TBH, I think we'd be better off if Elizabeth II were running things. At least as far as matters of sovreignty and personal dignity go. The economy's doing alright, we just need to stop mimicking US policies (copyright, TSA-style gropings, etc.).
This result isn't surprising [...] but it does validate VLBI as a very exciting means
I'm a little confused as how a negative result validates the excitement-quotient. Or how this could even be validated in a more meaningul sense -- there's no way of checking the data. Maybe it was a false negative and there's oodles of aliens there.
It's obviously not perfect but it can be helpful to have SOMETHING between the kids and the pr0n. Policing your kids isn't bulletproof either, you simply can't do it all the time without chaining them in the basement. I don't see how a somewhat helpful optional filter is problematic given that it seems pretty easy to implement and there's probably people willing to donate to it if they went that route. If you had kids you would probably see the difference between "young kids seeing sex" and "young kids seeing mutilation, simulated rape," etc. etc.
If you believe any parent has control over their kids 24/7 you're crazy. They could do things like make sure they never go to friend's houses, etc. but that's also crazy. A filter, especially an opt-in one, won't prevent purposefully searching or even accidents, but at least it's a helpful and easy to implement step for the people who want it. I don't see a problem with that.
That's not Wikipedia's fault. Let the ignorant savages remain ignorant savages if that's what they want.
And what about the people subject to laws they disagree with? You might say "f*ck 'em", I would not.
The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content.
Let's use your line: What evidence is there for that? It's a proposed opt-in filter, mind you. I don't see how it's different from any other categorization. Categorization is useful across the board, IMO.
Yes, in the age of 24/7 internet access it is entirely feasible to keep your kids off Wikipedia, especially at school and so on. How do you know the proponents of this filter haven't donated to Wikipedia? I personally don't see the entitlement angle here, and it's really not difficult to add one more user setting and one more category for pages.
The higher rate implies the extra views are not due to accidents, but it says absolutely nothing about the actual number of accidental views. I'm sure kids stumble across stuff there. (And it's not like purposeful access is particularly good for kids either.)
Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia. It's a useful educational resource and it would be sad to see it banned just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.
I think you mean "all somewhat popular smartphone browsers except for Opera and WP7 are WebKit". Even then I'm not totally sure -- are Dolphin and all those other random Android browsers WebKit?
The problem is that it seems like the majority of Apple users are fanboys. They're impossible to escape. Linux and MS fanboys are less common, and Dell/Alienware/etc. are very rare. There are obsessive people everywhere, but the fact that Apple attracts them in such numbers is worth mentioning.
Slashdot Mirror
This is honestly one of the worst inferences I've ever seen. Your assumption isn't remotely plausible.
Please. 11% don't even know where the USA is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
What's with all the copyright-obsessed comments? Censorship is the issue here, not filesharing.
It might result in a lot more "debugging" than you want. STDs are bad, mmkay?
Ah, South Park. Good times.
I read The Martian Chronicles as a very young child. Pretty sure that completely f*cked me up.
TBH, I think we'd be better off if Elizabeth II were running things. At least as far as matters of sovreignty and personal dignity go. The economy's doing alright, we just need to stop mimicking US policies (copyright, TSA-style gropings, etc.).
This result isn't surprising [...] but it does validate VLBI as a very exciting means
I'm a little confused as how a negative result validates the excitement-quotient. Or how this could even be validated in a more meaningul sense -- there's no way of checking the data. Maybe it was a false negative and there's oodles of aliens there.
It's obviously not perfect but it can be helpful to have SOMETHING between the kids and the pr0n. Policing your kids isn't bulletproof either, you simply can't do it all the time without chaining them in the basement. I don't see how a somewhat helpful optional filter is problematic given that it seems pretty easy to implement and there's probably people willing to donate to it if they went that route. If you had kids you would probably see the difference between "young kids seeing sex" and "young kids seeing mutilation, simulated rape," etc. etc.
If you believe any parent has control over their kids 24/7 you're crazy. They could do things like make sure they never go to friend's houses, etc. but that's also crazy. A filter, especially an opt-in one, won't prevent purposefully searching or even accidents, but at least it's a helpful and easy to implement step for the people who want it. I don't see a problem with that.
That's not Wikipedia's fault. Let the ignorant savages remain ignorant savages if that's what they want. And what about the people subject to laws they disagree with? You might say "f*ck 'em", I would not. The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. Let's use your line: What evidence is there for that? It's a proposed opt-in filter, mind you. I don't see how it's different from any other categorization. Categorization is useful across the board, IMO.
Um, what? A lot of porn involves violence, in case you didn't know.
I've been contributing for less than that and seen porn a few times. Anecdotes are meaningless.
Links to sample porn aren't on-topic in articles about porn stars?
Yes, in the age of 24/7 internet access it is entirely feasible to keep your kids off Wikipedia, especially at school and so on. How do you know the proponents of this filter haven't donated to Wikipedia? I personally don't see the entitlement angle here, and it's really not difficult to add one more user setting and one more category for pages.
Sorry, that should be illegal to allow access to sites that don't filter porn, which currently includes Wikipedia.
Read the article. There's quite a bit.
Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.
The higher rate implies the extra views are not due to accidents, but it says absolutely nothing about the actual number of accidental views. I'm sure kids stumble across stuff there. (And it's not like purposeful access is particularly good for kids either.) Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia. It's a useful educational resource and it would be sad to see it banned just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.
Main link is the last one in the summary: http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/
Though I see from other comments below that their will be no damages for the copyright portion either. I hereby blame the summary.
Not in violation of patents != not in violation of copyright. There is more that one legal issue involved in this case (shocking, I know).
I think you mean "all somewhat popular smartphone browsers except for Opera and WP7 are WebKit". Even then I'm not totally sure -- are Dolphin and all those other random Android browsers WebKit?
Your CAPITALIZATION doesn't make sense AND what kind of moron USES "threesixty"?
The problem is that it seems like the majority of Apple users are fanboys. They're impossible to escape. Linux and MS fanboys are less common, and Dell/Alienware/etc. are very rare. There are obsessive people everywhere, but the fact that Apple attracts them in such numbers is worth mentioning.