Imagine if this same standard existed in the real world. "You're under arrest. Officer Jim here says he saw you driving 90 in a 30 mph, school speed zone while drinking beer, snorting cocaine and listening to pirated MP3s. We're taking you right to jail so you can begin serving your 10 year sentence. A trial? Didja hear that Jim? Guy thinks he's getting a trial!!! *bursts out laughing* Listen pal, Jim here says you did that stuff and that's good enough for me and the entire legal system. If I hear one more word out of you, I'm adding 'resisting arrest' to the charges which tacks on another 4 years."
Very true. My post was meant more as a counter-balance against the AC who said "quite a lot of anguished leftards want that [government control of the Internet]". There are people on both sides who would like to control the Internet. Their reasons might differ and what they'd want to control might differ, but in the end any government control of the Internet would be bad.
After all, maybe this year one party is the one "protecting people from that bad stuff online" but then next year the other party gets voted in and uses the powers the previous party established to block their online pet peeves. Whenever you're handing the government a power, I think it's a good idea to imagine how someone with the opposite political ideals as you would use that power. If you don't like it, then perhaps giving the government that power (e.g. control over the Internet) is a bad idea.
You get "paid" for something with a check made out to much more than the amount you should have recieved. Let's say $1,000 instead of $100. The scammer tells you there was a mix-up and that you should just deposit the check and wire $990 back to them. Perhaps they'll be "generous" and let you "keep" some more to pay you back for your time and effort. So you deposit the check and wire the money. Then the check bounces and the $1,000 gets pulled out of your bank account. Now you're down $990 or so which is firmly in the scammer's hands.
The point is that the money was never really there. It was an illusion concocted to get you to send your actual money to the scammer.
Of course, this is a different scam than the "give us your bank account information and we'll deposit 15% of $10,000,000" scam.
Honestly, the "Bad Touch" teachings are different than "Stranger Danger." Stranger Danger is (to greatly simplify) don't get into that van because the guy said he'd drive you to your mom and dad. Bad Touch is how nobody, even people you know, should touch you in certain places and then tell you "Don't tell mom and dad... let's just keep this our little secret." Sadly, I think the stats are that most child molestation happens not by random strangers but by family members/family friends/other trusted adults.
As for a 7 year old punch to the balls being enough to stop child abduction... do you have a 7 year old? My son can certainly hit to hurt if he wanted to, but if it came right down to it, I could easily overpower him. (For example, when we need to put eyedrops in his eyes or when he needs to get a shot.) A determined child abductor won't be lieing on the ground crying, but would probably ignore the pain and grab the kid anyway.
My son is under orders that, should anyone try to grab him, he's to run the fastest he can (preferably to another adult) and scream the loudest that he can. No, he can't outrun an adult either, but the running combined with the yelling should scare off most would-be abductors. The last thing I want him to do is get into close range of a child abductor.
And how are you going to force porn sites to a XXX domain? Make a law? If it's a UK law, how will that be enforced in the US? If it's a US law, how will be enforced in Canada? Russia? Spain? (etc. etc. etc.)
Moreover, how will you define porn? Is a topless woman porn? What if she's breastfeeding? Alternatively, what if it's a story from National Geographic magazine. Is a photo of two people having sex porn? What if it is on a safe sex education website? Is a "suggestive" image (one that implies something but doesn't actually show it) porn?
There are ways for Joe Sixpack, who doesn't know squat about computers, to filter what his kids see online. First of all, no computers in the bedroom. Put them in a public area so kids can't view porn without mom and dad happening by. Yes, they could still see porn on iPads or similar hand held devices, but this leads to the second step.
Talk with your kids. Explain to them why you think porn is bad and why they shouldn't watch it. Be honest. Don't use scare tactics. Don't say "If you watch porn, your eyeballs will bleed and your penis will fall off." Do say "It objectifies women and shows an unrealistic portrayal of sex."
For all the stereotypes of kids rebelling against parents all the time, kids usually listen to their parents if they're given good reasons why they shouldn't do something. Besides, your child *will* be exposed to porn at some point (whether it's from their friend showing them a Playboy magazine or mistyping a domain name) and you'll want to talk with them about what they should do when they happen upon it.
This is also why scare tactics are bad. When they see their friend's Playboy mag and no blood spurts from their eyeballs, they'll ignore everything else you said. If you were honest with them, they're more likely to politely refuse to see more. No, it's not a 100% guarantee, but when you're parenting, nothing's 100%. You just give your kids the best tools you can and hope they use them right.
It's not just a naked human. Children can see women in skimpy bikinis and it won't affect them, but if they get a 2 second glimpse of a nipple, they're scarred for life. I shudder to think of how damaged my kids will be considering that they were both breast-fed and *GASP* *HORROR OF HORRORS*, my older son even saw my younger son being breast-fed. I guess my wife and I should turn ourselves in to Child Protective Services right now.
I'm a parent of two boys. One is 7 and the other is 3. Even in this small age gap, it's amazing how what is appropriate for one isn't appropriate for the other. (Usually, the 3 year old wouldn't get things that the 7 year old would get.) Still, I wouldn't want an Internet defined as "appropriate for 7 year olds." If I want to censor the Internet, I'll do it myself in my own household using tools that are readily available. In addition, I'll teach my kids how to discern between content/communication that is and isn't appropriate and how to respond. Just like I teach them about stranger danger and how nobody but mommy, daddy and your doctor can touch you "there." (Oh, and TSA agents apparently, but that's a different discussion entirely.) In short, this is just some parents who see the "bad stuff" out there and don't want to be bothered to actually *PARENT* their kids. Instead, they ask the government to do the parenting for them.
I don't think it's a tricky spot. Don't think of "Piracy" as one big block, but as two distinct chunks.
On one hand you have your Pirate-Anything-No-Matter-What pirates. If you lowered your prices to a penny per song and included a free gold nugget with each purchase, these pirates would still be uploading and downloading songs from P2P. Don't consider these people your customers or lost sales in any way. If you removed their ability to pirate your works, chances are they wouldn't have pried open their wallets to pay for the merchandise.
The other group, are people who pirate due to price, availability or convenience. For these people, think of piracy as a competing product. If you offer your product for a reasonable price with appropriate availability and convenience to purchase, piracy will drop. If you overcharge, restrict availability or make your customer jump through hurdles before they can buy, then piracy will climb.
If 10,000 people are pirating your works, you shouldn't be asking "How can I best sue them into oblivion", you should be asking "What can I do to win back most of those pirates?"
Perhaps my legal knowledge is rusty, but isn't a class action where a group of people file suit together against one defendent? (More accurately, they file a lot of individual lawsuits which get bundled together.) The RIAA (or some other big company) can't simply say "Class Action!" and sue a thousand people in one stroke.
If I know politicians, there will be compromises that make both parties happy, but that make all of us less free. We'd agree to China's speech restrictions (no more mentioning Tiananmen Square, for example) and they would agree to tighten the clamp on IP protection in their country. Their government would walk away happy that everyone will only know the Chinese Government's account of Tiananmen Square (nothing happened) and our government will walk away happy (reporting "Mission Accomplished" to their lobbyist friends). Meanwhile, we'll cry out in anguish... or we would if we were still allowed to...
To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)
As others have said, there are rules when you're on a jury. The prosecutor and defense team lay out the "facts" as they both see them. You hear from experts on both sides who detail what they think happened (in their expert opinion). Then you weigh everything. Which side produced the most convincing argument. Did the defense's expert seem more reliable than the prosecution's? Or vice versa? If you don't know what something means or need clarification on some testimony, you send a request to the judge. The judge then decides who will respond so as not to unfairly bias the verdict in one way or another. The jury doesn't need to be ignorant, but their sources need to be carefully controlled to remove any potential bias for or against either side.
I've always thought that personal airplanes, while cool in theory, would be a nightmare in practice? Take a look at how some people drive now. Talking on their cell phones while munching down a McDonald's burger and fries, barely paying any attention to the road or other cars, while going 15 miles over the speed limit. Or texting to their friends about how some idiot in front of them won't get out of their way as they weave in and out of traffic. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihQeZpwqpE&feature=player_embedded Do you really want this guy piloting his own aircraft? Bad, bad idea.
The two party system is all about choice. Do you choose to bend over facing right or facing left while you get abused by politicians, corporations, etc.
I love Twitter also and would just like to make a clarification to this:
There is an awful awful lot of stupid and irrelivant shit, mark my words I understand this but inbetween all that it's amazing, utterly amazing.
One man's stupid and irrelevant tweet is another person's highly useful tweet. If someone tweets about a great new rap song they just heard, I couldn't care less. But to fans of that music genre, it could be an introduction to a song that they love. Similarly, if I tweet about something my kid did, some people might yawn and roll their eyes, but other parents might chuckle as their kids have done something similar. I think there's very little on Twitter that *nobody* finds useful.
Like icebraining said, it's not replied to, not ignored. Furthermore, I would expect a high number of "not replied to" messages. How many comments on Slashdot message threads aren't replied to?
Let's say you have a poster who makes a statement A. There are 3 replies B, C, and D. B, in turn, gets 3 replies E, F and G while C gets one, H. Now we have 8 comments. Of these, 3 got replies and 5 weren't replied to. This very simple situation results in 62.5% of comments on this thread not having a reply. Toss in a few more comments here and there and the figure could easily climb to 70% (if not more).
The funny part was when he was asked why Assange hasn't been tried for treason and Lieberman said he doesn't know and Assange should be. One small problem with that, though. Assange isn't American! I know. Let's bring him over here and grant him American citizenship so we can try him for treason! (Probably shouldn't give them any ideas.)
"Another point is that the wasp's collection structures are yellow, not green like plant chlorophyll. The green color results from chlorophyll not using green light, but absorbing more blue end light. If the wasps look yellow, that might mean that they are efficient in a different part of the visible light spectrum."
That reminds me of the time I was a college freshman and, during orientation, saw some woman giving a presentation. I've forgotten most of it by now (including the original purpose of it all), but I remember her holding up a red glass filled with water and telling us that the red glass allowed the water to absorb the energies of the red light. My Science-y Sense went off and I asked "Since the glass is red, doesn't that mean it reflects red light back to our eyes? If any 'energy' is being absorbed by the water, wouldn't it be everything *except* red?" As I recall, she was none too pleased with my question and didn't want to hear questions from me for the rest of the presentation.
"Sometimes life just gives you shitty options to choose from, and I gotta choose the shitty option that saves more human lives."
Exactly. There is idealism and realism. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to experiment on any animals. Of course, in that world, there would be no disease or suffering and life would be a whole lot easier.
We, for better or worse, live in the real world. This means we need to make choices. The choices offered won't always be Good Choice No Downside verses Bad Choice No Upside. They'll be Choice A With Some Upside Some Downside and Choice B With Some Upside Some Downsite. We make our choices and try to get the most "upside" for the least "downside" but we'll almost never get choices that match up perfectly with our ideals. (Ideals are still good to have, mind you. You should strive towards them. Just recognize that you may never actually reach them.)
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if this same standard existed in the real world. "You're under arrest. Officer Jim here says he saw you driving 90 in a 30 mph, school speed zone while drinking beer, snorting cocaine and listening to pirated MP3s. We're taking you right to jail so you can begin serving your 10 year sentence. A trial? Didja hear that Jim? Guy thinks he's getting a trial!!! *bursts out laughing* Listen pal, Jim here says you did that stuff and that's good enough for me and the entire legal system. If I hear one more word out of you, I'm adding 'resisting arrest' to the charges which tacks on another 4 years."
Very true. My post was meant more as a counter-balance against the AC who said "quite a lot of anguished leftards want that [government control of the Internet]". There are people on both sides who would like to control the Internet. Their reasons might differ and what they'd want to control might differ, but in the end any government control of the Internet would be bad.
After all, maybe this year one party is the one "protecting people from that bad stuff online" but then next year the other party gets voted in and uses the powers the previous party established to block their online pet peeves. Whenever you're handing the government a power, I think it's a good idea to imagine how someone with the opposite political ideals as you would use that power. If you don't like it, then perhaps giving the government that power (e.g. control over the Internet) is a bad idea.
If I recall properly, it works like this:
You get "paid" for something with a check made out to much more than the amount you should have recieved. Let's say $1,000 instead of $100. The scammer tells you there was a mix-up and that you should just deposit the check and wire $990 back to them. Perhaps they'll be "generous" and let you "keep" some more to pay you back for your time and effort. So you deposit the check and wire the money. Then the check bounces and the $1,000 gets pulled out of your bank account. Now you're down $990 or so which is firmly in the scammer's hands.
The point is that the money was never really there. It was an illusion concocted to get you to send your actual money to the scammer.
Of course, this is a different scam than the "give us your bank account information and we'll deposit 15% of $10,000,000" scam.
Honestly, the "Bad Touch" teachings are different than "Stranger Danger." Stranger Danger is (to greatly simplify) don't get into that van because the guy said he'd drive you to your mom and dad. Bad Touch is how nobody, even people you know, should touch you in certain places and then tell you "Don't tell mom and dad... let's just keep this our little secret." Sadly, I think the stats are that most child molestation happens not by random strangers but by family members/family friends/other trusted adults.
As for a 7 year old punch to the balls being enough to stop child abduction... do you have a 7 year old? My son can certainly hit to hurt if he wanted to, but if it came right down to it, I could easily overpower him. (For example, when we need to put eyedrops in his eyes or when he needs to get a shot.) A determined child abductor won't be lieing on the ground crying, but would probably ignore the pain and grab the kid anyway.
My son is under orders that, should anyone try to grab him, he's to run the fastest he can (preferably to another adult) and scream the loudest that he can. No, he can't outrun an adult either, but the running combined with the yelling should scare off most would-be abductors. The last thing I want him to do is get into close range of a child abductor.
And how are you going to force porn sites to a XXX domain? Make a law? If it's a UK law, how will that be enforced in the US? If it's a US law, how will be enforced in Canada? Russia? Spain? (etc. etc. etc.)
Moreover, how will you define porn? Is a topless woman porn? What if she's breastfeeding? Alternatively, what if it's a story from National Geographic magazine. Is a photo of two people having sex porn? What if it is on a safe sex education website? Is a "suggestive" image (one that implies something but doesn't actually show it) porn?
There are ways for Joe Sixpack, who doesn't know squat about computers, to filter what his kids see online. First of all, no computers in the bedroom. Put them in a public area so kids can't view porn without mom and dad happening by. Yes, they could still see porn on iPads or similar hand held devices, but this leads to the second step.
Talk with your kids. Explain to them why you think porn is bad and why they shouldn't watch it. Be honest. Don't use scare tactics. Don't say "If you watch porn, your eyeballs will bleed and your penis will fall off." Do say "It objectifies women and shows an unrealistic portrayal of sex."
For all the stereotypes of kids rebelling against parents all the time, kids usually listen to their parents if they're given good reasons why they shouldn't do something. Besides, your child *will* be exposed to porn at some point (whether it's from their friend showing them a Playboy magazine or mistyping a domain name) and you'll want to talk with them about what they should do when they happen upon it.
This is also why scare tactics are bad. When they see their friend's Playboy mag and no blood spurts from their eyeballs, they'll ignore everything else you said. If you were honest with them, they're more likely to politely refuse to see more. No, it's not a 100% guarantee, but when you're parenting, nothing's 100%. You just give your kids the best tools you can and hope they use them right.
after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.
They were using kids to investigate missing child cases? Is this why nothing ever gets done in government?
I'm sure you've heard the childhood retort "it takes one to know one"? Well, now we know where it came from.
Well, then who do they employ in the TSA to catch terrorists?!!!
Yes they did. They put up a filter, thus solving the problem forever.
"But, what about...."
FOREVER!!!!!
It's not just a naked human. Children can see women in skimpy bikinis and it won't affect them, but if they get a 2 second glimpse of a nipple, they're scarred for life. I shudder to think of how damaged my kids will be considering that they were both breast-fed and *GASP* *HORROR OF HORRORS*, my older son even saw my younger son being breast-fed. I guess my wife and I should turn ourselves in to Child Protective Services right now.
I'm a parent of two boys. One is 7 and the other is 3. Even in this small age gap, it's amazing how what is appropriate for one isn't appropriate for the other. (Usually, the 3 year old wouldn't get things that the 7 year old would get.) Still, I wouldn't want an Internet defined as "appropriate for 7 year olds." If I want to censor the Internet, I'll do it myself in my own household using tools that are readily available. In addition, I'll teach my kids how to discern between content/communication that is and isn't appropriate and how to respond. Just like I teach them about stranger danger and how nobody but mommy, daddy and your doctor can touch you "there." (Oh, and TSA agents apparently, but that's a different discussion entirely.) In short, this is just some parents who see the "bad stuff" out there and don't want to be bothered to actually *PARENT* their kids. Instead, they ask the government to do the parenting for them.
I don't think it's a tricky spot. Don't think of "Piracy" as one big block, but as two distinct chunks.
On one hand you have your Pirate-Anything-No-Matter-What pirates. If you lowered your prices to a penny per song and included a free gold nugget with each purchase, these pirates would still be uploading and downloading songs from P2P. Don't consider these people your customers or lost sales in any way. If you removed their ability to pirate your works, chances are they wouldn't have pried open their wallets to pay for the merchandise.
The other group, are people who pirate due to price, availability or convenience. For these people, think of piracy as a competing product. If you offer your product for a reasonable price with appropriate availability and convenience to purchase, piracy will drop. If you overcharge, restrict availability or make your customer jump through hurdles before they can buy, then piracy will climb.
If 10,000 people are pirating your works, you shouldn't be asking "How can I best sue them into oblivion", you should be asking "What can I do to win back most of those pirates?"
And this is where music artists and porn stars are alike. Both are getting screwed. At least the porn stars have a decent shot at enjoying it.
Perhaps my legal knowledge is rusty, but isn't a class action where a group of people file suit together against one defendent? (More accurately, they file a lot of individual lawsuits which get bundled together.) The RIAA (or some other big company) can't simply say "Class Action!" and sue a thousand people in one stroke.
If I know politicians, there will be compromises that make both parties happy, but that make all of us less free. We'd agree to China's speech restrictions (no more mentioning Tiananmen Square, for example) and they would agree to tighten the clamp on IP protection in their country. Their government would walk away happy that everyone will only know the Chinese Government's account of Tiananmen Square (nothing happened) and our government will walk away happy (reporting "Mission Accomplished" to their lobbyist friends). Meanwhile, we'll cry out in anguish... or we would if we were still allowed to...
To be fair, a lot of right-wingers want government control of the Internet also. They just differ on what they want controlled. The religious right would love it if everything "harmful to children" (read: anything inappropriate for a 5 year old to read) was taken off the Internet. They've tried multiple times to get laws passed enforcing this but it has always been struck down in the courts. (This coming from the father of a 7 year old and a 3 year old... I'll police how my kids use the Internet, I don't need the government to do my job for me!)
As others have said, there are rules when you're on a jury. The prosecutor and defense team lay out the "facts" as they both see them. You hear from experts on both sides who detail what they think happened (in their expert opinion). Then you weigh everything. Which side produced the most convincing argument. Did the defense's expert seem more reliable than the prosecution's? Or vice versa? If you don't know what something means or need clarification on some testimony, you send a request to the judge. The judge then decides who will respond so as not to unfairly bias the verdict in one way or another. The jury doesn't need to be ignorant, but their sources need to be carefully controlled to remove any potential bias for or against either side.
I've always thought that personal airplanes, while cool in theory, would be a nightmare in practice? Take a look at how some people drive now. Talking on their cell phones while munching down a McDonald's burger and fries, barely paying any attention to the road or other cars, while going 15 miles over the speed limit. Or texting to their friends about how some idiot in front of them won't get out of their way as they weave in and out of traffic. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihQeZpwqpE&feature=player_embedded Do you really want this guy piloting his own aircraft? Bad, bad idea.
The two party system is all about choice. Do you choose to bend over facing right or facing left while you get abused by politicians, corporations, etc.
I love Twitter also and would just like to make a clarification to this:
There is an awful awful lot of stupid and irrelivant shit, mark my words I understand this but inbetween all that it's amazing, utterly amazing.
One man's stupid and irrelevant tweet is another person's highly useful tweet. If someone tweets about a great new rap song they just heard, I couldn't care less. But to fans of that music genre, it could be an introduction to a song that they love. Similarly, if I tweet about something my kid did, some people might yawn and roll their eyes, but other parents might chuckle as their kids have done something similar. I think there's very little on Twitter that *nobody* finds useful.
Like icebraining said, it's not replied to, not ignored. Furthermore, I would expect a high number of "not replied to" messages. How many comments on Slashdot message threads aren't replied to?
Let's say you have a poster who makes a statement A. There are 3 replies B, C, and D. B, in turn, gets 3 replies E, F and G while C gets one, H. Now we have 8 comments. Of these, 3 got replies and 5 weren't replied to. This very simple situation results in 62.5% of comments on this thread not having a reply. Toss in a few more comments here and there and the figure could easily climb to 70% (if not more).
I wonder if it can see Russia from there.
The funny part was when he was asked why Assange hasn't been tried for treason and Lieberman said he doesn't know and Assange should be. One small problem with that, though. Assange isn't American! I know. Let's bring him over here and grant him American citizenship so we can try him for treason! (Probably shouldn't give them any ideas.)
"Hello (*ow*) Power Company? (*ow*) Yes, we have a slight (*ow*) problem here. I think our (*ow*) MAHA is leaking. Sure, I'll hold. (*OWWWWWWWWW*)"
"Another point is that the wasp's collection structures are yellow, not green like plant chlorophyll. The green color results from chlorophyll not using green light, but absorbing more blue end light. If the wasps look yellow, that might mean that they are efficient in a different part of the visible light spectrum."
That reminds me of the time I was a college freshman and, during orientation, saw some woman giving a presentation. I've forgotten most of it by now (including the original purpose of it all), but I remember her holding up a red glass filled with water and telling us that the red glass allowed the water to absorb the energies of the red light. My Science-y Sense went off and I asked "Since the glass is red, doesn't that mean it reflects red light back to our eyes? If any 'energy' is being absorbed by the water, wouldn't it be everything *except* red?" As I recall, she was none too pleased with my question and didn't want to hear questions from me for the rest of the presentation.
"Sometimes life just gives you shitty options to choose from, and I gotta choose the shitty option that saves more human lives."
Exactly. There is idealism and realism. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to experiment on any animals. Of course, in that world, there would be no disease or suffering and life would be a whole lot easier.
We, for better or worse, live in the real world. This means we need to make choices. The choices offered won't always be Good Choice No Downside verses Bad Choice No Upside. They'll be Choice A With Some Upside Some Downside and Choice B With Some Upside Some Downsite. We make our choices and try to get the most "upside" for the least "downside" but we'll almost never get choices that match up perfectly with our ideals. (Ideals are still good to have, mind you. You should strive towards them. Just recognize that you may never actually reach them.)