I find it interesting that people (read: I am probably talking about you) believe that it is okay for libraries to "filter" (i.e., make unavailable, especially to minors) certain books and magazines, yet somehow these same libraries should be disallowed from blocking this exact same material on their computers. There is a double-standard here: you cannot keep libraries from filtering the internet without also telling them to make pornography (in the form of books and magazines) readily available to anyone and everyone.
I must be missing something; the obvious solution (to me) is to provide no unsupervised access to the computers (in libraries) for minors.
Don't bother with unreliable and error-prone software. Simply don't provide computers, especially those with connections to the 'Net, in those areas of the libraries where minors can access them without supervision.
Then give the minors access to the machines so long as an appropriate guardian is keeping a watchful eye on the minor in question. The duty of controlling the minor's exposure to "potentially unsuitable material" then returns to where it belongs: the guardians.
No censorship necessary. No judgements about what is appropriate and inappropriate. No need for libraries to expend funds on wrongheaded and broken software. It's not the job of librarians to play baby-sitters because the parents/guardians are too lazy to do their job.
Then again, maybe libraries should provide text-only (VT100! Yeah! Builds Character! Teaches the importance of touch-typing!) terminals and access to Usenet newsgroups. Then the guardians of minors can be provided with a list (well, I guess it would be a book) of newsgroups, and they can choose the ones they don't want their kids to read/participate in.
If you really must have access to the Web, why, run lynx or links or some other text-based browser. What? Webpage X isn't nearly so useful in text-only mode? Well, send an email to the webmaster, and point this out.
Damnit, I just realized I lent out my copy of Good Omens and never got it back. Now I want to read it again (for about the 5th time).
You only have one copy? For shame.
_Good Omens_ is quite good enough to make sure you have multiple copies. At least one or two should be paperbacks -- for loaning.
Hm. Pratchett and Gaimen are both the kind of authors that make me feel like a pusher. I loan friends and acquaintences a copy, and sometimes I get them hooked.
What struck me was this: Linux is hampered by a lack of drivers for some pc devices, notably printers.
Who cares? For printers, use PostScript. It works, and it works well -- Adobe did good, so reward them. Instead of trying to pinch pennies to get the cheapest (in the short-term) hardware, we should support quality.
(Likewise with OpenGL, SCSI, etc. etc.)
Hardware should be designed to a common interface anyway. The more we do to encourage vendors to think that way, the better off we'll be in the long run.
Instead of whining to companies about lack of custom drivers for custom variations in common hardware, we should support those companies that create standardized, generic, open interfaces, and then stick to them. Just as we do with software, we should reward quality engineering and implementation.
If it doesn't work, then we have a fundamental problem with this "Open Source" thing anyway.
Teller has every right to be bitter. It appears from the article that many people are unable to separate the man from the device he helped build. In an age in which the public is so frightened of the word "nuclear" that they argue to ban space probes like Cassini due to their RTGs, and in which people prefer the cyanide in apricot pits to chemotherapy "because it's the natural way to fight caner", it's not surprising that Teller's vision of the application of technology to build a better world is viewed as hubris, and his contributions are held in low esteem.
Teller has no right to be bitter; he was ostracized (and rightly so) by the scientific community for YEARS.
Read about Oppenheimer, and you'll generally find Teller in the background, interested only in his own status and power. The man played petty politics under the guise of "science", and apparently is still doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the courageous thing to do would be to yank MicroSoft's business license for three years.
Perhaps other governments should do the same thing?
Well, sorta. It wasn't intended when I wrote it, but when I rewrote portions after Previewing, I saw it, and left it in.
I must be missing something; the obvious solution (to me) is to provide no unsupervised access to the computers (in libraries) for minors.
Don't bother with unreliable and error-prone software. Simply don't provide computers, especially those with connections to the 'Net, in those areas of the libraries where minors can access them without supervision.
Then give the minors access to the machines so long as an appropriate guardian is keeping a watchful eye on the minor in question. The duty of controlling the minor's exposure to "potentially unsuitable material" then returns to where it belongs: the guardians.
No censorship necessary. No judgements about what is appropriate and inappropriate. No need for libraries to expend funds on wrongheaded and broken software. It's not the job of librarians to play baby-sitters because the parents/guardians are too lazy to do their job.
Then again, maybe libraries should provide text-only (VT100! Yeah! Builds Character! Teaches the importance of touch-typing!) terminals and access to Usenet newsgroups. Then the guardians of minors can be provided with a list (well, I guess it would be a book) of newsgroups, and they can choose the ones they don't want their kids to read/participate in.
If you really must have access to the Web, why, run lynx or links or some other text-based browser. What? Webpage X isn't nearly so useful in text-only mode? Well, send an email to the webmaster, and point this out.
Hm. That might actually do some good....
1. Get rid of your cookies file.
2. Hit those sites that you want to allow cookies from, like Slashdot. (Alternatively, you can just edit the cookies file...)
3. chmod a-w
(Or whatever your cookie file is.)
If you want to add cookies, briefly chmod the cookies file to be writable, hit the site, set the cookies, and then chmod the cookies file again.
Damnit, I just realized I lent out my copy of Good Omens and never got it back. Now I want to read it again (for about the 5th time).
You only have one copy? For shame.
_Good Omens_ is quite good enough to make sure you have multiple copies. At least one or two should be paperbacks -- for loaning.
Hm. Pratchett and Gaimen are both the kind of authors that make me feel like a pusher. I loan friends and acquaintences a copy, and sometimes I get them hooked.
"Here, the first one's free."
Why Bother?
What struck me was this:
Linux is hampered by a lack of drivers for some pc devices, notably printers.
Who cares? For printers, use PostScript. It works, and it works well -- Adobe did good, so reward them. Instead of trying to pinch pennies to get the cheapest (in the short-term) hardware, we should support quality.
(Likewise with OpenGL, SCSI, etc. etc.)
Hardware should be designed to a common interface anyway. The more we do to encourage vendors to think that way, the better off we'll be in the long run.
Instead of whining to companies about lack of custom drivers for custom variations in common hardware, we should support those companies that create standardized, generic, open interfaces, and then stick to them. Just as we do with software, we should reward quality engineering and implementation.
If it doesn't work, then we have a fundamental problem with this "Open Source" thing anyway.
Begging does not become us.
Babelfish comes up with a different set. Of course, I ran "slash dot" instead of "slashdot", because the latter isn't a common (dictonary) word.
French:
point de barre de fraction
German:
Schragstrichpunkt (with an umlaut over the a)
Italian:
puntino di taglio
Portuguese:
ponto do slash
Spanish:
punto de la raya vertical
Teller has every right to be bitter. It appears from the article that many people are unable to separate the man from the device he helped build. In an age in which the public is so frightened of the word "nuclear" that they argue to ban space probes like Cassini due to their RTGs, and in which people prefer the cyanide in apricot pits to chemotherapy "because it's the natural way to fight caner", it's not surprising that Teller's vision of the application of technology to build a better world is viewed as hubris, and his contributions are held in low esteem.
Teller has no right to be bitter; he was ostracized (and rightly so) by the scientific community for YEARS.
Read about Oppenheimer, and you'll generally find Teller in the background, interested only in his own status and power. The man played petty politics under the guise of "science", and apparently is still doing so.
McCarthyism shouldn't be forgotten so soon.