If there's one thing that Python truly excels at, it's providing scripting extensions for other programs. Apart from all of the other reasons I like it, the fact is that in many large projects scripting is a definite plus feature, either for users (things like rule engines and the like) or for developers (for easy bespoke development).
At the last place I worked we had a large client/server MIS system using CORBA for communications. All of the CORBA objects were written in C++ and then wrapped using the Python extension libraries and given a Python script frontend - to the end-user they simply appeared as straight Python objects with all of the flexibility that entailed.
The clients then had the Python engine embedded into them and could load and run scripts, which then used the CORBA wrappers to interface with the servers, allowing you to set up entire sequences of events in a simple script. And because this functionality is part of Python the amount of work is fairly minimal.
Apart from that Python's excellent object orientation makes it ideal for GUI libraries - see wxPython for a good example. All that'll be required for developers to use this is to embed an interpreter within their program - not that difficult at all - and then wrap enough of the program objects to provide the desired functionality. The wrapping is fairly straightfoward - we had a script that converted CORBA.IDLs to the C++ wrapping code - and shouldn't take long at all.
All in all, this is a great idea for anyone who wants to add scripting to an application, but didn't want to spend ages coding it.
Accuse me of having little faith, but I believe that until we rearchitecture the network to utterly defeat measures like this (transparent crypto?) the government will continue to use its machinery to coerce and manipulate the key internet players.
Somehow I think that there won't ever be any way to "utterly defeat" measures like this - what you have to remember is that the government has its own store of geeks working on these projects, and since they've got a) better equipment and resources and b) a lot more time I think they'll defeat any half-baked measures you do manage to implement.
Someday, someone is going to need to devise a technical solution to these political problems.
Rubbish. Political problems have political solutions. You can't just write a piece of code to deal with it. This kind of blinkered techno-centric attitude is typical of/.ers who spend all their time online rather than interacting with other people.
This is why they are so afraid of geeks - they know we have it within our power to end this form of tyranny for good.
LOL! You're full of it today.
We are in control of the ultimate modern day press. Literally, with the click of a mouse button, we can go public with thousands of pages of information, blow the lids off back-office politics, and empower the average citizen to take back their democracy and demand their rights.
What, like/.? You make me want to cry, I honestly think I've gotten dumber by reading your drivel. Nobody cares about what you say or do, because people have more important things to think about than whether you can download MP3s for free or not.
is why of all the new laws being passed, it is against "computer crime" (civil disobedience by another name) is being targetted with the most extreme forms of retribution our legal system has to offer.
It's because of the vast damage that hackers can do with their illegal backdoor penetrations of other people's sites. And unless this sort of thing is clamped down upon, hackers will continue to do it because they think that a) they're better than anyone else and b) the real world and other people's livelihoods are just some kind of fantasy game.
If you want to beat them, adopt IPv6, and give your customers end-to-end encryption. Then.. go ahead and let them install omnivore. A boat load of good it'll do them then!
For all of six weeks until the FBI cracks it.
I haven't read this must rubbish for a while, Siggy. Back to karma whoring eh?
This is the only decent idea that the priests at my Catholic High School ever had.
Catholics! Ha, now things are starting to make a lot more sense. That pagan cult is famous for its insidious brainwashing and anti-Christian teachings.
Oh fuck it, I'm going to lunch... this was a lot of fun though:)
And see how you prove my point with every single word you type. You just have to deny the existence of radicals; your propaganda just does not live to the fact of this reality.
*sigh* You accuse others of not reading your posts and then you post without reading mine. You're either stupid or this is your strategy for winning arguments - ignoring what the other person has to say.
I wasn't denying the existance of "radicals", I'm just denying that you are one. Why would you be posting on/. if you're so radical?
Actually, *please* stay on denial. We could use that.
See - you just want to think you're part of a "cool" group of people. Inclusion is something we all desire, and your lame attempts to portray yourself as a "radical" is just a cry for help. Real radicals would laugh in your face.
Go tell that to the Canadian national security agencies, and the secret police of a couple Latin American states. I could use that break from a fine upright citizen like you.
LOL! What a fine imagination you have... have you ever considered a career in marketing? With your sociology training (obviously a requirement for radicals) and feminist leanings, you could do well marketing things like makeup and fashion. You'd fit right in.
So do you believe in slavery, and that women are the property of males, as one of the commandments requires just to make sense?
*Sigh* Are you so literal minded that you believe everything you read? The Bible was written from a different perspective - I can follow God's teachings by searching for the deeper meanings contained within it.
Liberals are a bunch of pansies that talk about marginally progressive values while pandering to the megacorps.
For once we agree.
I am you fucking worst nightmare, that which you won't even let yourself publicly acknowledge exists (thus you choice of terminology): I am a radical.
Oooh, I'm scared. The sad truth is that your "radicalism" is just a pretence to cover up the fact that you really are a liberal but want to pretend that you are "extreme" because otherwise the fact of your insignificant, loveless, Godless life would send you spiralling into the pits of depression, suicide and Hell.
Heh, I bet you've never even done anything "radical" in your life. Oh, and masturbation doesn't sound, and nor does exposing yourself to small children.
Yeah, those people who see through your myth-making, and your reverence for the mythology of some random nomadic tribe from 3,000 years ago.
Your ignorance of the Truth does not make it any less true. Some of us know in our hearts what is real, and some, like you, have been blinded by your liberal peers and educators into believing in the bleakness of the cult of atheism.
Go back to BJU, you idiot.
If only I could. Those were happy days and good people.
Given you're a slashbot, this should be read as "I disagree with you". Why the fuck do you state the fucking obvious?
Because you need it spelt out to you since you're so ignorant?
I imagine that he will stumble upon Nambla and Lycaeum someday just as I did, but it will not happen until I am comfortable that he will make the right decisions after reading what they have to say.
And with that statement, you show how hypocritical your position is. You say you want your child to be able to see these things, but only when he will make the right decisions. I agree - only when he can see them for the filth that they are should he be allowed to see them.
To your credit, I did do sociology (bold, no quote marks). It is an essential discipline to understand the world, isn't it?
To understand the liberal world you seem to think exists certainly. To understand the real world? I think not. Your liberal "understanding" of the world is a tragic lie spread by educators more insterested in being "politically correct" than teaching the Truth.
Anyway, the idea of a "Soviet tractor woman" just sounds so sexy-- a woman that knows how to make things work, and has no time for any of this socially constructed "feminity" myth.
Feminity is no myth, but a fundamental truth of human nature and the way the Lord created us. Both men and women have their places, and it is the deviation from these roles that the liberals have convinced people is a good thing that is causing the social unrest and general unhappiness we see today.
That's why I married a brilliant woman that does construction work, after all. No bullshit there. A woman that knows she can do anything as well as a man can.
You slept through your geography lesson, or did you learn your geography at BJU? America is not a nation, it is a continent.
Yes, but everyone knows that the USA is the only significant part of the entire continent, and when someone says America they mean the US. The rest of the continent is full of second rate countries where people are to busy trying to find food to count in the international arena.
And the page 3 girls, ah, what are those? And Samantha Fox! Did she not star in some bestiality videos?
Did I say that this country was perfect? No, only Heaven is perfect by definition, and anything under it can only ever aspire to that perfection. Page 3 girls are one of the parts of the English media that needs to be changed - recent changes to make it seem "classy" just make this even more urgent.
As for bestiality videos, you seem to know far more than I about such filth. Your depravity seems to know no bounds.
And what about Robot Wars, a show that glorifies killing technology, eh?
Sigh. It was an American show first, and unfortunately bought over here by some of the more liberal elements that have snuck into parts of the BBC. But thankfully, traditional British TV is still available to those who desire decent, moral programming.
So what if the ACLU stands up for my right to filth just because a lot of their money comes from adult video stores... they stand up for my Constitutional rights in general, and I thank them for it.
I didn't know that... it's hardly a point in their favor that they are funded by an industry that makes its money from the degredation of women and the moral weakness of men. If they are accepting tainted money then they are inherently tainted, and anyone who supports them is tacitly supporting the degredation of women.
I'm really tired of fundamentalist zealots telling me what it's OK for me to do based on their ideas about raising their children. I don't care for the implied comparison, and I don't need the government to play father for me.
Considering you want your children to watch pornography, I think you do need someone with some decent ethical standards to tell you how to raise your children! What kind of worldview will your children have after you force them to watch women being treated like objects in the worst kind of ways? Liberals like you make me want to cry - what kind of future are we building?
Sorry, but you are so wrong it makes me want to cry for how stupid you are. I used to live in America until I couldn't take the sheer perversion of a nation which has not only turned its back on God, but has indeed spat on God himself! A country in which books like Daddy's Roommate are allowed to be published is not one I wanted to live in.
So now I live in England, where things like pornography are thankfully not tolerated. You, my ignorant friend, are thinking of places like Denmark and Holland where the law practically rewards those who engage in this foul business! Until America, and indeed mainland Europe, accepts that pornography is immoral and wrong, I will be staying here.
You don't know what you're talking about. I mean, don't you know that most of the traffic in the web is from people who pay porn sites to have material to watch while they jerk off?
Yes, I am fully aware of the vast amount of pornographic filth that is available to those of weak morals on the Internet, and I deplore the current wave of liberal, atheistic thinking which proudly proclaims that it is alright to engage in the "fruits" of an industry that makes its money from the degredation and rape of women. Attempts to make pornography sound like a genuine business are at best misguided and at worst the work of the Devil himself!
Those that make use of this particular "service" are filthy sinners who are obviously unable to find themselves a woman and instead must resort to an unethical, un-Christian practice which all right-minded people should deplore.
Of course, this also neatly proves that the net is a haven of male privilege.
Of course, the net was created by men and run by men. Men are better with technology, women are better with the "softer" sides of life. What's your point?
I would rather chance my 8.y.o. son stumbling upon some pornography on the net than having someone else; some bureaucrat or appointed holier-than-thou 'decency commissioner' control what content is available on the Internet.
What is this whole preoccupation with "freedom" that people here on/. seem to have such an obsession with? If you want freedom then go and live in a cave somewhere and let your beard grow long, because freedom and civilisation are incompatible goals by their very natures.
If you are part of a civilisation then there are certain things which you cannot do since they are detrimental to others, thus impairing their "freedom". Thus, to ensure this concept of freedom, you must restrict freedom... so the concept of freedom is a mythical beast at best.
Sure, you may want your child to have access to hardcore pornography, but most of us wouldn't want our children to be able to see that kind of perversion at that age, for the child's own good! Only liberals like yourself seem to believe that this kind of thing is right, and that it doesn't harm children in any way! Why not point him to NAMBLA or the Lycaeum whie you're at it!
Sorry, but I pity the children thanks to the world people like you are creating for them, all in the name of "freedom".
That is a *very dangerous assumption*, given the general government attitude toward corporate interests, which you yourself mention.
The government is supposed to act within the interests of all of its citizens, whether they are corporate or personal... you can't make a cake without breaking some eggs after all, no government is ever going to make everyone happy.
Remember, healthy corporations mean lots of tax revenue which is good for everyone. Governments are right to encourage corporate profitability.
Licensing is unlikely to solve this problem- it is most likely to make it worse.
Ha! Look at American TV for a counterexample, whereby the huge flood of "open" channels has provided nothing of any worth and more mindless drivel, pornographics filth and immoral posturings than any other country. Licensing imposes at least some kind of quality control.
My greatest concerns in this area lie with the preponderance of advertising content being dumped on individuals by means of "free PC" type services, with the portal of choice being mandated by the hardware provider.
And? If you want to "free" PC then you have to put up with these conditions... I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's not really going to be free. If they don't realise this then they deserve everything they get IMHO.
Yeah, in your little fantasy world maybe, but the sad fact is that in our current socioeconomic model nothing, except masturbation, is free. As more and more services move online it only makes sense that the government, who has been democratically elected by the people, should exert regulatory powers over content and service. After all, you'd squeal loud enough if you got ripped off online, wouldn't you?
Why should people on the net be allowed to put out shoddy and/or offensive material? You wouldn't want to let your kids see pornographic filth on TV, why should you let them watch it on the net. This kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking is what has led to the current backlash against the net by decent people in Australia today, and doesn't to anyone any good.
So, the net is not free, and indeed shouldn't be free.
... since it looks like this issue will be decided one way or the other in the near future thanks to some sterling work by the RIAA to have Napster stamped out. Whilst this is a pretty sad way of protesting against the fact that Napster is an accessory to theft, at least he's showing that not everybody online has given into to the temptation to defraud musicians, who, even if they do make loads of money, still don't deserve to be stolen from.
Sure we need to have a model for online music, it's a given that at some point the net will become the dominant medium for distributing music, but Napster won't ever be it thanks to it's free for all attitude to copyrights and artists rights. A fairer system will require a central body such as the RIAA to ensure that violations are taken care of - online or offline, this is going to be a constant.
So, the need for a body such as the RIAA isn't going to change, but the need for Napster is as fleeting as any other fad. Expect it to die shortly after the court rules against it.
They aggressively ask their readers to help set editorial agendas.
Well, this shows that/. is definitely not Open Media, since the/. staff seem to completely ignore the views of their readers and choose stories based on their own biases.
Anyone stupid enough to consider that voting online is in a state where it can be used in a real life situation is living in a fantasy world - thanks to the backdoor actions of 15 year old hackers guaranteeing a fair vote is next to impossible, especially for an organisation like the government which has repeatedly shown its complete incompetence and ignorance when it comes to technology in general and the net in particular.
This will be one of the most important events for corporate acceptance of Linux in a non-server role, since Delphi is used by a lot of companies to develop their software. Since Kylix will be pretty much the same as Windows Delphi, changes to the source code in order to port an application will be minimal (at least in terms of the usual process of porting), and may make companies think about moving over from Windows to Linux, especially those companies which provide and all-in-one of software and hardware to customers.
So we may see Linux begin to really encraoch upon the business software market, which whilst not the intention of Linux, is still a large market and a great opportunity.
--- Jon E. Erikson
Increasing influence of customers?
on
The CPO Cometh
·
· Score: 2
Is this finally a sign that companies are actually listening to their customers wishes? It has been proved recently that customers do not want their details spread from one company to the next without their permission and especially without even their knowledge, and it seems like some companies are acknowledging the fact that making the same kind of privacy issue/fuckup that DoubleClick made will lose them both repsect and, more importantly, customers.
This is a good trend for tech-savvy companies to adopt, and one that is hopefully a sign that people are becoming more aware of the issues that a networked world raises. And once a few companies have started this, hopefully the increased respect that it will gain them will make other companies follow suit.
The law might not have worked in this case, but maybe consumer pressure will.
Let's start by realizing that different people have different sets of ethics...
Sorry my friend, but ethics are ethics, and have been laid down from a source that cannot be denied. Interpretations of ethics can vary, but these are mere exercies in logic-chopping and do not change the fact that we have a set of ethics which we were given by the Lord.
The 'betterment of society' is not served, and is in fact harmed, by a law enforcement group which intentionally violates the law, ever, even once. It doesn't matter if they catch a thousand murders and ten thousand rapists at the same time, if they had to violate one law to do so, they have made the world a worse place. It's simply a matter of principle.
I'd like to see you explain that to someone whose daughter has just been raped in one of the incidents you describe. "Sorry, we could have stopped it, but I would have had to jaywalk to do so, and my principles wouldn't allow it". Sure, it's an extreme example, but the point is that in the fact of crime, especially violent crime, your shining Constitutional principles seem like an escape from reality.
Obviously my principles are different from yours.
Obviously.
And to answer your question, it depends on the criminals. In particular, it depends on what laws they are guilty of breaking. I mean, it makes a big differance if they are all guilty of murder, say, or just, you know, jaywalking or speeding or maybe growing a bit of pot and then smoking it.
And as I believe I've said before, sin is sin, and trying to count the "amount" of sin is a foolish and pointless exercise. If you are guilty of a crime, you must be punished. It's as simple as that.
if you are under the impression that snooping into JQP's email is going to stop criminal activity, i guess you also support gun legislation, the death penalty and '3 strikes-you're out'.
Of course, I have no tolerance whatsoever for those that engage in criminal acts of any kind. Sin is sin, and the magnitude of it matters not in the long run. And owning a gun is my Constitutional right and allows me to protect myself from the criminals that would otherwise terrorise society.
Why do you say that? It appears as though I live in a different world to you, but whether either one is more "real" is open to interpretation.
This new sniffer allows unprecedented access to all unencrypted traffic as this is a sniffer at the backbone... What we have here is merely the FBI promising to use this technology only with a proper search warrant
And how is this different from the powers which they have to tap any other form of communication? Just because the net is the new "frontier" people think that it must somehow be magically different from the offline world. This is blatently not true - the net is a different medium sure, but it's the same old shit nonetheless.
See all these are steps toward a penultimate police state. Ponder this, in a few years technology will have advanced to the point where we can all have our own "police buddy robot" which follows us around making sure we're not commiting any crimes, and bill^H^H^H^Hfining us for the ones we do commit. Safety for all!
And this nothing to do with the net at all - if the net had never been invented (by the American government who then allowed you to use it) we could still have robots following us around.
So, if you're not afraid of the FBI looking at your e-mails to your sister, you're surely not afraid at letting ME look at those same e-mails, no?
Did you read my post? You didn't did you. What I said was that I'm not bothered by letting a computer read my E-mail. A computer does not make value judgements about your life. Unless you are a computer, I don't want you reading my E-mails, you sound like you'd make a value judgement.
Can't you see it's a matter of principle, or are you just dumed-down by mass-media hysteria not to realize your fundamental rights are being trampled???
It's also a matter of principle that criminals need to be stopped, and that these kinds of measures need to be taken for the betterment of society. After all its no use having free access to source code if you're barricaded in your home by armed criminals is it?
In this brave new world of information, traditional agencies such as the FBI have to have some way of maintaining their ability to protect the people that they serve, that is you. And they can't do this by ignoring such a major new technology such as the Internet.
As much as we all love the net, I don't think that any of us can deny the fact that it does provide an easy to use and easy to conceal method for criminals and other dubious types to communicate, without regard for national laws or borders. As more and more people move online, the criminals will follow, and for the FBI to ignore this would be failing us in their duty.
The idea that the FBI can scan E-mails as they enter or leave your ISP sounds scary at first, but what you have to remember is that you are not a criminal. They're hardly going to want to read your E-mail about your trip to see your sister at BJU are they? It's not like there are people reading your personal mail, it's just a machine and can't make value judgements on what you write.
Unfortunately the massive growth of the net has meant that this sort of thing was inevitable and indeed neccessary thanks to the kind of large-scale, global operations that the FBI is involved with. For them to not do this would be the wrong thing in this case, and it is a blow for criminals everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's one thing that Python truly excels at, it's providing scripting extensions for other programs. Apart from all of the other reasons I like it, the fact is that in many large projects scripting is a definite plus feature, either for users (things like rule engines and the like) or for developers (for easy bespoke development).
At the last place I worked we had a large client/server MIS system using CORBA for communications. All of the CORBA objects were written in C++ and then wrapped using the Python extension libraries and given a Python script frontend - to the end-user they simply appeared as straight Python objects with all of the flexibility that entailed.
The clients then had the Python engine embedded into them and could load and run scripts, which then used the CORBA wrappers to interface with the servers, allowing you to set up entire sequences of events in a simple script. And because this functionality is part of Python the amount of work is fairly minimal.
Apart from that Python's excellent object orientation makes it ideal for GUI libraries - see wxPython for a good example. All that'll be required for developers to use this is to embed an interpreter within their program - not that difficult at all - and then wrap enough of the program objects to provide the desired functionality. The wrapping is fairly straightfoward - we had a script that converted CORBA .IDLs to the C++ wrapping code - and shouldn't take long at all.
All in all, this is a great idea for anyone who wants to add scripting to an application, but didn't want to spend ages coding it.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Accuse me of having little faith, but I believe that until we rearchitecture the network to utterly defeat measures like this (transparent crypto?) the government will continue to use its machinery to coerce and manipulate the key internet players.
Somehow I think that there won't ever be any way to "utterly defeat" measures like this - what you have to remember is that the government has its own store of geeks working on these projects, and since they've got a) better equipment and resources and b) a lot more time I think they'll defeat any half-baked measures you do manage to implement.
Someday, someone is going to need to devise a technical solution to these political problems.
Rubbish. Political problems have political solutions. You can't just write a piece of code to deal with it. This kind of blinkered techno-centric attitude is typical of /.ers who spend all their time online rather than interacting with other people.
This is why they are so afraid of geeks - they know we have it within our power to end this form of tyranny for good.
LOL! You're full of it today.
We are in control of the ultimate modern day press. Literally, with the click of a mouse button, we can go public with thousands of pages of information, blow the lids off back-office politics, and empower the average citizen to take back their democracy and demand their rights.
What, like /.? You make me want to cry, I honestly think I've gotten dumber by reading your drivel. Nobody cares about what you say or do, because people have more important things to think about than whether you can download MP3s for free or not.
is why of all the new laws being passed, it is against "computer crime" (civil disobedience by another name) is being targetted with the most extreme forms of retribution our legal system has to offer.
It's because of the vast damage that hackers can do with their illegal backdoor penetrations of other people's sites. And unless this sort of thing is clamped down upon, hackers will continue to do it because they think that a) they're better than anyone else and b) the real world and other people's livelihoods are just some kind of fantasy game.
If you want to beat them, adopt IPv6, and give your customers end-to-end encryption. Then.. go ahead and let them install omnivore. A boat load of good it'll do them then!
For all of six weeks until the FBI cracks it.
I haven't read this must rubbish for a while, Siggy. Back to karma whoring eh?
---
Jon E. Erikson
This is the only decent idea that the priests at my Catholic High School ever had.
Catholics! Ha, now things are starting to make a lot more sense. That pagan cult is famous for its insidious brainwashing and anti-Christian teachings.
Oh fuck it, I'm going to lunch... this was a lot of fun though :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
And see how you prove my point with every single word you type. You just have to deny the existence of radicals; your propaganda just does not live to the fact of this reality.
*sigh* You accuse others of not reading your posts and then you post without reading mine. You're either stupid or this is your strategy for winning arguments - ignoring what the other person has to say.
I wasn't denying the existance of "radicals", I'm just denying that you are one. Why would you be posting on /. if you're so radical?
Actually, *please* stay on denial. We could use that.
See - you just want to think you're part of a "cool" group of people. Inclusion is something we all desire, and your lame attempts to portray yourself as a "radical" is just a cry for help. Real radicals would laugh in your face.
Go tell that to the Canadian national security agencies, and the secret police of a couple Latin American states. I could use that break from a fine upright citizen like you.
LOL! What a fine imagination you have... have you ever considered a career in marketing? With your sociology training (obviously a requirement for radicals) and feminist leanings, you could do well marketing things like makeup and fashion. You'd fit right in.
So do you believe in slavery, and that women are the property of males, as one of the commandments requires just to make sense?
*Sigh* Are you so literal minded that you believe everything you read? The Bible was written from a different perspective - I can follow God's teachings by searching for the deeper meanings contained within it.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Liberals are a bunch of pansies that talk about marginally progressive values while pandering to the megacorps.
For once we agree.
I am you fucking worst nightmare, that which you won't even let yourself publicly acknowledge exists (thus you choice of terminology): I am a radical.
Oooh, I'm scared. The sad truth is that your "radicalism" is just a pretence to cover up the fact that you really are a liberal but want to pretend that you are "extreme" because otherwise the fact of your insignificant, loveless, Godless life would send you spiralling into the pits of depression, suicide and Hell.
Heh, I bet you've never even done anything "radical" in your life. Oh, and masturbation doesn't sound, and nor does exposing yourself to small children.
Yeah, those people who see through your myth-making, and your reverence for the mythology of some random nomadic tribe from 3,000 years ago.
Your ignorance of the Truth does not make it any less true. Some of us know in our hearts what is real, and some, like you, have been blinded by your liberal peers and educators into believing in the bleakness of the cult of atheism.
Go back to BJU, you idiot.
If only I could. Those were happy days and good people.
Given you're a slashbot, this should be read as "I disagree with you". Why the fuck do you state the fucking obvious?
Because you need it spelt out to you since you're so ignorant?
---
Jon E. Erikson
I imagine that he will stumble upon Nambla and Lycaeum someday just as I did, but it will not happen until I am comfortable that he will make the right decisions after reading what they have to say.
And with that statement, you show how hypocritical your position is. You say you want your child to be able to see these things, but only when he will make the right decisions. I agree - only when he can see them for the filth that they are should he be allowed to see them.
Thank you for proving my point :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
To your credit, I did do sociology (bold, no quote marks). It is an essential discipline to understand the world, isn't it?
To understand the liberal world you seem to think exists certainly. To understand the real world? I think not. Your liberal "understanding" of the world is a tragic lie spread by educators more insterested in being "politically correct" than teaching the Truth.
Anyway, the idea of a "Soviet tractor woman" just sounds so sexy-- a woman that knows how to make things work, and has no time for any of this socially constructed "feminity" myth.
Feminity is no myth, but a fundamental truth of human nature and the way the Lord created us. Both men and women have their places, and it is the deviation from these roles that the liberals have convinced people is a good thing that is causing the social unrest and general unhappiness we see today.
That's why I married a brilliant woman that does construction work, after all. No bullshit there. A woman that knows she can do anything as well as a man can.
Ha! Now I know you're trolling me.
---
Jon E. Erikson
You slept through your geography lesson, or did you learn your geography at BJU? America is not a nation, it is a continent.
Yes, but everyone knows that the USA is the only significant part of the entire continent, and when someone says America they mean the US. The rest of the continent is full of second rate countries where people are to busy trying to find food to count in the international arena.
And the page 3 girls, ah, what are those? And Samantha Fox! Did she not star in some bestiality videos?
Did I say that this country was perfect? No, only Heaven is perfect by definition, and anything under it can only ever aspire to that perfection. Page 3 girls are one of the parts of the English media that needs to be changed - recent changes to make it seem "classy" just make this even more urgent.
As for bestiality videos, you seem to know far more than I about such filth. Your depravity seems to know no bounds.
And what about Robot Wars, a show that glorifies killing technology, eh?
Sigh. It was an American show first, and unfortunately bought over here by some of the more liberal elements that have snuck into parts of the BBC. But thankfully, traditional British TV is still available to those who desire decent, moral programming.
---
Jon E. Erikson
So what if the ACLU stands up for my right to filth just because a lot of their money comes from adult video stores... they stand up for my Constitutional rights in general, and I thank them for it.
I didn't know that... it's hardly a point in their favor that they are funded by an industry that makes its money from the degredation of women and the moral weakness of men. If they are accepting tainted money then they are inherently tainted, and anyone who supports them is tacitly supporting the degredation of women.
I'm really tired of fundamentalist zealots telling me what it's OK for me to do based on their ideas about raising their children. I don't care for the implied comparison, and I don't need the government to play father for me.
Considering you want your children to watch pornography, I think you do need someone with some decent ethical standards to tell you how to raise your children! What kind of worldview will your children have after you force them to watch women being treated like objects in the worst kind of ways? Liberals like you make me want to cry - what kind of future are we building?
---
Jon E. Erikson
Sorry, but you are so wrong it makes me want to cry for how stupid you are. I used to live in America until I couldn't take the sheer perversion of a nation which has not only turned its back on God, but has indeed spat on God himself! A country in which books like Daddy's Roommate are allowed to be published is not one I wanted to live in.
So now I live in England, where things like pornography are thankfully not tolerated. You, my ignorant friend, are thinking of places like Denmark and Holland where the law practically rewards those who engage in this foul business! Until America, and indeed mainland Europe, accepts that pornography is immoral and wrong, I will be staying here.
Europe is a decadend society.
Decadent, my ignorant friend.
---
Jon E. Erikson
You don't know what you're talking about. I mean, don't you know that most of the traffic in the web is from people who pay porn sites to have material to watch while they jerk off?
Yes, I am fully aware of the vast amount of pornographic filth that is available to those of weak morals on the Internet, and I deplore the current wave of liberal, atheistic thinking which proudly proclaims that it is alright to engage in the "fruits" of an industry that makes its money from the degredation and rape of women. Attempts to make pornography sound like a genuine business are at best misguided and at worst the work of the Devil himself!
Those that make use of this particular "service" are filthy sinners who are obviously unable to find themselves a woman and instead must resort to an unethical, un-Christian practice which all right-minded people should deplore.
Of course, this also neatly proves that the net is a haven of male privilege.
Of course, the net was created by men and run by men. Men are better with technology, women are better with the "softer" sides of life. What's your point?
---
Jon E. Erikson
I would rather chance my 8 .y.o. son stumbling upon some pornography on the net than having someone else; some bureaucrat or appointed holier-than-thou 'decency commissioner' control what content is available on the Internet.
What is this whole preoccupation with "freedom" that people here on /. seem to have such an obsession with? If you want freedom then go and live in a cave somewhere and let your beard grow long, because freedom and civilisation are incompatible goals by their very natures.
If you are part of a civilisation then there are certain things which you cannot do since they are detrimental to others, thus impairing their "freedom". Thus, to ensure this concept of freedom, you must restrict freedom... so the concept of freedom is a mythical beast at best.
Sure, you may want your child to have access to hardcore pornography, but most of us wouldn't want our children to be able to see that kind of perversion at that age, for the child's own good! Only liberals like yourself seem to believe that this kind of thing is right, and that it doesn't harm children in any way! Why not point him to NAMBLA or the Lycaeum whie you're at it!
Sorry, but I pity the children thanks to the world people like you are creating for them, all in the name of "freedom".
---
Jon E. Erikson
That is a *very dangerous assumption*, given the general government attitude toward corporate interests, which you yourself mention.
The government is supposed to act within the interests of all of its citizens, whether they are corporate or personal... you can't make a cake without breaking some eggs after all, no government is ever going to make everyone happy.
Remember, healthy corporations mean lots of tax revenue which is good for everyone. Governments are right to encourage corporate profitability.
Licensing is unlikely to solve this problem- it is most likely to make it worse.
Ha! Look at American TV for a counterexample, whereby the huge flood of "open" channels has provided nothing of any worth and more mindless drivel, pornographics filth and immoral posturings than any other country. Licensing imposes at least some kind of quality control.
My greatest concerns in this area lie with the preponderance of advertising content being dumped on individuals by means of "free PC" type services, with the portal of choice being mandated by the hardware provider.
And? If you want to "free" PC then you have to put up with these conditions... I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's not really going to be free. If they don't realise this then they deserve everything they get IMHO.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Yeah, in your little fantasy world maybe, but the sad fact is that in our current socioeconomic model nothing, except masturbation, is free. As more and more services move online it only makes sense that the government, who has been democratically elected by the people, should exert regulatory powers over content and service. After all, you'd squeal loud enough if you got ripped off online, wouldn't you?
Why should people on the net be allowed to put out shoddy and/or offensive material? You wouldn't want to let your kids see pornographic filth on TV, why should you let them watch it on the net. This kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking is what has led to the current backlash against the net by decent people in Australia today, and doesn't to anyone any good.
So, the net is not free, and indeed shouldn't be free.
---
Jon E. Erikson
... since it looks like this issue will be decided one way or the other in the near future thanks to some sterling work by the RIAA to have Napster stamped out. Whilst this is a pretty sad way of protesting against the fact that Napster is an accessory to theft, at least he's showing that not everybody online has given into to the temptation to defraud musicians, who, even if they do make loads of money, still don't deserve to be stolen from.
Sure we need to have a model for online music, it's a given that at some point the net will become the dominant medium for distributing music, but Napster won't ever be it thanks to it's free for all attitude to copyrights and artists rights. A fairer system will require a central body such as the RIAA to ensure that violations are taken care of - online or offline, this is going to be a constant.
So, the need for a body such as the RIAA isn't going to change, but the need for Napster is as fleeting as any other fad. Expect it to die shortly after the court rules against it.
---
Jon E. Erikson
They aggressively ask their readers to help set editorial agendas.
Well, this shows that /. is definitely not Open Media, since the /. staff seem to completely ignore the views of their readers and choose stories based on their own biases.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Hee hee :) Thanks for that...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Anyone stupid enough to consider that voting online is in a state where it can be used in a real life situation is living in a fantasy world - thanks to the backdoor actions of 15 year old hackers guaranteeing a fair vote is next to impossible, especially for an organisation like the government which has repeatedly shown its complete incompetence and ignorance when it comes to technology in general and the net in particular.
Why is anyone suprised?
---
Jon E. Erikson
This will be one of the most important events for corporate acceptance of Linux in a non-server role, since Delphi is used by a lot of companies to develop their software. Since Kylix will be pretty much the same as Windows Delphi, changes to the source code in order to port an application will be minimal (at least in terms of the usual process of porting), and may make companies think about moving over from Windows to Linux, especially those companies which provide and all-in-one of software and hardware to customers.
So we may see Linux begin to really encraoch upon the business software market, which whilst not the intention of Linux, is still a large market and a great opportunity.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Is this finally a sign that companies are actually listening to their customers wishes? It has been proved recently that customers do not want their details spread from one company to the next without their permission and especially without even their knowledge, and it seems like some companies are acknowledging the fact that making the same kind of privacy issue/fuckup that DoubleClick made will lose them both repsect and, more importantly, customers.
This is a good trend for tech-savvy companies to adopt, and one that is hopefully a sign that people are becoming more aware of the issues that a networked world raises. And once a few companies have started this, hopefully the increased respect that it will gain them will make other companies follow suit.
The law might not have worked in this case, but maybe consumer pressure will.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Let's start by realizing that different people have different sets of ethics...
Sorry my friend, but ethics are ethics, and have been laid down from a source that cannot be denied. Interpretations of ethics can vary, but these are mere exercies in logic-chopping and do not change the fact that we have a set of ethics which we were given by the Lord.
The 'betterment of society' is not served, and is in fact harmed, by a law enforcement group which intentionally violates the law, ever, even once. It doesn't matter if they catch a thousand murders and ten thousand rapists at the same time, if they had to violate one law to do so, they have made the world a worse place. It's simply a matter of principle.
I'd like to see you explain that to someone whose daughter has just been raped in one of the incidents you describe. "Sorry, we could have stopped it, but I would have had to jaywalk to do so, and my principles wouldn't allow it". Sure, it's an extreme example, but the point is that in the fact of crime, especially violent crime, your shining Constitutional principles seem like an escape from reality.
Obviously my principles are different from yours.
Obviously.
And to answer your question, it depends on the criminals. In particular, it depends on what laws they are guilty of breaking. I mean, it makes a big differance if they are all guilty of murder, say, or just, you know, jaywalking or speeding or maybe growing a bit of pot and then smoking it.
And as I believe I've said before, sin is sin, and trying to count the "amount" of sin is a foolish and pointless exercise. If you are guilty of a crime, you must be punished. It's as simple as that.
---
Jon E. Erikson
if you are under the impression that snooping into JQP's email is going to stop criminal activity, i guess you also support gun legislation, the death penalty and '3 strikes-you're out'.
Of course, I have no tolerance whatsoever for those that engage in criminal acts of any kind. Sin is sin, and the magnitude of it matters not in the long run. And owning a gun is my Constitutional right and allows me to protect myself from the criminals that would otherwise terrorise society.
---
Jon E. Erikson
You really don't see whats going on do you?
Why do you say that? It appears as though I live in a different world to you, but whether either one is more "real" is open to interpretation.
This new sniffer allows unprecedented access to all unencrypted traffic as this is a sniffer at the backbone... What we have here is merely the FBI promising to use this technology only with a proper search warrant
And how is this different from the powers which they have to tap any other form of communication? Just because the net is the new "frontier" people think that it must somehow be magically different from the offline world. This is blatently not true - the net is a different medium sure, but it's the same old shit nonetheless.
See all these are steps toward a penultimate police state. Ponder this, in a few years technology will have advanced to the point where we can all have our own "police buddy robot" which follows us around making sure we're not commiting any crimes, and bill^H^H^H^Hfining us for the ones we do commit. Safety for all!
And this nothing to do with the net at all - if the net had never been invented (by the American government who then allowed you to use it) we could still have robots following us around.
---
Jon E. Erikson
So, if you're not afraid of the FBI looking at your e-mails to your sister, you're surely not afraid at letting ME look at those same e-mails, no?
Did you read my post? You didn't did you. What I said was that I'm not bothered by letting a computer read my E-mail. A computer does not make value judgements about your life. Unless you are a computer, I don't want you reading my E-mails, you sound like you'd make a value judgement.
Can't you see it's a matter of principle, or are you just dumed-down by mass-media hysteria not to realize your fundamental rights are being trampled???
It's also a matter of principle that criminals need to be stopped, and that these kinds of measures need to be taken for the betterment of society. After all its no use having free access to source code if you're barricaded in your home by armed criminals is it?
---
Jon E. Erikson
In this brave new world of information, traditional agencies such as the FBI have to have some way of maintaining their ability to protect the people that they serve, that is you. And they can't do this by ignoring such a major new technology such as the Internet.
As much as we all love the net, I don't think that any of us can deny the fact that it does provide an easy to use and easy to conceal method for criminals and other dubious types to communicate, without regard for national laws or borders. As more and more people move online, the criminals will follow, and for the FBI to ignore this would be failing us in their duty.
The idea that the FBI can scan E-mails as they enter or leave your ISP sounds scary at first, but what you have to remember is that you are not a criminal. They're hardly going to want to read your E-mail about your trip to see your sister at BJU are they? It's not like there are people reading your personal mail, it's just a machine and can't make value judgements on what you write.
Unfortunately the massive growth of the net has meant that this sort of thing was inevitable and indeed neccessary thanks to the kind of large-scale, global operations that the FBI is involved with. For them to not do this would be the wrong thing in this case, and it is a blow for criminals everywhere.
---
Jon E. Erikson