Also true, but to fully complete your analogy and make it applicable, how would you feel about someone reverse-engineering your closed-source app and releasing their own open-source version? Applying the views you expressed about book authors writing about concepts, I would tend to think that you would have no problem with this practice. Right?
Correct. Reverse-engineering is fine by me. If someone sees my product, and says "Hey, I could do that", and then proceeds to do just that, even if they use my product as a model, then that is just healthy competition.
If Wine were ported to the PPC, then the x86 instructions *would* have to be emulated. For example, they could have the following situation:
An x86 emulator begins to run an x86 emulator
When that emulator sees that a Win32 API call (or even an ANSI C library call) is to be made, it actually calls a PPC implementation of that API call
control is then returned back to the emulated x86 code
If done well, you could run most windows apps out of the box, and run them much faster than if they were purely emulated (since the Win32 API's, and any other API's where it made sense, would be native PPC code, and not emulated x86 code).
I agree that patenting "concepts" is generally a bad thing, but there's a big difference between "intellectual property" and "concept". As an example, If I write a book, about concept X, the contents of that book are my intellectual property, and copying or distributing it without my permission is wrong (except for fair use). However, nothing is stopping anyone else from writing a different book about the same concept.
If I choose to share some software I wrote, and open source it, that is my decision, but if I don't, that code represents my hard work, and I deserve to reap the benefits.
"Hi 12 year old self, here's a list of people you'll meet, the ones to avoid are highlighted. Also, here is a list of the winners of several sporting events that had high odds against them."
Umm, it's not (technologically) possible for the ISP to prevent you from using NAT. And if you're savvy enough to use Linux, what support could you possibly need from the ISP?
It would be a shame if it folded, but since I mainly bought these as "vanity" domains and don't publicise them, I wouldn't be too upset if.name went away...
If we apply that to the original statement, it is possible for some things to be objective, at least partly, even though people disagree on them. In your example of killing, my answer would be "it depends". That doesn't mean it's subjective, just that your example isn't specific enough. In math, it would be like asking "Does k = 10?", without saying "5 + 5 = k"
Take the death penalty, for instance. Someone is sentenced to death, because they were convicted of murder on questionable evidence. Is it right or is it wrong that they die? If someone disagrees with whatever position you happen to take, are they "wrong"?
As I said before, I don't think you would believe it is subjective if you were being attacked in cold blood.
If I had done something that someone thought warranted killing me, then it would indeed be a matter of opinion. I may think that it's wrong to kill me, but in that situation, I would hardly be a disinterested, objective observer. I would most likely try to avoid death by any means necessary, even if I knew I deserved it.
To tie it back to the issue, there are objectives in determining "good and bad". I still find it odd that a person would object to a.kids domain, but defend female mutilation and killing.
I am in no way "defending" killing and FGM. I am defending the right of someone else to believe that they are "right" or "good". If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you disagree with, then you don't really believe in freedom of speech (I forget who said that). I wholeheartedly support the right of KKK members to speak out, regardless of the fact that, to me, they are "wrong", and that the world would be a better place without them.
And if the decision of what is "good" and "bad" or what is "kid-friendly" or not is objective, then should a site talking about Michelangelo's art be allowed? After all, some of his art contains genitalia, and could therefore be considered pornographic by some of the more conservative in our society.
Therefore, by your own logic, your own logic is subjective. By your logic, ALL logic is subjective. Say I disagree with 1+1 = 2. Is math suddenly subjective? Or I disagree that Slashdot exists. Is it suddenly subjective?
No, because those things can also be objectively proven, in such a case, there is an absolute truth. You can disagree with "1+1=2" until you're blue in the face, but in out number system, 1+1 is always 2. Killing on the other hand is subjective:
Is it OK to kill?
If you say "no", as most people would be inclined to do, then what about in self-defense?
Re:So why do machine-level programmers confuse...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
Except that Thanksgiving is Nov 28 this year (i.e. it's one of those holidays that just don't stay put).
1)Nobody's saying kids can only access.kids.us sites. It's still up to parents, and this would be a tool they can use to help them do their job. Whether they can physically grab the child or not is beside the point. You presuppose that the only type of harm is physical.
Of course, physical harm isn't the only kind of harm that can befall a child, but it is the kind most often brought up in the media as a reason why the Internet should be censored, or cordoned off into separate areas.
2)Though it's really popular to say, "good" and "bad" are not always subjective. If you really believed that, then you would have no problem with.kids.us, because you would realize that is just your subjective opinion and of no more weight than someone who thinks it's good.
But that's just it, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective. For example, I personally think that female genital mutilation is "bad", but there are many cultures in which it is considered a "good" thing to do. I personally have no problem with people who eat pork, but in some cultures, eating pork is sacrilege. And yes, as you point out, my opinion counts for no more than anyone else's, that's the very nature of opinion.
You also would be unable to say "good and bad are subjective", because that would be an objective claim. "It's bad to say morals are objective" is illogical because it's an objective moral itself.
To show that "good and bad are subjective", requires nothing more than a single case where two people disagree on whether or not something is "good" or "bad", of which I have shown two. There is no foolproof, objective way to show whether or not something is "good", therefore it is subjective.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into that kind of moral relativism. Just because somebody out there thinks that kids should be able to look at as much pr0n as they want doesn't make it "subjective" or right. Besides, how is this censorship? This is only a moderated lists of websites that have been approved as kid-friendly. Nobody is trying to shut down adult web sites -- this is a simple initiative to provide a list of sites that parents can trust as "kid friendly". I also take issue with your position that censorship does more harm than good, but that is an altogether different discussion.
The obvious case of pr0n is easy to decide, most people would agree that children shouldn't see pr0n. The problem is in the gray areas. Should a child be allowed to see the statue of David? Some parents would say yes, some parents would say no, the point is, that it is up to the individual parent, not to anyone else.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If "bad" means "pr0n", then I'm very sorry you feel this way. You won't have a hard time finding people (myself included) that "function in our world" without indluging in filth or smut, and the idea you need this kind of influence in order to not be "gullible" is laughable. If "bad" means something else, then I'm not sure why you brought this up.
I never said that "bad" == "pr0n", and I never said that people couldn't function without pr0n. What I did say is that if one isn't taught that not everyone can be trusted, one will grow up implicitly trusting everyone, and will not be able to function in this world.
I never said that there weren't predators on the Internet, I said that "the Internet is not some evil place...". The internet is no more "an evil" place than is the telephone. The predators using the internet have no more power over the children on the other end, than they would if they had called them on the phone.
After telling you children that it is bad to blindly trust strangers, here's a simple test (that my parents performed on me when I was about 5). Leave them alone in house (i.e. just walk outside, where they can't see you). Have someone (whose they won't recognize) call them on the phone (or knock on the door), and offer them something if they come with them (candy, toys, whatever). If the kid says no, then good for you, however, if the kid says yes, you have some more teaching to do.
After falling for this trick twice, I never fell for it again. In fact, about a year later, I was approached by some guy who offered me candy while at the library. And I knew just what to do -- I went and got an authority figure (the librarian in this case), told them what had happened, and she called the police. I used my own judgment, as my parents had taught me, and I came out unscathed... it's as simple as that.
And the suggestion that it's the parents fault if a child is lured away by a molester or lured into a cult or lured into whatever -- without so much as a mention of the fault of the criminal -- is offensive.
I never said that it wasn't the fault of the criminal doing the luring, but I did say that the child should be taught to resist said lure. If a child reads something, and then promptly sets up a face-to-face visit with a stranger, then that child wasn't taught properly. The fact that they left is partially the parents fault. What the criminal does after getting ahold of the child is entirely the fault of that criminal, but the fact remains that if the child were made to realize that it would be a bad idea to meet this person, that person would be powerless over the child.
I have a 3-year old who occasinally sits in my lap and we go to disney.com, nickjr.com, pbskids.com, etc.... I directly monitor what he sees -- is it censorship to only allow him to access the sites that I want him to?
No, it isn't, because you are the parent. It is your responsibility to filter what your child sees. But that's just it, it's your responsibility, not some group of politicians.
When he says "Daddy, click here," and that's not someplace I think he needs to go, should I let him go there just to let him see "oh yeah, there's bad stuff out there"?
No, of course not.
If the.kids.us domain is managed and yes *censored* well, at some point my kids may be allowed to visit any.kids.us site without my being in the room. That would be an improvement both for them and for me, and that's what makes the idea good.
However, this situation is no different from that of using filtering software, except that with good filtering software, you, the parent, can make your own judgement about wether or not a site is "appropriate". If you disagree with the government's choice about a particular site, you're SOL.
This domain is more about pleasing congress' constituents than anything else. I don't doubt that some parents will find some of the material objectionable. But this is a step in the right direction, though, because just as we at slashdot filter out "crap" through the moderation system, parents are also seeking a way of ensuring that their kids are protect from what they consider "crap".
The difference is that on Slashdot, we are self-moderated. There isn't some other entity telling us what is alright for us to see, we are telling ourselves what we can see.
The problem I have isn't that this.kids.us domain exists, but the government want to limit children to sites in that domain.
If you have ever raised children, you would understand that sheltering a child from all "bad things" is impossible. Few parents are attempting to do this. While I'm all for porn and violence, let's not pretend that it somehow builds character and prepares you for life -- it doesn't.
I am well aware that "sheltering a child from all 'bad things' is impossible", but that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. I am not claiming that porn "builds character", nor am I claiming that we should go out of our way to show it to children, but a fact of life is that they will see it -- with or without the internet. By pretending that we can corral children into a "safe" area, we would actually be providing a false sense of security.
Nobody is relying on the government to raise their children. All this bill does is attempt to create a limited, safe space. It does so without foisting draconian censorship on the rest of us and reducing the Internet to the lowest "kid-friendly" denominator.
That is the point, people are relying on the government to raise their children. No one, other than the parents themselves, should decide what is "kid-friendly" or appropriate for their child. If we allow Congress to decide what is appropriate for all children, then we are in fact allowing parents to ignore some of their responsibilities as parents
Can you honestly say that everything that you believe is alright for your kids to see, is the same as what your next-door neighbor believes is alright for his/her children to see?
I fail to see how this is better than any filtering software. If kids can only access.kids.us sites, then they are confined to a list of sites that have been pre-approved by some censor who thinks that only they know what is good for America's children. If, on the other hand, if children surf through filtering software, then they are confined to a list of... (i.e. the same exact situation.
Several things need to happen here:
Parents need to realize that the Internet is not some evil place trying to take their children away. There is no way that someone can come out of the computer screen and snatch your child away. If your child is stupid enough to go and meet someone in the real world just because some text on a screen told them too, then you have bigger problems as a parent. This is no different than someone pulling up in a van, and offering your kid candy, except that the person on the other end has no way to physically grab and take the child.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Reverse-engineering is fine by me. If someone sees my product, and says "Hey, I could do that", and then proceeds to do just that, even if they use my product as a model, then that is just healthy competition.
If Wine were ported to the PPC, then the x86 instructions *would* have to be emulated. For example, they could have the following situation:
If done well, you could run most windows apps out of the box, and run them much faster than if they were purely emulated (since the Win32 API's, and any other API's where it made sense, would be native PPC code, and not emulated x86 code).
I agree that patenting "concepts" is generally a bad thing, but there's a big difference between "intellectual property" and "concept". As an example, If I write a book, about concept X, the contents of that book are my intellectual property, and copying or distributing it without my permission is wrong (except for fair use). However, nothing is stopping anyone else from writing a different book about the same concept.
If I choose to share some software I wrote, and open source it, that is my decision, but if I don't, that code represents my hard work, and I deserve to reap the benefits.
"Hi 12 year old self, here's a list of people you'll meet, the ones to avoid are highlighted. Also, here is a list of the winners of several sporting events that had high odds against them."
Umm, it's not (technologically) possible for the ISP to prevent you from using NAT. And if you're savvy enough to use Linux, what support could you possibly need from the ISP?
Um, region 5? I hate to break it to you, but Japan is region 2.
That is simply wrong, I have used many "Windows" iPods with my Mac. It works fine.
<sarcasm>Yep, that sure does "smack of proprietary lock-in".</sarcasm>
There is only one link port, and it is used for both connecting to other GameBoys, and to the GameCube.
Actually, according to netcraft, it is running Windows: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.brown dailyherald.com&submit=Examine
Take the death penalty, for instance. Someone is sentenced to death, because they were convicted of murder on questionable evidence. Is it right or is it wrong that they die? If someone disagrees with whatever position you happen to take, are they "wrong"?
If I had done something that someone thought warranted killing me, then it would indeed be a matter of opinion. I may think that it's wrong to kill me, but in that situation, I would hardly be a disinterested, objective observer. I would most likely try to avoid death by any means necessary, even if I knew I deserved it.
I am in no way "defending" killing and FGM. I am defending the right of someone else to believe that they are "right" or "good". If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you disagree with, then you don't really believe in freedom of speech (I forget who said that). I wholeheartedly support the right of KKK members to speak out, regardless of the fact that, to me, they are "wrong", and that the world would be a better place without them.
And if the decision of what is "good" and "bad" or what is "kid-friendly" or not is objective, then should a site talking about Michelangelo's art be allowed? After all, some of his art contains genitalia, and could therefore be considered pornographic by some of the more conservative in our society.
5 * 100 = 500
There, I just added 100 5's
No, because those things can also be objectively proven, in such a case, there is an absolute truth. You can disagree with "1+1=2" until you're blue in the face, but in out number system, 1+1 is always 2. Killing on the other hand is subjective:
Is it OK to kill?
If you say "no", as most people would be inclined to do, then what about in self-defense?
Except that Thanksgiving is Nov 28 this year (i.e. it's one of those holidays that just don't stay put).
A joke my calculus teacher told me back in high school:
What's the square root of 69?
8 something (ate something)
ba-da-ching!
Of course, physical harm isn't the only kind of harm that can befall a child, but it is the kind most often brought up in the media as a reason why the Internet should be censored, or cordoned off into separate areas.
But that's just it, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective. For example, I personally think that female genital mutilation is "bad", but there are many cultures in which it is considered a "good" thing to do. I personally have no problem with people who eat pork, but in some cultures, eating pork is sacrilege. And yes, as you point out, my opinion counts for no more than anyone else's, that's the very nature of opinion.
To show that "good and bad are subjective", requires nothing more than a single case where two people disagree on whether or not something is "good" or "bad", of which I have shown two. There is no foolproof, objective way to show whether or not something is "good", therefore it is subjective.
No, what I said was (and I quote) "most censorship does more harm than good." Note the word "most".
The obvious case of pr0n is easy to decide, most people would agree that children shouldn't see pr0n. The problem is in the gray areas. Should a child be allowed to see the statue of David? Some parents would say yes, some parents would say no, the point is, that it is up to the individual parent, not to anyone else.
I never said that "bad" == "pr0n", and I never said that people couldn't function without pr0n. What I did say is that if one isn't taught that not everyone can be trusted, one will grow up implicitly trusting everyone, and will not be able to function in this world.
I never said that there weren't predators on the Internet, I said that "the Internet is not some evil place...". The internet is no more "an evil" place than is the telephone. The predators using the internet have no more power over the children on the other end, than they would if they had called them on the phone.
After telling you children that it is bad to blindly trust strangers, here's a simple test (that my parents performed on me when I was about 5). Leave them alone in house (i.e. just walk outside, where they can't see you). Have someone (whose they won't recognize) call them on the phone (or knock on the door), and offer them something if they come with them (candy, toys, whatever). If the kid says no, then good for you, however, if the kid says yes, you have some more teaching to do.
After falling for this trick twice, I never fell for it again. In fact, about a year later, I was approached by some guy who offered me candy while at the library. And I knew just what to do -- I went and got an authority figure (the librarian in this case), told them what had happened, and she called the police. I used my own judgment, as my parents had taught me, and I came out unscathed ... it's as simple as that.
I never said that it wasn't the fault of the criminal doing the luring, but I did say that the child should be taught to resist said lure. If a child reads something, and then promptly sets up a face-to-face visit with a stranger, then that child wasn't taught properly. The fact that they left is partially the parents fault. What the criminal does after getting ahold of the child is entirely the fault of that criminal, but the fact remains that if the child were made to realize that it would be a bad idea to meet this person, that person would be powerless over the child.
No, it isn't, because you are the parent. It is your responsibility to filter what your child sees. But that's just it, it's your responsibility, not some group of politicians.
No, of course not.
However, this situation is no different from that of using filtering software, except that with good filtering software, you, the parent, can make your own judgement about wether or not a site is "appropriate". If you disagree with the government's choice about a particular site, you're SOL.
The difference is that on Slashdot, we are self-moderated. There isn't some other entity telling us what is alright for us to see, we are telling ourselves what we can see.
Yes, but not by the government, by their parents.
And what is to stop a predator from showing up at some message board on a .kids.us site?
I am well aware that "sheltering a child from all 'bad things' is impossible", but that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. I am not claiming that porn "builds character", nor am I claiming that we should go out of our way to show it to children, but a fact of life is that they will see it -- with or without the internet. By pretending that we can corral children into a "safe" area, we would actually be providing a false sense of security.
That is the point, people are relying on the government to raise their children. No one, other than the parents themselves, should decide what is "kid-friendly" or appropriate for their child. If we allow Congress to decide what is appropriate for all children, then we are in fact allowing parents to ignore some of their responsibilities as parents
Can you honestly say that everything that you believe is alright for your kids to see, is the same as what your next-door neighbor believes is alright for his/her children to see?
I fail to see how this is better than any filtering software. If kids can only access .kids.us sites, then they are confined to a list of sites that have been pre-approved by some censor who thinks that only they know what is good for America's children. If, on the other hand, if children surf through filtering software, then they are confined to a list of ... (i.e. the same exact situation.
Several things need to happen here:
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.