I would only consent to work in a programming duo if they promise to pair me with somebody who also needs regular (every 15 minutes) breaks to read/.
Woody!
Actually, if you re-read my comment #461, you will see that you and I are in pretty good agreement. If you read more carefully, you'll see that my stance is definitely NOT "all-or-nothing". All I have been trying to say is that some degree of filtering (not censoring at source) for young children is very beneficial. I don't think it is all that extreme a viewpoint???
At any rate, this won't continue unless the other side adds something relevant.
So to teach kids not to talk to strangers, do you suggest telling them it is dangerous? Or perhaps you would prefer to show them a video of a little girl being abducted and raped, beaten, tortured and hacked to bits, all very graphically, so they understand the dangers. Good luck raising a well-adjusted kid!
"If at first you don't succeed, try try again" I think is a great message. What if I reword it to "Practice makes perfect"? Now are you happy? Or do you just give up as soon as you make a mistake? My kids will not be raised to be negative, insecure, jaded pessimists.
Have you studied any child psych? You might find it interesting that in fact, small children ARE self-centred and they don't really have a choice. Until about 4 years of age, children don't even realize that other people have experiences different from their own!
Nope. You are misusing the word 'censor'. Keeping horrible images from young children is not censorship, in my mind. As an adult, you can go find it and look at it, that is your choice. But Republicans tend to say things like "Just monitor your children 24 hours a day, even when they visit friends whose parents may let their little kids watch unsupervised hardcore porn movies. It's entirely the responsibility of the parents!" Do you understand how incredibly impossible it is to know everything your kid is doing/seeing all the time?
This proves what I've always believed. Democrats will put the needs of the innocent and helpless ahead of Republican 1st amendment spewers like yourself.
If by "young child" you mean under 14, I don't think you should raise children. Images of people being shot point blank in the head or being dumped into furnaces are not the kinds of things a young mind can deal with, even with "guidance". What the hell are you going to tell this kid? "Don't worry, they're just actors"? Or "Sometimes evil people do evil things"? Young children simply do not have the experience or context to be able to be able to understand complex social issues like this. Children are decreasingly being allowed to testify in court because they can't easily distinguish fact from fiction. This is proven stuff!!!
It's no wonder there are so many screwed up kids in America. People like you aren't willing to protect them from anything!
You paid for a domain name, you must care about your content.
Oh yeah. One only need look at the nearest domain to see that in practice. Now why does that site never turn up on google? It certainly gets enough links from/. so it must be useful!
Actually, funded by the government. There are lots of policies in place to ensure the government can't directly influence the CBC, but of course nobody wants to lose their funding.
"Priceline.com patented its "reverse auction" technique"
"Amazon laid legal claim to another commonplace Web feature with its patent on its system for allowing "affiliate" sites to refer customers for commissions"
Can somebody explain this to me please? Are these patents protecting the concept or the technical implementation? Because of the Expedia lawsuit, I have to assume the concept of a "reverse auction" has now been patented. And also the concept of affiliate referals. I would think the adult (porn) web community could easily produce prior art for this one. Why did Amazon think their affiliate program was unique enough to patent? Have they sued anybody on it?
Helsinki University have acheived macroscopic temperatures measured in pK (pico-Kelvin). I believe that the most recent record was circa 18 months ago.
I feel obliged to plug this result as I had dinner with the daughter of one of the professors only 2 weeks ago.
I had heard she was rather frigid. True?
Sorry, had to be said. Mod me down if you must. It was worth it!!!
The constitutional grounds for patents (in the USA) is about promoting progress, not promoting monopolies
Exactly. Without patents, there is no incentive for the little guy to innovate. As soon as you have an idea and start to bring it to market, a large company with huge infrastructure will reverse engineer it, copy it, and put you out of business. In a system without patents, only large companies will be motivated to invent, because they can get things to market fast.
As for the ethical issue, I think the system takes care of that. If I take something that you patented, add a new twist and patent my use of your idea, I still would have to license your idea in order to go to market! You may think that is stifling, especially if you refuse all such licensing requests, but the alternative is that you might never have bothered with your idea in the first place if you couldn't protect it.
Almost the entire reader base? I certainly hope not. Anybody who works in innovative industries should embrace at least the concept of patents to prevent others from taking your ingenious idea and marketing a knockoff without giving you a dime. I think what/. readers and most rational people disagree with are ridiculous "common sense" patents that don't protect innovation, they stifle it by protecting the simple building blocks of real progress.
I realize that, but it just isn't true. I remember reading an article about a guy in a gender issues class who was adamant that men could not be raped. Eventually he challenged any woman in the class to rape him. One night after class, 5 woman jumped him, stripped him, used a vibrator to stimulate him, put a condom on him and one girl mounted up! I believe he may have even had them charged but the charges were dropped because he told them to do it.
That definition seems a little antiquated. A woman must be willing but a man does not? And by that definition (sexual intercourse), Prez Clinton did NOT commit adultery...riiiight
And is that yet another weak analogy I see? There is nothing illegal about phone sex, nor is there anything illegal about cybersex, even if you pay for it. The analogy is "is phone sex considered adultery?" Imagine your significant other talking dirty on the phone with a stranger. I would consider both to be adultery in my relationship, because there is a high level of emotional intimacy with a third party.
All people have the right to SEEK employment and be considered for employment without bias, unless you do something that causes that right to be revoked (ie: criminal act).
Having the right to HAVE a job would imply that you could just walk into some government agency and demand your job. Clearly not a capitalist concept.
Actually, it does a pretty good job of protecting citizens if you ask me, which you didn't.
What if I used a logo that looked very similar to that of a common safety standards organization and it went on all my Taiwanese "safety boots". The onus is now on the consumer to make sure it's the right logo.
This extends to all products and keeps you from being tricked into buying a brand you didn't want.
It DOES help good companies of course, but it also hinders less ethical companies (as it was designed to do!).
Woody!
This Doug Miller guy should be taken seriously!
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
I always get very worried when a Microsoft spokesperson doesn't once use the word "innovate" in an interview. It means there might actually be some substance in what he says! *fear*
Mail a ticking box to the police department.
Point a fake gun at somebody (hey, it's not a weapon!)
Throw a lifelike dummy onto the middle of a highway (they can only charge me with littering!)
You need to look at the INTENT of a law. The law refers to sexual images that potray minors (whether those minors are real people or not is not relevant).
Children are given extra protections in our society, because they are easily manipulated. They can't choose to drink, smoke, have sex, and many other things that adults can do. A sexually suggestive picture involving a child could be dangerous because it is a powerful image and could cause other children to believe that is acceptable/normal. Think of what the fashion industry has done to young girls...
Sorry, this is a bad analogy. It is not illegal to have a picture of an actual murder. It IS illegal to have a sexually suggestive or explicit image of a child!
I know in non-virtual (my favorite new descriptor!) child-porn cases, the onus is on the owner to prove that seemingly underage people were actually not underage when the pictures were taken. That would be pretty damned tough to do in this case.
Child pornography exists in a very special category (and for good reasons!). The tv show COPS is not illegal, but it shows graphic images of actual crimes. So simulated crimes on tv are safe. Even so-called "Death Tapes" are not illegal, and they supposedly show real murders, etc. So I don't think there is a parallel.
Michael Moore had a series called TV Nation, and he profiled a company in the (I think) DC area. What did they do? They cleaned up crime scenes (read: homicides)! The owner talked very excitedly about the best way to get brains out of a shag carpet and things like that. In his truck he carried around large containers filled with various bodily goo. When these were opened, the interviewer just about keeled over from the smell.
Slashdot Mirror
I would only consent to work in a programming duo if they promise to pair me with somebody who also needs regular (every 15 minutes) breaks to read /.
Woody!
Actually, if you re-read my comment #461, you will see that you and I are in pretty good agreement. If you read more carefully, you'll see that my stance is definitely NOT "all-or-nothing". All I have been trying to say is that some degree of filtering (not censoring at source) for young children is very beneficial. I don't think it is all that extreme a viewpoint???
At any rate, this won't continue unless the other side adds something relevant.
So to teach kids not to talk to strangers, do you suggest telling them it is dangerous? Or perhaps you would prefer to show them a video of a little girl being abducted and raped, beaten, tortured and hacked to bits, all very graphically, so they understand the dangers. Good luck raising a well-adjusted kid!
"If at first you don't succeed, try try again" I think is a great message. What if I reword it to "Practice makes perfect"? Now are you happy? Or do you just give up as soon as you make a mistake? My kids will not be raised to be negative, insecure, jaded pessimists.
Have you studied any child psych? You might find it interesting that in fact, small children ARE self-centred and they don't really have a choice. Until about 4 years of age, children don't even realize that other people have experiences different from their own!
Nope. You are misusing the word 'censor'. Keeping horrible images from young children is not censorship, in my mind. As an adult, you can go find it and look at it, that is your choice. But Republicans tend to say things like "Just monitor your children 24 hours a day, even when they visit friends whose parents may let their little kids watch unsupervised hardcore porn movies. It's entirely the responsibility of the parents!" Do you understand how incredibly impossible it is to know everything your kid is doing/seeing all the time?
This proves what I've always believed. Democrats will put the needs of the innocent and helpless ahead of Republican 1st amendment spewers like yourself.
If by "young child" you mean under 14, I don't think you should raise children. Images of people being shot point blank in the head or being dumped into furnaces are not the kinds of things a young mind can deal with, even with "guidance". What the hell are you going to tell this kid? "Don't worry, they're just actors"? Or "Sometimes evil people do evil things"? Young children simply do not have the experience or context to be able to be able to understand complex social issues like this. Children are decreasingly being allowed to testify in court because they can't easily distinguish fact from fiction. This is proven stuff!!!
It's no wonder there are so many screwed up kids in America. People like you aren't willing to protect them from anything!
You paid for a domain name, you must care about your content.
/. so it must be useful!
Oh yeah. One only need look at the nearest domain to see that in practice. Now why does that site never turn up on google? It certainly gets enough links from
Actually, funded by the government. There are lots of policies in place to ensure the government can't directly influence the CBC, but of course nobody wants to lose their funding.
Woody!
"Priceline.com patented its "reverse auction" technique"
"Amazon laid legal claim to another commonplace Web feature with its patent on its system for allowing "affiliate" sites to refer customers for commissions"
Can somebody explain this to me please? Are these patents protecting the concept or the technical implementation? Because of the Expedia lawsuit, I have to assume the concept of a "reverse auction" has now been patented. And also the concept of affiliate referals. I would think the adult (porn) web community could easily produce prior art for this one. Why did Amazon think their affiliate program was unique enough to patent? Have they sued anybody on it?
Helsinki University have acheived macroscopic temperatures measured in pK (pico-Kelvin). I believe that the most recent record was circa 18 months ago.
I feel obliged to plug this result as I had dinner with the daughter of one of the professors only 2 weeks ago.
I had heard she was rather frigid. True? Sorry, had to be said. Mod me down if you must. It was worth it!!!
The constitutional grounds for patents (in the USA) is about promoting progress, not promoting monopolies
Exactly. Without patents, there is no incentive for the little guy to innovate. As soon as you have an idea and start to bring it to market, a large company with huge infrastructure will reverse engineer it, copy it, and put you out of business. In a system without patents, only large companies will be motivated to invent, because they can get things to market fast.
As for the ethical issue, I think the system takes care of that. If I take something that you patented, add a new twist and patent my use of your idea, I still would have to license your idea in order to go to market! You may think that is stifling, especially if you refuse all such licensing requests, but the alternative is that you might never have bothered with your idea in the first place if you couldn't protect it.
I think I will patent a method for screening out stupid patents! I get rich, no more one-click, everybody wins!!!
But wait, what if the patent office thinks my patent is stupid. And what if, in doing so, they used MY method for screening stupid patents?
The paradoxical recursion created by this could eventually earn me every bit of wealth known to man! WooHoo!
Almost the entire reader base? I certainly hope not. Anybody who works in innovative industries should embrace at least the concept of patents to prevent others from taking your ingenious idea and marketing a knockoff without giving you a dime. I think what /. readers and most rational people disagree with are ridiculous "common sense" patents that don't protect innovation, they stifle it by protecting the simple building blocks of real progress.
I realize that, but it just isn't true. I remember reading an article about a guy in a gender issues class who was adamant that men could not be raped. Eventually he challenged any woman in the class to rape him. One night after class, 5 woman jumped him, stripped him, used a vibrator to stimulate him, put a condom on him and one girl mounted up! I believe he may have even had them charged but the charges were dropped because he told them to do it.
Adultery? Nope. Double standard? Yup.
That definition seems a little antiquated. A woman must be willing but a man does not? And by that definition (sexual intercourse), Prez Clinton did NOT commit adultery...riiiight
And is that yet another weak analogy I see? There is nothing illegal about phone sex, nor is there anything illegal about cybersex, even if you pay for it. The analogy is "is phone sex considered adultery?" Imagine your significant other talking dirty on the phone with a stranger. I would consider both to be adultery in my relationship, because there is a high level of emotional intimacy with a third party.
All people have the right to SEEK employment and be considered for employment without bias, unless you do something that causes that right to be revoked (ie: criminal act).
Having the right to HAVE a job would imply that you could just walk into some government agency and demand your job. Clearly not a capitalist concept.
Woody!
Actually, it does a pretty good job of protecting citizens if you ask me, which you didn't.
What if I used a logo that looked very similar to that of a common safety standards organization and it went on all my Taiwanese "safety boots". The onus is now on the consumer to make sure it's the right logo.
This extends to all products and keeps you from being tricked into buying a brand you didn't want.
It DOES help good companies of course, but it also hinders less ethical companies (as it was designed to do!).
Woody!
I always get very worried when a Microsoft spokesperson doesn't once use the word "innovate" in an interview. It means there might actually be some substance in what he says! *fear*
Woody!
Pardon me while I go do the following:
Mail a ticking box to the police department.
Point a fake gun at somebody (hey, it's not a weapon!)
Throw a lifelike dummy onto the middle of a highway (they can only charge me with littering!)
You need to look at the INTENT of a law. The law refers to sexual images that potray minors (whether those minors are real people or not is not relevant).
Children are given extra protections in our society, because they are easily manipulated. They can't choose to drink, smoke, have sex, and many other things that adults can do. A sexually suggestive picture involving a child could be dangerous because it is a powerful image and could cause other children to believe that is acceptable/normal. Think of what the fashion industry has done to young girls...
Sorry, this is a bad analogy. It is not illegal to have a picture of an actual murder. It IS illegal to have a sexually suggestive or explicit image of a child!
I know in non-virtual (my favorite new descriptor!) child-porn cases, the onus is on the owner to prove that seemingly underage people were actually not underage when the pictures were taken. That would be pretty damned tough to do in this case.
Child pornography exists in a very special category (and for good reasons!). The tv show COPS is not illegal, but it shows graphic images of actual crimes. So simulated crimes on tv are safe. Even so-called "Death Tapes" are not illegal, and they supposedly show real murders, etc. So I don't think there is a parallel.
Michael Moore had a series called TV Nation, and he profiled a company in the (I think) DC area. What did they do? They cleaned up crime scenes (read: homicides)! The owner talked very excitedly about the best way to get brains out of a shag carpet and things like that. In his truck he carried around large containers filled with various bodily goo. When these were opened, the interviewer just about keeled over from the smell.
The following quote from the article makes this fine with me:
"Professors or other state employees must get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material."
So, if you can explain it to your boss without giggling, you can get all the porn you need!
Woody!
Looks like sciencedaily is down for the count.