Does it occur to you who promote "renting" the airwaves that companies do not eat costs like that? Talk about the consumer getting the old 1 2 punch! They'll pass that cost right along to us, in addition to the taxes we already pay to support the FCC!
Ahh, but 16 is much different than 9 yrs old. Yes, the art of parenting is the art of the controlled release. I have a 14 and 12 yr old. But personal info really doesn't need to be going out on the net, even for a 16 yr old, don't you agree?
And there are perverts all over. My 9 yr old daughter (several years ago) was playing PSO on the Dreamcast online (which she was allowed to do with one of her parents watching) and someone came into her "room" they chatted and the other person asked her age, she said 9, and the person's response was "so you've never had an orgasm then?" Her response what "What type of an organism?" and I terminated the conversation right there.
Forbid Internet access to a 9 yr old? Probably not a bad idea, or at least only allow it when monitored. As the kids get older move the monitoring to the background where they don't notice it, but stop it? No, bad idea.
I think that if everyone is armed people will think twice before whipping out their own firearm because if bystanders had been armed and that lady had been armed, they Syrian musicians would have been fine. Scenario: Female (can't call her a lady if she isn't going to act like one) takes aim on the unarmed Syrians, bystander (or 3) takes aim at the female and either tells her to drop it, or they drop her. Situation resolved with minimal (if any) loss of innocent life. Common sense will stop most of these "crazy" people long before it gets to the point of them pulling out a weapon.
I'll spare you the obvious Benjamin Franklin quote. If our government hadn't been so busy grabbing all our guns the passengers on the hijacked flights on September 11th would have been able to defend themselves (see note below). Terrorists (and other criminals) are always trying to avoid security (DuH!), but if the majority of citizens provide their own security then, and only then, are security precautions unavoidable for the want-to-be perpetrator. No government, be it Federal, State, or Local, has the manpower or other resources to provide for each citizen's personal or family security 24x7. You, and you alone, are responsible for that.
Note: Yes, I subscribed to an armed citizenry, but I'm not stupid either. I am aware that for "safe" gun usage on an aircraft that citizens would have to have alternative loads such as plastic bullets. The fact remains that unprepared passengers stopped the terrorists on one flight, and had the passengers on the other flights known there soon to be fate they too could have saved thousands of other lives, possibly even including their own.
zChat is a PGP encrypted chat client and is, I believe, strictly peer-to-peer. Alternatives are good, right?
Note that the link page doesn't display properly in Opera for some reason, but works fine in Firefox.
I plan to install a Jabber server myself, but zChat is dependable. I've used it since I've got a license to zMud.
My comments were not intended to be a slam against Kryptonite locks, they were directed at the "Locks only keep honest people out" comment above. (To which let me add that an honest person will never test the lock, whether it's visible or not.)
Yes, if one spends $100 on a lock one does not expect that lock to fail to 30 seconds of time and a 39 pen.
Does that mean he shouldn't try? Children are the responsibility of their parents. It is our job to try to protect them from some things while allowing them to make mistakes they can learn from with others. What he's doing is no more than a saftey net to catch what might slip through otherwise. It sounds to me as if he is going to depend on having a good relationship with his kids for most of the work, but protect them the unsavory parts (and denizens) of the Internet. As a parent I see nothing wrong with this.
No, locks just make a cost/benefit analysis necessary to the theif. True security is a dream, a myth. Any lock or security system can be broken, the question is how valuable is whatever's behind the security system to the assailant, and is it worth the risk/effort?
....did this POS qualify for an article? I've seen more informative, less self-serving tripe lining the cat litter pan. I've submitted better to/. only to have it rejected and pop up 2 days later when someone else submitted it. Excuse me?
Anyone who talks about deliberately shooting someone in the leg in a combat situation obviously hasn't been trained with firearms at all. When using a firearm you shoot for the center of mass. Again, the headshot is a bad idea for someone attempting to defend themselves. Unless of course that is the only thing you can see. That is the caviat about center of mass, you aim for the center of what you can see. If all you can see is the head, go for it. But mind your backdrop.
Point #2, I have little or no sympathy for someone who is trying to violate someone else. And just incase you've never been on the receiving end of a crime, I assure you it is a serious violation of one's personhood.
Point #3, survey's have been done in prisons to try and determine what the best deterant to crime is. And guess what the thing the criminal fears above all else is? You got it, an armed "victim". The point here is simple, attempting to violate someone else's personhood (be it rape, B&E, simple purse snatching or worse) should be risky. Is the criminal concerned that they might cause physical harm to someone when they (the criminal) forcabley takes whatever it is they're after? No, not in the slightest. When someone behaves in that fashion they have removed themselves from the rules of civilized society, why should they be permitted to hide behind the selfsame rules they have scorned (including your pity/revulsion at their richly deserved fate) when they run afoul of someone who can and will defend themselves?
If someone breaks into my home I have no idea what their intentions are. Are they trying to steal my personal belongings, or are they threatening my family? Just the fact that they have broken in already shows a complete disregard for the law or any vestage of respct for anyone other than themselves. Am I supposed to ask them "Pardon me Mr. Thug, are you just going to take some stuff or are you hear to hurt someone?" Oh wait, they'd probably lie, if they answer me verbally at all. And yet >I am the sociopath because I don't want to see someone in my family hurt or killed.
As the saying goes, if you "Don't start no trouble, there won't BE no trouble". I didn't ask for the clown who snatched my wife's purse (with her asthma inhaler in it) to come take from us. We were too broke at the time to replace that inhaler. Had I been carrying a gun I would have shot him. Had my children not been between me and him I would have killed him with my bare hands, I don't need no stinking gun.
Yet all you "gun grabbers" can do is whine about guns when I can kill someone wiht a pencil. I notice that gun control didn't prevent the 9/11 hijackers from taking over multiple air craft and murduring thousands of people who had done nothing to them. I also notice they didn't use guns. Do you get the picture yet or are you still determined to try to force the facts to fit your world view rather than adjusting your world view to fit the facts?
Considering the number of once inviolate freedoms I have seen eroded in my lifetime I don't consider my reaction over done. If you were truly just asking a rhetorical question then please accept my apologies. However I have seen far too many people ask such "rhetorical questions" as a debate tactic and I find it is best to leave such arguments without a shred of credibility as quickly as possible.
Yes, there are many considerations about what is actually Constitutionaly protected "free speech". Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie house and you find one of the limits. Try spewing profanity at high volume in front of City Hall and you'll find another. I support both of these "limits" to free speech, and others of like ilk.
BTW, just in case my opinion wasn't already clear, the Bikes Against Bush clown needed to be arrested. There is a huge difference between vandalism and free speech.
If you don't like your phone restricted then buy an unlocked phone or get your Virizon phone reflashed with the stock image. Hello, are we on Slashdot where the technical people hang out, or did I hit the AOL message boards by mistake?
However since Virizon subsidised your phone they have some say in what you can or can't do with it. If you don't like that, pay full price for an unlocked phone. Try Just Talk for unlocked phones or hit the boards at the Howard Forums for info on where/how to get your phone reflashed. If it's phone features and news you want go to PhoneScoop.
Or pick a different service. I heard enough bad about Virizon I won't be dealing with them, and I have enough bad experiences with AT&T that someone else (currently T-Mobile and I'm VERY pleased with their QOS so far) gets my money. Isn't freedom of choice great?
And who are you to decide what speech has value, or what speech is protected under the 1st Amendment and what isn't?
Don't get me wrong, I find 90% of the advertising done by corporations today to be offensive in the extreme, but who died and gave you the power to decide what I should or should not have the opportunity to read?
Research always pays off. Always. Sometimes it just adds to the amazing amount of negative knowledged we have (i.e. well THAT doesn't work...) but more often than not even failed experiments pay big dividends (both financialy and scientifically) in the long run. Did you know that nylon was a failed experiment? It was poured down the drain 3 times before someone realized what they had. The adhesive on the back of Post-It notes is another failed experiment (i.e. an adhesive that didn't stick permenently), but with this one 3M kept the the info on the books and when somebody had the bright idea for the post it note that adhesive didn't have to be re-invented. I'm sure other examples abound.
Besides, charity is best left in the private sector. I prefer to see charities that are not administered with the compassion of the IRS or the Post Office.
Yes, radio moves at the speed of light, but light has much more bandwidth because it's a higher frequency. Also you don't have worry about generating stray RF with fiber optics.
Communism is a flawed system, built on a faulty concept(Marxism). And more often than not Communistic governments are oppressive (frequently violently so) to their citizens. Between those two things I'd say Communism = !good is a no brainer.
Have you ever been through the Bermuda Triangle? I have, about 10 times. And I have to say there's something different there. Equipment fails for no reason, weather there is..... well just down right strange.
I'm sure the Discovery Channel's coverage was somewhat sensationalistic (DuH! It's TV!) but there is definately something there worth investigating.
I can not believe you got a 5 Insightful for this. What you choose to watch is your business. One reason I don't pay to have trash piped into my house (i.e. cable/sattelite TV), I've made my choice. I don't expect to see a male stroking his clothed penis on broadcast TV before 10pm, same for naked breasts (pierced or no). So I decline to be led around by my zipper. You have many other options (like paying for cable) so why infringe on my option to watch what is probably the largest single televized event in the US by encouraging the disply of smut where my children can see it during what is supposed to be a "family" show?
I have yet to see any evidince of #3 or #4. Sorry your hatred of anything less than a full blown Sociallist (or is it Communist?) government clouds your vision so totally.
Sadly most of the "censorship" I see comes from the Media-Elite deciding what news we get to see and how they're going to apply NewSpeak to it.
Quote:
The main purpose of the military is not to fight wars. It is to appear so fierce that the war does not NEED to be fought.
In a conventional situation where the use of the military is defensive I agree with you. When two equally well armed entities are involved of course that is essentially what MAD was all about (Mutually Assured Destruction). At which point it becomes a nerve racking situation of "who blinks first".
Yes, and since we didn't destroy each in a nuclear holocost I'd say the primary mission of the military was fulfulled by both the Soviet and US military.
Quote:
What about the situation where the same military is used offensively?
Then I'd still say that since the military was engaged in it's secondary mission that it's primary mission (looking fierce) had failed, or the government in control of that military was behaving unreasonably.
Quote:
War means that the military has failed in it's primary mission and now must undertake it's secondary mission, to fight.
What primary mission did the US and UK military fail in that caused them to undertake their "secondary mission".
Which time? The Primary Mission is to appear fierce to discourage agression. Viet Nam and the other brush wars of the 60's and 70's were basically war by proxy with the USSR. The American Revolution was because Great Brittain didn't think the colonies (US to be) had the will to fight let alone win.
Slashdot Mirror
No, thanks!
Ahh, but 16 is much different than 9 yrs old. Yes, the art of parenting is the art of the controlled release. I have a 14 and 12 yr old. But personal info really doesn't need to be going out on the net, even for a 16 yr old, don't you agree? And there are perverts all over. My 9 yr old daughter (several years ago) was playing PSO on the Dreamcast online (which she was allowed to do with one of her parents watching) and someone came into her "room" they chatted and the other person asked her age, she said 9, and the person's response was "so you've never had an orgasm then?" Her response what "What type of an organism?" and I terminated the conversation right there. Forbid Internet access to a 9 yr old? Probably not a bad idea, or at least only allow it when monitored. As the kids get older move the monitoring to the background where they don't notice it, but stop it? No, bad idea.
I think that if everyone is armed people will think twice before whipping out their own firearm because if bystanders had been armed and that lady had been armed, they Syrian musicians would have been fine. Scenario: Female (can't call her a lady if she isn't going to act like one) takes aim on the unarmed Syrians, bystander (or 3) takes aim at the female and either tells her to drop it, or they drop her. Situation resolved with minimal (if any) loss of innocent life. Common sense will stop most of these "crazy" people long before it gets to the point of them pulling out a weapon.
I'll spare you the obvious Benjamin Franklin quote. If our government hadn't been so busy grabbing all our guns the passengers on the hijacked flights on September 11th would have been able to defend themselves (see note below). Terrorists (and other criminals) are always trying to avoid security (DuH!), but if the majority of citizens provide their own security then, and only then, are security precautions unavoidable for the want-to-be perpetrator. No government, be it Federal, State, or Local, has the manpower or other resources to provide for each citizen's personal or family security 24x7. You, and you alone, are responsible for that. Note: Yes, I subscribed to an armed citizenry, but I'm not stupid either. I am aware that for "safe" gun usage on an aircraft that citizens would have to have alternative loads such as plastic bullets. The fact remains that unprepared passengers stopped the terrorists on one flight, and had the passengers on the other flights known there soon to be fate they too could have saved thousands of other lives, possibly even including their own.
zChat is a PGP encrypted chat client and is, I believe, strictly peer-to-peer. Alternatives are good, right? Note that the link page doesn't display properly in Opera for some reason, but works fine in Firefox. I plan to install a Jabber server myself, but zChat is dependable. I've used it since I've got a license to zMud.
My comments were not intended to be a slam against Kryptonite locks, they were directed at the "Locks only keep honest people out" comment above. (To which let me add that an honest person will never test the lock, whether it's visible or not.) Yes, if one spends $100 on a lock one does not expect that lock to fail to 30 seconds of time and a 39 pen.
Does that mean he shouldn't try? Children are the responsibility of their parents. It is our job to try to protect them from some things while allowing them to make mistakes they can learn from with others. What he's doing is no more than a saftey net to catch what might slip through otherwise. It sounds to me as if he is going to depend on having a good relationship with his kids for most of the work, but protect them the unsavory parts (and denizens) of the Internet. As a parent I see nothing wrong with this.
No, locks just make a cost/benefit analysis necessary to the theif. True security is a dream, a myth. Any lock or security system can be broken, the question is how valuable is whatever's behind the security system to the assailant, and is it worth the risk/effort?
I agree that the conversation has been good and informative, but the initial article is hardly newsworthy on Slashdot.
....did this POS qualify for an article? I've seen more informative, less self-serving tripe lining the cat litter pan. I've submitted better to /. only to have it rejected and pop up 2 days later when someone else submitted it. Excuse me?
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0 8/18/031228&tid=222&tid=198&tid=156&ti d=1 covers a LinkSys storage server for external USB2 hard drives. Very hackable....
Anyone who talks about deliberately shooting someone in the leg in a combat situation obviously hasn't been trained with firearms at all. When using a firearm you shoot for the center of mass. Again, the headshot is a bad idea for someone attempting to defend themselves. Unless of course that is the only thing you can see. That is the caviat about center of mass, you aim for the center of what you can see. If all you can see is the head, go for it. But mind your backdrop.
Point #2, I have little or no sympathy for someone who is trying to violate someone else. And just incase you've never been on the receiving end of a crime, I assure you it is a serious violation of one's personhood.
Point #3, survey's have been done in prisons to try and determine what the best deterant to crime is. And guess what the thing the criminal fears above all else is? You got it, an armed "victim". The point here is simple, attempting to violate someone else's personhood (be it rape, B&E, simple purse snatching or worse) should be risky. Is the criminal concerned that they might cause physical harm to someone when they (the criminal) forcabley takes whatever it is they're after? No, not in the slightest. When someone behaves in that fashion they have removed themselves from the rules of civilized society, why should they be permitted to hide behind the selfsame rules they have scorned (including your pity/revulsion at their richly deserved fate) when they run afoul of someone who can and will defend themselves?
If someone breaks into my home I have no idea what their intentions are. Are they trying to steal my personal belongings, or are they threatening my family? Just the fact that they have broken in already shows a complete disregard for the law or any vestage of respct for anyone other than themselves. Am I supposed to ask them "Pardon me Mr. Thug, are you just going to take some stuff or are you hear to hurt someone?" Oh wait, they'd probably lie, if they answer me verbally at all. And yet >I am the sociopath because I don't want to see someone in my family hurt or killed.
As the saying goes, if you "Don't start no trouble, there won't BE no trouble". I didn't ask for the clown who snatched my wife's purse (with her asthma inhaler in it) to come take from us. We were too broke at the time to replace that inhaler. Had I been carrying a gun I would have shot him. Had my children not been between me and him I would have killed him with my bare hands, I don't need no stinking gun.
Yet all you "gun grabbers" can do is whine about guns when I can kill someone wiht a pencil. I notice that gun control didn't prevent the 9/11 hijackers from taking over multiple air craft and murduring thousands of people who had done nothing to them. I also notice they didn't use guns. Do you get the picture yet or are you still determined to try to force the facts to fit your world view rather than adjusting your world view to fit the facts?
Considering the number of once inviolate freedoms I have seen eroded in my lifetime I don't consider my reaction over done. If you were truly just asking a rhetorical question then please accept my apologies. However I have seen far too many people ask such "rhetorical questions" as a debate tactic and I find it is best to leave such arguments without a shred of credibility as quickly as possible.
Yes, there are many considerations about what is actually Constitutionaly protected "free speech". Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie house and you find one of the limits. Try spewing profanity at high volume in front of City Hall and you'll find another. I support both of these "limits" to free speech, and others of like ilk.
BTW, just in case my opinion wasn't already clear, the Bikes Against Bush clown needed to be arrested. There is a huge difference between vandalism and free speech.
However since Virizon subsidised your phone they have some say in what you can or can't do with it. If you don't like that, pay full price for an unlocked phone. Try Just Talk for unlocked phones or hit the boards at the Howard Forums for info on where/how to get your phone reflashed. If it's phone features and news you want go to PhoneScoop.
Or pick a different service. I heard enough bad about Virizon I won't be dealing with them, and I have enough bad experiences with AT&T that someone else (currently T-Mobile and I'm VERY pleased with their QOS so far) gets my money. Isn't freedom of choice great?
And who are you to decide what speech has value, or what speech is protected under the 1st Amendment and what isn't? Don't get me wrong, I find 90% of the advertising done by corporations today to be offensive in the extreme, but who died and gave you the power to decide what I should or should not have the opportunity to read?
Of course it's a good movie. It's based on a 1948 short story by Arthur Clarke called The Sentinel.
I always thought Elnlightment was the most innovative WM I'd seen.
Research always pays off. Always. Sometimes it just adds to the amazing amount of negative knowledged we have (i.e. well THAT doesn't work...) but more often than not even failed experiments pay big dividends (both financialy and scientifically) in the long run. Did you know that nylon was a failed experiment? It was poured down the drain 3 times before someone realized what they had. The adhesive on the back of Post-It notes is another failed experiment (i.e. an adhesive that didn't stick permenently), but with this one 3M kept the the info on the books and when somebody had the bright idea for the post it note that adhesive didn't have to be re-invented. I'm sure other examples abound.
Besides, charity is best left in the private sector. I prefer to see charities that are not administered with the compassion of the IRS or the Post Office.
Yes, radio moves at the speed of light, but light has much more bandwidth because it's a higher frequency. Also you don't have worry about generating stray RF with fiber optics.
Communism is a flawed system, built on a faulty concept(Marxism). And more often than not Communistic governments are oppressive (frequently violently so) to their citizens. Between those two things I'd say Communism = !good is a no brainer.
Have you ever been through the Bermuda Triangle? I have, about 10 times. And I have to say there's something different there. Equipment fails for no reason, weather there is ..... well just down right strange.
I'm sure the Discovery Channel's coverage was somewhat sensationalistic (DuH! It's TV!) but there is definately something there worth investigating.
Who thought it was a good idea to mod an AC up? Either have the fortitude to be counted when you open your mouth or keep your pie hole shut, troll.
I can not believe you got a 5 Insightful for this. What you choose to watch is your business. One reason I don't pay to have trash piped into my house (i.e. cable/sattelite TV), I've made my choice. I don't expect to see a male stroking his clothed penis on broadcast TV before 10pm, same for naked breasts (pierced or no). So I decline to be led around by my zipper. You have many other options (like paying for cable) so why infringe on my option to watch what is probably the largest single televized event in the US by encouraging the disply of smut where my children can see it during what is supposed to be a "family" show?
I have yet to see any evidince of #3 or #4. Sorry your hatred of anything less than a full blown Sociallist (or is it Communist?) government clouds your vision so totally.
Sadly most of the "censorship" I see comes from the Media-Elite deciding what news we get to see and how they're going to apply NewSpeak to it.
Quote: The main purpose of the military is not to fight wars. It is to appear so fierce that the war does not NEED to be fought.
In a conventional situation where the use of the military is defensive I agree with you. When two equally well armed entities are involved of course that is essentially what MAD was all about (Mutually Assured Destruction). At which point it becomes a nerve racking situation of "who blinks first".
Yes, and since we didn't destroy each in a nuclear holocost I'd say the primary mission of the military was fulfulled by both the Soviet and US military.
Quote: What about the situation where the same military is used offensively?
Then I'd still say that since the military was engaged in it's secondary mission that it's primary mission (looking fierce) had failed, or the government in control of that military was behaving unreasonably.
Quote: War means that the military has failed in it's primary mission and now must undertake it's secondary mission, to fight. What primary mission did the US and UK military fail in that caused them to undertake their "secondary mission".
Which time? The Primary Mission is to appear fierce to discourage agression. Viet Nam and the other brush wars of the 60's and 70's were basically war by proxy with the USSR. The American Revolution was because Great Brittain didn't think the colonies (US to be) had the will to fight let alone win.