized manner. We shouldn't settle for less.
A young programmer shows some enthusiasm, and a bitter AC bashes him. Pathetic. You, Sir, should look to your own character, and modesty, before you criticize another's.
OT: How does Python compare to Perl - if you had a fairly simple task, and knew both, when would you choose one over the other?
Indeed, it is a sad day when access to the Internet, one of the greatest gifts humanity has ever given itself, is being hobbled for the sake of cheap, short-term political gain and fear-driven attempts at mind control.
So, does Mr. Dobson recommend CyberSitter? You know, the filter that blocks all those bad, bad sites like the National Organization of Women and any site (or even domain of a site) that criticizes CyberSitter.
What's wrong with this? If your mother took thalidomide, you turn out deformed. If your parents are poor you don't get to go to DisneyWorld every summer. If your parents are famous you have to put up with having a public life and being the target of every two-bit terrorist group around. That's called life.
I submit that free access to information is quickly becoming a necessary component of our rights. As citizens of a democracy (actually a republic, but why quibble), we make decisions (via our votes) that determine the course of our government. As individuals, we live in a society which is rapidly increasing in complexity - you need access to information to be able to deal with it. Of what possible benefit would it be to have a section of our population making it's decisions without access to the relevant information? Some would say "They want information, let them work for it!". I truly don't know what to say to such people.
On a related note, the posts here give me the feeling that we're being overrun by Libertarians who believe that a person's worth is measured by their bank account, and if they're poor, well, then there must be something wrong with them..... they aren't really people like you and I. And a fine little slippery slope that attitude is.
The iToaster, so named because it is appliance-like in its ease of use, the company says, runs on a hybrid operating system, taken from both Linux and BeOS, rather than the Microsoft Windows platform.
I'd like to hear more about that hybrid operating system. Where did it come from? Who wrote it? Could you buy one of these beasties, reformat the drive, and load Debian on it? I'm looking for a cheap PC to use as a firewall: is this it?
An example of a "bad" company is Microsoft. It's one thing if you compete against other companies, offering a better product / lower price. That's what a free market is all about: consumers are free to choose the products they purchase, and companies are free to choose which products they manufacture, and the price they charge. All fine and dandy.
Make a better product, offer a better price, fine. Working at destroying your competition through strong-arm tactics is another. I remember one account I heard of Microsoft offering a library a sizable donation, so long as they erased all copies of Netscape from their computers. This is not a company trying to win by offering a better product or a better price.
Re:Drop the Space station, fund this kind of stuff
on
NASA and AI Testing
·
· Score: 1
Those high costs are a matter of bureaucracy and design-by-committee rather than physics and engineering. There are a growing number of private and commercial efforts underway at getting into space without the high costs we are currently seeing. These efforts are putting their money and their time where their mouths are.
Besides, there's still nowhere to go, and no point in going there.
My God, are you really that unimaginative? Can you really not see the potential of manned space exploration and colonization? If nothing else, the energy and raw materials mean we'll eventually be able to build things in space without having to "shuttle" everything up from the Earth's surface. Try looking at this.
And as far as spending millions on space:
The millions get spent on Earth - we don't stuff hundred-dollar bills in a cannon and shoot them into the sun.
This country spends much more money on lipstick than it does on Space exploration.
Solar Power Satellites, anyone?
Our eggs are in one basket, Earth. Can you say "Single Point Failure" ?
Slashdot Mirror
In and of itself, it seems pretty harmless. The concerns are things like:
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see nudity and sex treated in a realistic manner, rather than having it glamorized and reviled at the same time. As for violence, let's make things more realistic (i.e. f you get shot in the shoulder, you aren't going to be walking around any time soon). Others out there have different ideas about what they want television to be. The fear is that a rating system and V-chip combo will influence programmers to produce, well, pablum. They will strive to not offend anyone, so we are left with the lowest common denominator (even more than now). The ratings system could result in TV being even more afraid to challenge, to question, to take chances.
Here's one scenario: people set their V-chips to some level suitable for their children -> not wanting to be bothered, they leave it there -> programs that don't meet this criteria don't get watched -> programmers stop making programs that don't satisfy the thresholds most people use -> everyone, whether they have kids or not, whether they have a V-chip or not, has to watch the same programming, because that's all that's being made. Unlikely? Perhaps, but that gives you some idea of what people are concerned about.
Alas, those days are long gone, but new days await.
Here's a magic wand - what does your dream machine look like? What sort of innovative hardware/software would you create if you could?
There are other powerful motivating forces out there (within us?) besides greed or fear. Curiosity, for one. Some of us push ourselves to achieve more for the sake of the sense of accomplishment we get when we reach our goals. Frankly, if the only reason the human race can find to get out of bed in the morning is fear, perhaps we should just climb back into the trees and forget the whole thing.
I admit it: I'm an optimist. The way I see it, the reason that greed is seen as such a powerful force is that it is an expression of an even more primal and powerful 'force': fear. Think about it, if you weren't afraid of running out of stuff (food, shelter, software), or afraid that someone or something would take your stuff from you, would greed make any sense?
I hope for a day when the human race stops being afraid, and puts aside the many evils that stem from it.
That's true. But once something is GPL, everybody can benefit from my work, regardless of their contribution to the "system". This is precisely why communism doesn't work.
I'm confused. I haven't written any Linux code, and I am certainly benefitting from it. And yet, open source software certainly seems to be working. As far as communism goes, I thought the idea was that everyone contributes, and everyone gains (at least in the ideal). That sounds pretty good to me. Mind you, the attempts at practical implementation have been disappointing (to say the least).
There are other sorts of compensation besides monetary, even in the "real world." The satisfaction of a job well done, the respect of your colleagues, etc. Have you ever given to someone without expecting something in return?
It has been my experience that life is not a zero-sum game: if one wins, it is not automatic that someone else loses. Likewise, one can "win" in all sorts of ways that don't result in more money in your pocket.
It's 1999, and some of us are STILL trying to use the term "Communism" as some sort of epiphet.
Bah, I say! My parents were driven out of Cuba because Fidel Castro, a self-styled Communist, managed to take power. You won't find a more anti-communist environment than South Florida (were many of the older generation still refer to themselves as "in exile"). Whether what goes on in Cuba would be what Marx called Communism is another matter.I spent the first 27 years of my life hearing about the evils of Communism, and seeing its effects on those who made it here. I certainly am no friend of Communism as it has been implemented in the real world. You'd think I'd automatically end up a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-communist. Guess what...
Let's get this straight once and for all: Communism is a political ideology. It is NOT synonymous with "evil" or "baby killer" or whatever the hell else people want to label it as so as to better hitch their ideological little red wagons to.
You disagree with someone's politics? Fine. Just don't be so lazy as to throw the term "communism" around as a substitute for rational thought. The only "Evil Empire" we face today is Darth Vader's. Rational people of good conscience should be able to discuss politics (even as heretical a concept as "capitalism has flaws") in a civilized manner. We shouldn't settle for less.
Insightful?!?!?!?
*snort*
A young programmer shows some enthusiasm, and a bitter AC bashes him. Pathetic. You, Sir, should look to your own character, and modesty, before you criticize another's.
OT: How does Python compare to Perl - if you had a fairly simple task, and knew both, when would you choose one over the other?
Indeed, it is a sad day when access to the
Internet, one of the greatest gifts humanity
has ever given itself, is being hobbled for
the sake of cheap, short-term political gain
and fear-driven attempts at mind control.
So, does Mr. Dobson recommend CyberSitter? You
know, the filter that blocks all those bad, bad
sites like the National Organization of Women and
any site (or even domain of a site) that
criticizes CyberSitter.
I submit that free access to information is quickly becoming a necessary component of our rights. As citizens of a democracy (actually a republic, but why quibble), we make decisions (via our votes) that determine the course of our government. As individuals, we live in a society which is rapidly increasing in complexity - you need access to information to be able to deal with it. Of what possible benefit would it be to have a section of our population making it's decisions without access to the relevant information? Some would say "They want information, let them work for it!". I truly don't know what to say to such people.
On a related note, the posts here give me the feeling that we're being overrun by Libertarians who believe that a person's worth is measured by their bank account, and if they're poor, well, then there must be something wrong with them..... they aren't really people like you and I. And a fine little slippery slope that attitude is.
I'd like to hear more about that hybrid operating system. Where did it come from? Who wrote it? Could you buy one of these beasties, reformat the drive, and load Debian on it? I'm looking for a cheap PC to use as a firewall: is this it?
Make a better product, offer a better price, fine. Working at destroying your competition through strong-arm tactics is another. I remember one account I heard of Microsoft offering a library a sizable donation, so long as they erased all copies of Netscape from their computers. This is not a company trying to win by offering a better product or a better price.
Besides, there's still nowhere to go, and no point in going there.
My God, are you really that unimaginative? Can you really not see the potential of manned space exploration and colonization? If nothing else, the energy and raw materials mean we'll eventually be able to build things in space without having to "shuttle" everything up from the Earth's surface.
Try looking at this.
And as far as spending millions on space:
The millions get spent on Earth - we don't stuff hundred-dollar bills in a cannon and shoot them into the sun.
This country spends much more money on lipstick than it does on Space exploration.
Solar Power Satellites, anyone?
Our eggs are in one basket, Earth. Can you say "Single Point Failure" ?