Did you take a look at the Blue Security site and see how their technology works? The spammers are not getting spammed in return...the Blue Frog program essentially sends an automated "Opt Out" to the spammers; if they fail to respond and the recipient continues to receive mail from that spammer then Blue Frog submits complaints to the MERCHANT SITE.
I would hardly call any of this vigilantism. One spam - one opt-out request. Continue to ignore those requests? Complaint to the merchant paying the spammer to spam.
Sounds like a great solution. I wish they made a linux client.
...then the government involvement will probably have a negative effect on all of us.
Some people would say that the "government involvement" has already had a negative effect.
They can't say anything about when he is done CONSULTING.
Regardless of whether I was right or wrong in my original post (and after reading the post above yours I am reconsidering my position), I will venture forth again and say you are wrong.
A contract between two parties can certainly affect one or both parties for many years after the contract ends, depending upon how the contract is written. If I place a non-compete clause in a contract, essentially worded the way that I posited above ("You cannot work for my competition or any of the customers I send you to work for" - translated into legalese, of course), and specify non-competition for three years beyond the completion of the contract then I have just impacted what you can do, without facing a breach of contract lawsuit, for the three years following the end of the contract.
This is where the Microsoft exec got caught. He signed a contract with a non-compete clause that is in effect for a year past his termination of employment. As an employee who worked "Search", he cannot engage in "Search" development for Microsoft competitors.
What difference does it make whether you are an employee or a consultant? The only thing that matters is the contract that you signed. If the contents of the contract are legal in the state in which you signed it, you will (and should) be held to the contents of that contract.
(ii) for any CNET customer for whom Consultant performed Services during the term of this Agreement."
This is the part that you appear to be misinterpreting; it says you cannot work for anyone for whom you provided services while under CNET contract. Period. Worse for you: it does not place a time-limit on how long that non-compete clause is in effect.
You should translate
during the period that Consultant is providing Services under this agreement, neither Consultant shall, directly or indirectly, perform similar services as those provided hereunder (i) for any other firm or entity which competes with CNET, or (ii) for any CNET customer for whom Consultant performed Services during the term of this Agreement."
like this
You can neither simultaneously work for our competition while you are working for us nor can you work for any CNET customer for whom you provided services while you were under contract to CNET
The key is that they specify the period of the contract as both a pre- and post-condition: While you are under our employ, you cannot work for our competition and you cannot work for our customers to whom you were farmed out while in our employ.
As the grandparent post said: this is a standard contracting clause and is designed to ensure that CNET, acting as a labor broker, does not get cut out of the deal - otherwise, consultants would routinely quit their contracting jobs and go to work as direct hires or contract directly with the consulting firm's customers. In that regard, the consulting firm would be acting more like a temp service, head-hunter or placement agency.
Normally this non-compete clause is only valid for a certain number of years (I think 1-5 was the most common lengths I was aware of during my consulting years). In your case, unless it is specified elsewhere in your contract, it looks like you cannot work for Bob, except as a CNET consultant. Period. Or, to put it yet another way, if CNET sends you to Bob's office to work on Bob's stuff, you cannot go to work for Bob directly, even if he offers you a really great job, without facing a potential lawsuit for breach of contract with CNET.
You either need to re-read your entire contract or contact a lawyer and have him review it. I think if you re-read the contract with the perspective that you are getting screwed it will jump out at you pretty easily; contracts are almost exclusively written to benefit the contract writer and not the contract signer. Unless you did a lot of initial review and marked up the contract with clarifications and conditions (which you *can* do - though it may cost you the gig), you can be pretty certain that you are under a non-compete clause that extends beyond the time that you currently believe it does.
If you don't believe me, consider this: if you sub-contracted work to other programmers, what would you put in the sub-contract to prevent your hired guns from going around you to the guy looking for a solution to a problem once you were so kind as to introduce them to each other? Further, what would you do to prevent your customer from using you as a temp agency and to ensure your customers remained your customers and did not contract directly with your programmers?:)
You either use the service, or you don't... if it sucks and nobody uses it, the company will change the service or go out of business. Simple as that.
Under this scheme, though, you are screwed by the time you get to see what services are out there. You buy Longhorn, you've just given control of your machine to more than content producers. You've handed control of your machine to a third party - be it Hi-Def content producers or Microsoft itself. You've given someone else the right to redefine *your* rights under copyright law and to control to which materials you even have access - now DRM becomes censorship.
This may not be how DRM starts out but it certainly is where it *can* lead.
What about my right to make a backup of digital content I've licensed for viewing? My DVD collection is a prime example - Jack Valenti once said something akin to "digital lasts forever" but the only reason that is even remotely true is because I can find a copy of every movie I own online and burn a copy if I chose. It certainly is not because DVDs last forever - a few scratches (and if you have young children in the house this is very easily done) and you are done.
This has been said before but I'll say it again because it is appropriate: content producers need to decide: are you licensing content or are you selling a product? If you are licensing content then you are telling me to what limits I can use your content - the medium upon which I place your content should not matter. If you are selling a product, then I can do whatever I want with the product as long as I do not violate the copyrights upon the content.
Remember, among your rights as a consumer are the rights to time- and space-shift the content you are entitled to possess (be it via explicit relationship defined by the exchange of money for goods and services or be it via the implied relationship defined by trading your time and eyeballs watching advertisements).
In general, as a software developer and an individual who would like to make a living as a writer someday, I understand the debate over intellectual property/copyright and DRM. I understand why content producers are concerned. However, you cannot have it both ways. DRM tries to let the content producers usurp or otherwise limit *your* rights in favor of their own and that is a very bad thing.
Furthermore, your notion that only software developers should have web sites is just plain bonkers.
It's not "bonkers". It's asinine.
Your comments are right on! I'd like to extend them a bit more, if you don't mind...
The main advantage of setting up a CMS, in my opinion, is that it allows you to write code instead of managing the *content* of a site you already set up. Let someone else manage the content! Even if you have to spend a day or two training the user to use the CMS, you will save yourself how many hours in mindless tinkering later when they want to change "thier" to "their" or add the latest marketing drivel to the site.
Developers everywhere should push the CMS as if it were God's gift to the user (in my opinion); they are to web pages what any Desktop Publishing software is to print pages - a user-friendlier way of bringing content to a particular medium. It lowers the barrier of entry and lets content producers do what they do best (produce content) and system producers do what they do best (develop systems).
Re:summary or sales pitch?
on
The Escapist
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Care to describe that "evocative mystery" for us?
It's an "evocative mystery" because, according to the author interview, it was the author's wife that did the cover.
This "review" looks more and more like astroturfing. The "novel" is self-published with a cover done by the author's wife; given the high rating this "novel" received, it is likely the review was written by either the Author or a friend.
At least it is released under an open license...
Re:And no one complained about the OP's gramemener
on
The Escapist
·
· Score: 1
Antihero is someone like scoobydoo who runs at the first site of danger.
That's a pretty simplistic example.
Now, you want a real anti-hero, try on the character of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (author: Stephen R. Donaldson). That guy was a fantastic anti-hero.
167 Pages?! Self-published?
on
The Escapist
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The storyline takes in locations as far afield as Egypt, Malaysia, Israel, Las Vegas, New York, and London. It almost seems like a travelogue of all the places the author has been in his life, except seen through a warped lens of cyberpunk fiction.
I am left with the distinct impression that there cannot be much depth (or character development) in the 167 pages that comprise this book. By the time you load it "full of one-liners" and punny place names all you probably have left is room for a dash of seriousness.
The story seems almost arbitrary...tries to do too much in too few pages
Virtual reality...artificial intelligence...technology ranging from insightful to mundane. And more explosions. Yea. Is the author hoping for a movie-rights deal?
One, your review does not encourage me to run out and grab this book. Two, why did you give this an 8?
There are plenty of books out there that are both short and good but, based upon your review, it seems that the author should have spent more time exploring one theme in a modicum of detail than attempt to pass off a screen-play treatment as a novel.
As well as being available in printed form, The Escapist can also be bought as a PDF direct from the website. And since the novel is published under a Creative Commons license, once you've got hold of one of these PDFs, you can share it around and print it out as much as you like.
This smacks of self- or vanity-publishing particularly when combined with the fact that "Ad Libbed, Ltd.", the listed publisher, has no web-presence that I could easily find. Sometimes self-publishing is the right way to go - most of the time it means you couldn't get anyone else to pick up your stuff. Based upon your review, it seems the reader would have been better served had the author turned his novella into a serial short and got it published in a sci-fi magazine or something.
Though I have no major problem with current spelling and grammar rules (except for definitely, which I spell with an 'A' more often than not)
But, realistically, isn't that because you are probably not pronouncing the word correctly? If you enunciate, the word is definitely "def-i-nit-lee" and not "def-uh-nit-lee" or "def-i-nat-lee".
Personally, I think if we all took more time to enunciate while speaking and to reduce or eliminate slang from our daily conversations our ability to spell would improve dramatically.
I have issues with adverbs in speech - my wife is always correcting me (which has gradually improved my spoken use of adverbs). This usually crops up when correcting my young children: "Son, please sit nice." (versus "Son, please sit nicely."). When written, this phrase looks ridiculous to me...yet I say this type of thing all the time!:)
My wife has helped me to improve in this area tremendously just by paying attention to what I am saying; when I listen to my parents, who still live in the south suburb of Chicago in which I was raised, I can see where I picked up my speech habits.:P
So, they have anounced that at some point they might ship an XBox 360 with an HD-DVD player... but not the initial units.
I believe the proper term is Osbourning a system.
Cringely just did a column
on the Osbourne Effect and why its namesake got a bum rap. The relevant portion of Cringely's comments:
Adam Osborne was accused of pre-announcing the DOS version of his CP/M line -- in fact, he told reporters there wouldn't be a DOS version for at least a year because it was too expensive for his price-sensitive line. He announced the Executive -- the follow-on model to his successful first Osborne -- one month before delivery, and sales dropped in half for a couple of weeks while inventory cleared out. Then the Executive actually went on sale -- and sales dropped, from about 10,000 a month for the original model, to essentially zero for the new model.
The reason for the drop was that the Osborne Executive was not competitive with the Kaypro, a slapped-together rival priced at a couple hundred less ($1,795 instead of $1,995 for the Osborne 1), but it had a much larger screen -- 9 inches compared to O1's five inches.
The Executive came out, much better built, more manufacturable, but with a mere 7-inch screen. There was deep disappointment among Osborne fans. Worse, it was priced at $2,195 -- a two hundred dollar increase in a very price-sensitive end of the market! Four hundred dollars more than Kaypro for a brand name but a smaller screen? No thank you! Buyers walked away. Osborne sales dropped to fewer than a thousand a month for the next three months--which was enough to choke the high-flying company, which was forced to declare bankruptcy after a mere five months of this.
But the buyers just walked across the street to the Kaypro. Kaypro sales jumped to nearly 10,000 a month -- in other words, they captured all the disgusted Osborne buyers. Which proves the Osborne's disaster had nothing to do with, as legend has it, the "pre-announced DOS machine." The Kaypro was and remained for the next 18 months a CP/M machine.
So poor Adam Osborne is off the hook. Spread the word.
I refute the idea that it is only a matter for the parent to decide when someone is 'old enough' to understand something.
You may be correct; but the parent is probably in a much better position to determine whether their child understands something than you are. So, who are the "others" who should be involved? The state? That won't work because you'll be back, rightly so, to saying that the state should not be involved in telling you how to raise your child. The peers? That won't work because they, likely, lack enough life experience and just because a group of people engage in a behavior does not make it correct (consider *any* mob).
I'm of the opinion it's not just a matter of the parents, or grandparents, (or whomever) deciding it; it is foremost the kid itself that indicates when its 'due time'. For instance, if he himself asks questions about poverty, sex, violence, etc THEN it is already time.
I beat up on your comments about this somewhere else but after reading your fuller explanation here, I'll retract part of the previous statement.
I am in agreement that you should give the child an answer, other than "bug off", but *may* disagree with you on the extent of that answer. Regarding homosexual, for example, it may be enough to say that "Homo[sexuals] are two men or two women who love each other like your Mom and Dad do" as opposed to getting into the whole sex-side of the relationship. Obviously, it depends on the context in which the child is asking the question and whether they have the facilities to dig deeper. If they are satisfied with that answer, you can probably drop it; if not, you go a little further. Repeat.
Ah, yes, but what is 'due time'?... But the fact is, parents (and others) DO shelter kids more and more, and thus, the 'due time' is ever more expanded further in time and experience. Which is, indeed, not a healthy situation when they get to be an adult, and haven't really experienced all that much, thanks to all the protection that the individual will get in 'due time'.
Great question! The answer, however, is that the parent is still the best judge of due time because they have much better understanding of the situations surrounding their child and their child's environment.
in my opinion, "due time", is when a kid actually explores it (whatever 'it' is). It is NOT a matter of "You can't have it both ways": this is a false dillema. If your kids want to play a violent game THEN it is already 'due time'; and the proper reaction is not to forbid it (which hardly ever helps anyway), but - indeed - to get involved in it, as parents.
First, I'll address the issue of forbidding something: you are absolutely correct that this may not work but only because of the outside influence of society and peers on my child. If I tell my son that he is not allowed to have gory video games in my house then there will be no gory video games in my house. Period. End of discussion. Will I give him a chance to make his case? Perhaps. Will I be willing to try a rental and then make a decision? Probably. Will I allow him to bring information contrary to my ideas to the discussion? Absolutely...but when the decision is made, it is made (subject to new information, of course). Do I think this will prevent him from playing that game at all times? I'm not naive; of course I don't. But it sure will limit his dosage, won't it? Also, if I know his friends and their parents (which, at present, I do), I'll have a better idea what his friends are allowed to do and can act accordingly. As my children grow older, I'll have to let the reins go and hope that the moral instruction and decision-making principles I have passed on to them will form the backdrop of their decisions. I am neither advocating "sheltering" a child nor am I believing that I can completely staunch the flow of things-I-do-not-want-my-child-to-be-overly-influen ced-by
coming from society. Truth is: society is run by the media and the marketers, both of whom are selling a product or a point of view and trying to create or enflame desires within us that are normally under control. Think about it: the goal of every marketer is to create within you a desire for a product or a brand, or increase your loyalty to a product or a brand, that otherwise may not have existed.
Well, heck, when they ask it, it IS due time, and it's your responsibility to give honest answers to honest questions, NOT to shelter them from whatever your personal opinion is about it not being 'due time'.
Regarding the issue of when "due time" has arrived: just because a child asks a question or indicates a casual curiousity in a subject does not necessarily mean that the time is appropriate to address that issue. Children ask lots of questions every day: "Daddy, what does X, mean?" "Daddy, I want to play this video game.", etc. It does not mean that their psyche needs to know the answer at that moment or that the answer will even mean a whole lot to them. I could explain sex to my four year-old and the idea that he would use his penis for anything other than urinating would likely be too fantastic to grasp. I could explain death to my son (and have, to some extent - his great-grandfather recently died) but to him, death only lasts as long as it takes to get to the next "Save" point in a video game. He kinda gets the idea that great-granddad will not be around anymore but then he's quickly onto the next thing. Explaining to him that sometimes one human being goes out and binds, tortures, kills and dismembers another human being is not necessary - nor is it necessary to expose him to a bunch of violent imagery. Should
But ask yourself this: if one of those 'rich' and 'enjoy life' dudes would become poor and end up in those same subburbs that you talked about, who would have the most chances of surviving it; him, or you?
And if I ended up in the Australian bush who would have a better chance at the survival: the australian aborigine or me? The fact is that I adapted to my environment because I had to, not because it was some great, life-affirming/building experience in which everyone should partake. It was a very unfortunate reality of living near a crime-ridden, gang-infested community.
I'm not saying they are not good people, or that they are all disgustingly spoiled or immoral or without ethics and what not..but, they ARE spoiled.
I'm willing to agree with this point in the vein that most 1st world citizens are "spoiled" in comparison to 3rd world citizens, etc. The original poster was not using "spoiled" in this context; it was clearly derogatory. Spoiled is probably a bad word - its connotation is strongly negative. You were likely "fortunate" or "more fortunate" but few people are truly ruined (which is what being spoiled truly means) by good fortune.
My greatest concern is if I should buy a AMD64 dual core, or the latest pentium or not. While THEY have to deal with real important life-or-death issues, and have to form the skills to do it (and survive).
You may be "spoiled" in the sense of having greater/better opportunities than your forebears but, based upon the character of your post, you are also empathetic to the plight of others. Again, I would not call you spoiled as much as fortunate.
Put me in a situation where 80% of the populace lives in, and I wouldn't last a week.
I'll call Bullsh*t on this only because I think you do not give yourself enough credit or you romanticize "street-wise" skills. 90% of being streetwise (as much as I know of it) involves knowing when to keep your mouth shut and when not to or how not to call undue attention to yourself.
I never learned anything that would keep me alive if I wasn't in the pampered, highly artificial situation I am in.
Your situation is not "artificial" anymore than mine was "real"; they are both states of reality. I grew up in poverty and the struggles we faced were certainly different than the struggles you faced but that does not mean that my struggles were more real than yours. Sure, we worried more about fundamentals than you probably did but we all worried about surviving in the worlds in which we were thrown.
So many people today are robbing children of life and experience by sheltering them from what the world is and what is in it.
As soon as I saw the parent's post regarding controlling what content their children were allowed to see, I *knew* there would be a surge of outrage (not by you specifically) and talk of "sheltering" by the Slashdot crowd.
I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, but do you have kids of your own? Are they older than two or three i.e. at an age where these issues become more relevant?
Children do not need to be taught life's hard lessons as soon as they can walk; they will learn those things in due time. Personally, I question whether anyone should be taught or conditioned to equate bloody violence with "fun" (ability to separate truth from fiction being irrelevant - its still a pretty sick form of entertainment when you think about it. Don't worry: I'm as guilty as you - I play the FPS on occassion and love pen-and-paper RPGs). Children should be allowed to enjoy their childhoods free of the fear and loathing that adulthood will, inevitably, teach them. Very, *very* few children are truly "sheltered" - they are exposed gradually, over time, when the parent determines the timing is appropriate. Before it gets mentioned, there is not a single parent out there that is not aware of the fact that society is beating on their door and that their children will be exposed to outside influences from very early on - this is why it becomes particularly important to stem the tide as best as you can.
Which way do you (once again, collectively - not specifically) want it:
blame parents for not "parenting" ("It's not the game's fault, its the parent's fault for not being involved in the active parenting of their children!") when their children go psycho, a la Columbine, and the video game industry takes a (perhaps) unjustified hit? What do you say when part of active parenting involves limiting exposure to sex and violence?
criticize parents for "sheltering" their kids by not allowing them unfettered access to violent content?
You can't have it both ways...but I'll tell you this for sure: the parent will get blamed/criticized no matter what choices they make.
Parents who restrict what their children are exposed to, whether you agree with it or not, are doing part of what is expected of good parents. They will be held responsible for the actions of their children (financially and/or socially) and, therefore, have a responsibility to themselves and society to do so. Note: the parent poster did not say that his children would never be exposed to violent video games - only that they were not being exposed now. This is a very reasonable approach; so is limiting exposure as the child grows into a teen, restricting game play to set times/places/lengths, etc.
When you are held accountable for your child's behavior, you might see it the same way as well.
My son is 4.5 years old and would gladly play video games every night if I allowed him to. I do not and when I do, I am present and likely playing with him. Obviously, the reason we limit him is because he is 4.5 years old and needs to learn to play Memory Match, Chutes and Ladders, Rescue Heroes, Action-Figure-Of-The-Week, share his toys with his siblings and friends, etc. As he gets older, he will need to learn to read, write, and do arithmetic, to socialize in larger and larger play groups, etc. The point being: at every stage of development, children have different milestones they need to hit on the path to adulthood - every parent, in my opinion, will restrict/encourage behaviors along the way.
I graduated from school in 2000, and most of you have no idea how sheltered and spoiled most of the people I had as classmates were. It is embarrassing to be even in the same age group as these kids.
Do you realize how arrogant that sounds? What is with the rush to pile burdens onto your, or anyone else's, shoulders?
Law enforcement needs to stop worrying about (and identifying as such) the average script kiddie and focus on the large mob-like operations.
There's no full-proof way of determining when you are dealing with one instead of the other. Sure, there is a sophistication of attack angle at which you can look but I'm sure there are plenty of script kiddies who are members of cybergangs hoping to move higher in the organization...
The script kiddies of today may be analagous to the foot soldiers of the mob in many cases: they are the potential leaders of tomorrow's cybermafia i.e. you never know if the script kiddie you bust is the first link in a chain of events that topples the big dogs you are after.
The Director of the Master's Program was in danger of losing his job: 'the Dean had called and had asked him to "make sure I did not teach there again", and on a second call saying "it's your choice, but also your responsibility"'.
resigned to protect the boss that bent to the movie guys wishes, and the 'other masters program guys'.
You've got it half right. He resigned to protect the "Master's Program" and his colleagues in that program i.e. the Director of the Master's program. He did not resign to protect the job of the Dean who denied his venues nor the Vice-Dean who claimed he only "taught a few classes".
Given the divisiveness on this topic, that is a matter of opinion. I, myself, am divided on the issue; I fear the slippery slope aspect of it but think that sex offenders are unlikely to rehabilitiate.
The case of attaching a lifelong "sex offender" label to people who unknowingly have sex with a minor is completely analogous
The difference being, of course, that you have absolutely no reliable way of knowing with whom you are dealing with on eBay and that outlawing routine purchases from online merchants will never occur while, in the case of your potential lover, you have an almost infallible way of determining the veracity of her age claim: time.
Instead, the entire blame falls on the man. Why does that make sense?
You misunderstand my position. My position is not that the man is to blame; my position is that the consequences of your decisions are yours and that, with a bit more thought up front (and perhaps an investment of time), the entire problem goes away. Therefore, the problem becomes one of self-control; knowing that the consequences of your actions are your own to deal with, think before you act. In the situation we are discussing, asking for ID is not a solution because people lie and people have false ID; waiting to get to know someone before jumping in the sack is likely to resolve the problem at least as far as how old the individual is.
This society is where it is, in a lot of cases, because we are unwilling to accept responsibility for our own decisions. We want someone else to be at fault for our bad choices.
Because you're saying that even if you are unaware of breaking a law that you should still be responsible, even if you have been explicitly told that what you are doing is legal?
No. What I am saying is take responsibility for your actions. You *know* it is entirely possible that someone may lie about their age. You *know* there is a way to make sure the person is "legal": get to know them before hopping in the sack. If you know this is possible, who is to blame when it happens? The other person is certainly a factor, but that does not remove *your* role in what transpired. Unless you were forced to have sex with that person, you could have ensured beyond any doubt that they were at least of legal age by simply waiting awhile. I'm not saying that you will foster a deep, intimate, personal relationship with a person before hooking up; but, come on, if you spent a bit more time than one evening with them, hung out with them, their friends, etc. you probably are going to be able to separate the "legal" teens from the underage teens. You meet their parents and you will definitely be able to separate the two.
"Ignorance of the law...", etc. It is unlikely that any sane person can know all of the laws of any given location. There is, therefore, an expectation that common sense should prevail and that each of us will attempt to exercise good judgment before leaping into any situation; if you were saying that you had no idea that it was against the law to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket (there was a state that had such a law but it escapes me at the moment), then I would sympathize with you. Carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket defies common sense and, should you have chosen to do so, I think it would be fair to say that you could never have conceived of such behavior being legislated. Lying about your age? People (women in particular) do it all the time.
I do not think that if you don't know a person is 18 (and have what would be considered a reasonable motive for believing she is) then it isn't reasonable to punish people for that.
We have strayed quite a way from the original topic (in my opinion) as my point is a bit more abstract than specific punishment. My point, as it has ever been, is that there are consequences to actions and that you are responsible for dealing with those consequences. All that is required to avoid this entire situation is to exercise some self-control for a period of time; your argument seems to be: "I neither should have to nor do I want to control myself." Fine; your perogative. Just keep in mind that the consequences of your actions are your responsibility; do not try to blame others for your decisions. They are yours; own them.
It is a natural instinct to engage in sex, but not necessarily to get to know a person.
What's your point? There are lots of natural instincts you are expected to control until it is appropriate: defecating in public comes immediately to mind, resisting the urge to assault and batter someone, etc.
Do you consider it to be worthy of punishment if someone posing as the owner of a home invites you in without permission from the real owners?
Of course not; but wouldn't it seem a bit fishy to you if someone you just met, invited you into their home and then started giving you very personal, possibly valuable, collectibles? Wouldn't that strike you as odd or raise some questions in your mind? I think it would.
If someone sells stolen property on ebay, do you think that the (unknowing) buyers should be considered criminals?
Of course not. But, once again, there is a consequence to your actions. You know that it is possible that stolen goods may be sold on eBay; if you purchase something that later turns out to be stolen, I do think you are obligated to return the stolen item to the rightful owner once you are notified and the original owner's claim is verified. At that point, you are out the money you spent and your beef is with the crimina
The point is that you take a risk each time you get into bed with someone you don't really know. I've done it, by your flippant attitude, you've done it, etc. When I did it, I knew I was potentially taking a risk and I also knew I was not acting very responsibly...I still did it but if I would have contracted an STD, gotten her pregnant, etc. it would have been *my* fault because no one had a gun to my head; it was my decision and the consequences of my decision were my responsibility.
Geez. If you are man enough to jump into bed why can't you be man enough to accept the outcome of your actions. You take a risk everytime you sleep with someone you don't know. Period. Want to alleviate the risk? Get to know them better. Don't care? Don't complain. Why is that such an offensive concept to you?
because let's face it you should be in charge of your wedding tackle and not the other way around
Okay. So, its your responsibility to make the right decision, correct? So...what is the right decision in this case? How about keeping it zipped...that *is* an option, you know? If you choose not to keep it locked up, knowing that there is a chance that you could get a whole heckuva a lot more out of this "relationship" than you intended, whose fault is it when your worst fears come true? Why not consider the consequences of your actions *before* you sleep with someone you don't know that well, hmmm?
C'mon, people, take responsibility for your actions. Saying "I was tricked" is just passing the buck for your inability to exhibit self-control until you actually know the person you are about to have sex with! What are the odds - really - that, if you get to know someone, meet their parents, etc. *before* you have sex, you are going to later find out that they were "underage"? How about zero? If not zero, then certainly approaching zero.
Ultimately, its your decision to keep it zipped or to whip it out...but don't blame other people for the results of your inability to practice self-control. You know it's possible you could be tricked.
I am pretty sure you have never ever had any run in with the law over anything bigger than a speeding ticket.
Correct.
Go get spend a few nights or even a single night in jail and then we can talk.
Irrelevant to my comments. My comment basically said: you are responsible for your actions. Act irresponsibly, suffer the consequences. The reason I have never had more than a speeding ticket is because I do not wish to suffer the consequences for violating laws intended to keep society functioning...now, if I thought a law was unjust and worth fighting over, that would be a different story...
somehow you think that throwing people into jail for a longer period of time is the answer
No, I don't. I think the answer is to throw them in jail after the first or second offense (depending on the crime). I've known people who have gotten away with ridiculous violations of the law that have never been punished; to this day, their attitude towards the law is disrespectful and their behavior continues to degrade. Maybe if the judicial system had held them accountable, they would have wisened up?
If you are a programmer
Good guess.:). I am a programmer.
imagine how devastating that would be to your career and your ability to function well in society.
Tough on me, I say. Actions have consequences. I screw up someone else's life and my life should just be peachy afterwards? I don't think so. I should have considered the future before I screwed up in the first place. Who is responsible for my actions? Me. Who should pay the consequence for my bad decisions? Me. What happens if there is no consequence to bad decisions? Hmmm...I think I will continue to make bad decisions, don't you?
higher tax bills and no solutions to the problem
Higher taxes are inevitable. I would love to see solutions - I would be ecstatic if rehabilitation worked in every case but this does not change the fact that sometimes the bad decisions you make are going to haunt you for the rest of your life.
If you could spend half the money that we currently do on prisons and offer a job to every 18-25 year old male (those most likely to commit crimes) I am sure that you would see crime rates drop.
I agree. However, we both can (probably) agree that this is not going to happen. So, what then?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you take a look at the Blue Security site and see how their technology works? The spammers are not getting spammed in return...the Blue Frog program essentially sends an automated "Opt Out" to the spammers; if they fail to respond and the recipient continues to receive mail from that spammer then Blue Frog submits complaints to the MERCHANT SITE.
I would hardly call any of this vigilantism. One spam - one opt-out request. Continue to ignore those requests? Complaint to the merchant paying the spammer to spam.
Sounds like a great solution. I wish they made a linux client.
Some people would say that the "government involvement" has already had a negative effect.
Regardless of whether I was right or wrong in my original post (and after reading the post above yours I am reconsidering my position), I will venture forth again and say you are wrong.
A contract between two parties can certainly affect one or both parties for many years after the contract ends, depending upon how the contract is written. If I place a non-compete clause in a contract, essentially worded the way that I posited above ("You cannot work for my competition or any of the customers I send you to work for" - translated into legalese, of course), and specify non-competition for three years beyond the completion of the contract then I have just impacted what you can do, without facing a breach of contract lawsuit, for the three years following the end of the contract.
This is where the Microsoft exec got caught. He signed a contract with a non-compete clause that is in effect for a year past his termination of employment. As an employee who worked "Search", he cannot engage in "Search" development for Microsoft competitors.
What difference does it make whether you are an employee or a consultant? The only thing that matters is the contract that you signed. If the contents of the contract are legal in the state in which you signed it, you will (and should) be held to the contents of that contract.
This is the part that you appear to be misinterpreting; it says you cannot work for anyone for whom you provided services while under CNET contract. Period. Worse for you: it does not place a time-limit on how long that non-compete clause is in effect.
You should translate
like this The key is that they specify the period of the contract as both a pre- and post-condition: While you are under our employ, you cannot work for our competition and you cannot work for our customers to whom you were farmed out while in our employ.As the grandparent post said: this is a standard contracting clause and is designed to ensure that CNET, acting as a labor broker, does not get cut out of the deal - otherwise, consultants would routinely quit their contracting jobs and go to work as direct hires or contract directly with the consulting firm's customers. In that regard, the consulting firm would be acting more like a temp service, head-hunter or placement agency.
Normally this non-compete clause is only valid for a certain number of years (I think 1-5 was the most common lengths I was aware of during my consulting years). In your case, unless it is specified elsewhere in your contract, it looks like you cannot work for Bob, except as a CNET consultant. Period. Or, to put it yet another way, if CNET sends you to Bob's office to work on Bob's stuff, you cannot go to work for Bob directly, even if he offers you a really great job, without facing a potential lawsuit for breach of contract with CNET.
You either need to re-read your entire contract or contact a lawyer and have him review it. I think if you re-read the contract with the perspective that you are getting screwed it will jump out at you pretty easily; contracts are almost exclusively written to benefit the contract writer and not the contract signer. Unless you did a lot of initial review and marked up the contract with clarifications and conditions (which you *can* do - though it may cost you the gig), you can be pretty certain that you are under a non-compete clause that extends beyond the time that you currently believe it does.
If you don't believe me, consider this: if you sub-contracted work to other programmers, what would you put in the sub-contract to prevent your hired guns from going around you to the guy looking for a solution to a problem once you were so kind as to introduce them to each other? Further, what would you do to prevent your customer from using you as a temp agency and to ensure your customers remained your customers and did not contract directly with your programmers? :)
Under this scheme, though, you are screwed by the time you get to see what services are out there. You buy Longhorn, you've just given control of your machine to more than content producers. You've handed control of your machine to a third party - be it Hi-Def content producers or Microsoft itself. You've given someone else the right to redefine *your* rights under copyright law and to control to which materials you even have access - now DRM becomes censorship.
This may not be how DRM starts out but it certainly is where it *can* lead.
What about my right to make a backup of digital content I've licensed for viewing? My DVD collection is a prime example - Jack Valenti once said something akin to "digital lasts forever" but the only reason that is even remotely true is because I can find a copy of every movie I own online and burn a copy if I chose. It certainly is not because DVDs last forever - a few scratches (and if you have young children in the house this is very easily done) and you are done.
This has been said before but I'll say it again because it is appropriate: content producers need to decide: are you licensing content or are you selling a product? If you are licensing content then you are telling me to what limits I can use your content - the medium upon which I place your content should not matter. If you are selling a product, then I can do whatever I want with the product as long as I do not violate the copyrights upon the content.
Remember, among your rights as a consumer are the rights to time- and space-shift the content you are entitled to possess (be it via explicit relationship defined by the exchange of money for goods and services or be it via the implied relationship defined by trading your time and eyeballs watching advertisements).
In general, as a software developer and an individual who would like to make a living as a writer someday, I understand the debate over intellectual property/copyright and DRM. I understand why content producers are concerned. However, you cannot have it both ways. DRM tries to let the content producers usurp or otherwise limit *your* rights in favor of their own and that is a very bad thing.
It's not "bonkers". It's asinine.
Your comments are right on! I'd like to extend them a bit more, if you don't mind...
The main advantage of setting up a CMS, in my opinion, is that it allows you to write code instead of managing the *content* of a site you already set up. Let someone else manage the content! Even if you have to spend a day or two training the user to use the CMS, you will save yourself how many hours in mindless tinkering later when they want to change "thier" to "their" or add the latest marketing drivel to the site.
Developers everywhere should push the CMS as if it were God's gift to the user (in my opinion); they are to web pages what any Desktop Publishing software is to print pages - a user-friendlier way of bringing content to a particular medium. It lowers the barrier of entry and lets content producers do what they do best (produce content) and system producers do what they do best (develop systems).
It's an "evocative mystery" because, according to the author interview, it was the author's wife that did the cover.
This "review" looks more and more like astroturfing. The "novel" is self-published with a cover done by the author's wife; given the high rating this "novel" received, it is likely the review was written by either the Author or a friend.
At least it is released under an open license...
That's a pretty simplistic example.
Now, you want a real anti-hero, try on the character of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (author: Stephen R. Donaldson). That guy was a fantastic anti-hero.
I am left with the distinct impression that there cannot be much depth (or character development) in the 167 pages that comprise this book. By the time you load it "full of one-liners" and punny place names all you probably have left is room for a dash of seriousness.
The story seems almost arbitrary...tries to do too much in too few pages
Virtual reality...artificial intelligence...technology ranging from insightful to mundane. And more explosions. Yea. Is the author hoping for a movie-rights deal?
One, your review does not encourage me to run out and grab this book. Two, why did you give this an 8?
There are plenty of books out there that are both short and good but, based upon your review, it seems that the author should have spent more time exploring one theme in a modicum of detail than attempt to pass off a screen-play treatment as a novel.
As well as being available in printed form, The Escapist can also be bought as a PDF direct from the website. And since the novel is published under a Creative Commons license, once you've got hold of one of these PDFs, you can share it around and print it out as much as you like.
This smacks of self- or vanity-publishing particularly when combined with the fact that "Ad Libbed, Ltd.", the listed publisher, has no web-presence that I could easily find. Sometimes self-publishing is the right way to go - most of the time it means you couldn't get anyone else to pick up your stuff. Based upon your review, it seems the reader would have been better served had the author turned his novella into a serial short and got it published in a sci-fi magazine or something.
Unfortunately, your story may not even be noticed by the moderators and could get lost in the noise.
Consider submitting to Slashdot. Maybe, even Kuro5hin.
But, realistically, isn't that because you are probably not pronouncing the word correctly? If you enunciate, the word is definitely "def-i-nit-lee" and not "def-uh-nit-lee" or "def-i-nat-lee".
Personally, I think if we all took more time to enunciate while speaking and to reduce or eliminate slang from our daily conversations our ability to spell would improve dramatically.
I have issues with adverbs in speech - my wife is always correcting me (which has gradually improved my spoken use of adverbs). This usually crops up when correcting my young children: "Son, please sit nice." (versus "Son, please sit nicely."). When written, this phrase looks ridiculous to me...yet I say this type of thing all the time! :)
My wife has helped me to improve in this area tremendously just by paying attention to what I am saying; when I listen to my parents, who still live in the south suburb of Chicago in which I was raised, I can see where I picked up my speech habits. :P
I believe the proper term is Osbourning a system.
Cringely just did a column on the Osbourne Effect and why its namesake got a bum rap. The relevant portion of Cringely's comments:
You may be correct; but the parent is probably in a much better position to determine whether their child understands something than you are. So, who are the "others" who should be involved? The state? That won't work because you'll be back, rightly so, to saying that the state should not be involved in telling you how to raise your child. The peers? That won't work because they, likely, lack enough life experience and just because a group of people engage in a behavior does not make it correct (consider *any* mob).
I'm of the opinion it's not just a matter of the parents, or grandparents, (or whomever) deciding it; it is foremost the kid itself that indicates when its 'due time'. For instance, if he himself asks questions about poverty, sex, violence, etc THEN it is already time.
I beat up on your comments about this somewhere else but after reading your fuller explanation here, I'll retract part of the previous statement.
I am in agreement that you should give the child an answer, other than "bug off", but *may* disagree with you on the extent of that answer. Regarding homosexual, for example, it may be enough to say that "Homo[sexuals] are two men or two women who love each other like your Mom and Dad do" as opposed to getting into the whole sex-side of the relationship. Obviously, it depends on the context in which the child is asking the question and whether they have the facilities to dig deeper. If they are satisfied with that answer, you can probably drop it; if not, you go a little further. Repeat.
Great question! The answer, however, is that the parent is still the best judge of due time because they have much better understanding of the situations surrounding their child and their child's environment.
in my opinion, "due time", is when a kid actually explores it (whatever 'it' is). It is NOT a matter of "You can't have it both ways": this is a false dillema. If your kids want to play a violent game THEN it is already 'due time'; and the proper reaction is not to forbid it (which hardly ever helps anyway), but - indeed - to get involved in it, as parents.
First, I'll address the issue of forbidding something: you are absolutely correct that this may not work but only because of the outside influence of society and peers on my child. If I tell my son that he is not allowed to have gory video games in my house then there will be no gory video games in my house. Period. End of discussion. Will I give him a chance to make his case? Perhaps. Will I be willing to try a rental and then make a decision? Probably. Will I allow him to bring information contrary to my ideas to the discussion? Absolutely...but when the decision is made, it is made (subject to new information, of course). Do I think this will prevent him from playing that game at all times? I'm not naive; of course I don't. But it sure will limit his dosage, won't it? Also, if I know his friends and their parents (which, at present, I do), I'll have a better idea what his friends are allowed to do and can act accordingly. As my children grow older, I'll have to let the reins go and hope that the moral instruction and decision-making principles I have passed on to them will form the backdrop of their decisions. I am neither advocating "sheltering" a child nor am I believing that I can completely staunch the flow of things-I-do-not-want-my-child-to-be-overly-influen ced-by coming from society. Truth is: society is run by the media and the marketers, both of whom are selling a product or a point of view and trying to create or enflame desires within us that are normally under control. Think about it: the goal of every marketer is to create within you a desire for a product or a brand, or increase your loyalty to a product or a brand, that otherwise may not have existed.
Well, heck, when they ask it, it IS due time, and it's your responsibility to give honest answers to honest questions, NOT to shelter them from whatever your personal opinion is about it not being 'due time'.
Regarding the issue of when "due time" has arrived: just because a child asks a question or indicates a casual curiousity in a subject does not necessarily mean that the time is appropriate to address that issue. Children ask lots of questions every day: "Daddy, what does X, mean?" "Daddy, I want to play this video game.", etc. It does not mean that their psyche needs to know the answer at that moment or that the answer will even mean a whole lot to them. I could explain sex to my four year-old and the idea that he would use his penis for anything other than urinating would likely be too fantastic to grasp. I could explain death to my son (and have, to some extent - his great-grandfather recently died) but to him, death only lasts as long as it takes to get to the next "Save" point in a video game. He kinda gets the idea that great-granddad will not be around anymore but then he's quickly onto the next thing. Explaining to him that sometimes one human being goes out and binds, tortures, kills and dismembers another human being is not necessary - nor is it necessary to expose him to a bunch of violent imagery. Should
And if I ended up in the Australian bush who would have a better chance at the survival: the australian aborigine or me? The fact is that I adapted to my environment because I had to, not because it was some great, life-affirming/building experience in which everyone should partake. It was a very unfortunate reality of living near a crime-ridden, gang-infested community.
I'm not saying they are not good people, or that they are all disgustingly spoiled or immoral or without ethics and what not..but, they ARE spoiled.
I'm willing to agree with this point in the vein that most 1st world citizens are "spoiled" in comparison to 3rd world citizens, etc. The original poster was not using "spoiled" in this context; it was clearly derogatory. Spoiled is probably a bad word - its connotation is strongly negative. You were likely "fortunate" or "more fortunate" but few people are truly ruined (which is what being spoiled truly means) by good fortune.
My greatest concern is if I should buy a AMD64 dual core, or the latest pentium or not. While THEY have to deal with real important life-or-death issues, and have to form the skills to do it (and survive).
You may be "spoiled" in the sense of having greater/better opportunities than your forebears but, based upon the character of your post, you are also empathetic to the plight of others. Again, I would not call you spoiled as much as fortunate.
Put me in a situation where 80% of the populace lives in, and I wouldn't last a week.
I'll call Bullsh*t on this only because I think you do not give yourself enough credit or you romanticize "street-wise" skills. 90% of being streetwise (as much as I know of it) involves knowing when to keep your mouth shut and when not to or how not to call undue attention to yourself.
I never learned anything that would keep me alive if I wasn't in the pampered, highly artificial situation I am in.
Your situation is not "artificial" anymore than mine was "real"; they are both states of reality. I grew up in poverty and the struggles we faced were certainly different than the struggles you faced but that does not mean that my struggles were more real than yours. Sure, we worried more about fundamentals than you probably did but we all worried about surviving in the worlds in which we were thrown.
As soon as I saw the parent's post regarding controlling what content their children were allowed to see, I *knew* there would be a surge of outrage (not by you specifically) and talk of "sheltering" by the Slashdot crowd.
I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, but do you have kids of your own? Are they older than two or three i.e. at an age where these issues become more relevant?
Children do not need to be taught life's hard lessons as soon as they can walk; they will learn those things in due time. Personally, I question whether anyone should be taught or conditioned to equate bloody violence with "fun" (ability to separate truth from fiction being irrelevant - its still a pretty sick form of entertainment when you think about it. Don't worry: I'm as guilty as you - I play the FPS on occassion and love pen-and-paper RPGs). Children should be allowed to enjoy their childhoods free of the fear and loathing that adulthood will, inevitably, teach them. Very, *very* few children are truly "sheltered" - they are exposed gradually, over time, when the parent determines the timing is appropriate. Before it gets mentioned, there is not a single parent out there that is not aware of the fact that society is beating on their door and that their children will be exposed to outside influences from very early on - this is why it becomes particularly important to stem the tide as best as you can.
Which way do you (once again, collectively - not specifically) want it:
You can't have it both ways...but I'll tell you this for sure: the parent will get blamed/criticized no matter what choices they make.
Parents who restrict what their children are exposed to, whether you agree with it or not, are doing part of what is expected of good parents. They will be held responsible for the actions of their children (financially and/or socially) and, therefore, have a responsibility to themselves and society to do so. Note: the parent poster did not say that his children would never be exposed to violent video games - only that they were not being exposed now. This is a very reasonable approach; so is limiting exposure as the child grows into a teen, restricting game play to set times/places/lengths, etc.
When you are held accountable for your child's behavior, you might see it the same way as well.
My son is 4.5 years old and would gladly play video games every night if I allowed him to. I do not and when I do, I am present and likely playing with him. Obviously, the reason we limit him is because he is 4.5 years old and needs to learn to play Memory Match, Chutes and Ladders, Rescue Heroes, Action-Figure-Of-The-Week, share his toys with his siblings and friends, etc. As he gets older, he will need to learn to read, write, and do arithmetic, to socialize in larger and larger play groups, etc. The point being: at every stage of development, children have different milestones they need to hit on the path to adulthood - every parent, in my opinion, will restrict/encourage behaviors along the way.
I graduated from school in 2000, and most of you have no idea how sheltered and spoiled most of the people I had as classmates were. It is embarrassing to be even in the same age group as these kids.
Do you realize how arrogant that sounds? What is with the rush to pile burdens onto your, or anyone else's, shoulders?
Sheltered? Are you s
There's no full-proof way of determining when you are dealing with one instead of the other. Sure, there is a sophistication of attack angle at which you can look but I'm sure there are plenty of script kiddies who are members of cybergangs hoping to move higher in the organization...
The script kiddies of today may be analagous to the foot soldiers of the mob in many cases: they are the potential leaders of tomorrow's cybermafia i.e. you never know if the script kiddie you bust is the first link in a chain of events that topples the big dogs you are after.
The Director of the Master's Program was in danger of losing his job: 'the Dean had called and had asked him to "make sure I did not teach there again", and on a second call saying "it's your choice, but also your responsibility"'.
That second call is a veiled threat.
You've got it half right. He resigned to protect the "Master's Program" and his colleagues in that program i.e. the Director of the Master's program. He did not resign to protect the job of the Dean who denied his venues nor the Vice-Dean who claimed he only "taught a few classes".
Tim?
Given the divisiveness on this topic, that is a matter of opinion. I, myself, am divided on the issue; I fear the slippery slope aspect of it but think that sex offenders are unlikely to rehabilitiate.
The case of attaching a lifelong "sex offender" label to people who unknowingly have sex with a minor is completely analogous
The difference being, of course, that you have absolutely no reliable way of knowing with whom you are dealing with on eBay and that outlawing routine purchases from online merchants will never occur while, in the case of your potential lover, you have an almost infallible way of determining the veracity of her age claim: time.
You misunderstand my position. My position is not that the man is to blame; my position is that the consequences of your decisions are yours and that, with a bit more thought up front (and perhaps an investment of time), the entire problem goes away. Therefore, the problem becomes one of self-control; knowing that the consequences of your actions are your own to deal with, think before you act. In the situation we are discussing, asking for ID is not a solution because people lie and people have false ID; waiting to get to know someone before jumping in the sack is likely to resolve the problem at least as far as how old the individual is.
This society is where it is, in a lot of cases, because we are unwilling to accept responsibility for our own decisions. We want someone else to be at fault for our bad choices.
No. What I am saying is take responsibility for your actions. You *know* it is entirely possible that someone may lie about their age. You *know* there is a way to make sure the person is "legal": get to know them before hopping in the sack. If you know this is possible, who is to blame when it happens? The other person is certainly a factor, but that does not remove *your* role in what transpired. Unless you were forced to have sex with that person, you could have ensured beyond any doubt that they were at least of legal age by simply waiting awhile. I'm not saying that you will foster a deep, intimate, personal relationship with a person before hooking up; but, come on, if you spent a bit more time than one evening with them, hung out with them, their friends, etc. you probably are going to be able to separate the "legal" teens from the underage teens. You meet their parents and you will definitely be able to separate the two.
"Ignorance of the law...", etc. It is unlikely that any sane person can know all of the laws of any given location. There is, therefore, an expectation that common sense should prevail and that each of us will attempt to exercise good judgment before leaping into any situation; if you were saying that you had no idea that it was against the law to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket (there was a state that had such a law but it escapes me at the moment), then I would sympathize with you. Carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket defies common sense and, should you have chosen to do so, I think it would be fair to say that you could never have conceived of such behavior being legislated. Lying about your age? People (women in particular) do it all the time.
I do not think that if you don't know a person is 18 (and have what would be considered a reasonable motive for believing she is) then it isn't reasonable to punish people for that.
We have strayed quite a way from the original topic (in my opinion) as my point is a bit more abstract than specific punishment. My point, as it has ever been, is that there are consequences to actions and that you are responsible for dealing with those consequences. All that is required to avoid this entire situation is to exercise some self-control for a period of time; your argument seems to be: "I neither should have to nor do I want to control myself." Fine; your perogative. Just keep in mind that the consequences of your actions are your responsibility; do not try to blame others for your decisions. They are yours; own them.
It is a natural instinct to engage in sex, but not necessarily to get to know a person.
What's your point? There are lots of natural instincts you are expected to control until it is appropriate: defecating in public comes immediately to mind, resisting the urge to assault and batter someone, etc.
Do you consider it to be worthy of punishment if someone posing as the owner of a home invites you in without permission from the real owners?
Of course not; but wouldn't it seem a bit fishy to you if someone you just met, invited you into their home and then started giving you very personal, possibly valuable, collectibles? Wouldn't that strike you as odd or raise some questions in your mind? I think it would.
If someone sells stolen property on ebay, do you think that the (unknowing) buyers should be considered criminals?
Of course not. But, once again, there is a consequence to your actions. You know that it is possible that stolen goods may be sold on eBay; if you purchase something that later turns out to be stolen, I do think you are obligated to return the stolen item to the rightful owner once you are notified and the original owner's claim is verified. At that point, you are out the money you spent and your beef is with the crimina
The point is that you take a risk each time you get into bed with someone you don't really know. I've done it, by your flippant attitude, you've done it, etc. When I did it, I knew I was potentially taking a risk and I also knew I was not acting very responsibly...I still did it but if I would have contracted an STD, gotten her pregnant, etc. it would have been *my* fault because no one had a gun to my head; it was my decision and the consequences of my decision were my responsibility.
Geez. If you are man enough to jump into bed why can't you be man enough to accept the outcome of your actions. You take a risk everytime you sleep with someone you don't know. Period. Want to alleviate the risk? Get to know them better. Don't care? Don't complain. Why is that such an offensive concept to you?
Okay. So, its your responsibility to make the right decision, correct? So...what is the right decision in this case? How about keeping it zipped...that *is* an option, you know? If you choose not to keep it locked up, knowing that there is a chance that you could get a whole heckuva a lot more out of this "relationship" than you intended, whose fault is it when your worst fears come true? Why not consider the consequences of your actions *before* you sleep with someone you don't know that well, hmmm?
C'mon, people, take responsibility for your actions. Saying "I was tricked" is just passing the buck for your inability to exhibit self-control until you actually know the person you are about to have sex with! What are the odds - really - that, if you get to know someone, meet their parents, etc. *before* you have sex, you are going to later find out that they were "underage"? How about zero? If not zero, then certainly approaching zero.
Ultimately, its your decision to keep it zipped or to whip it out...but don't blame other people for the results of your inability to practice self-control. You know it's possible you could be tricked.
Correct.
Go get spend a few nights or even a single night in jail and then we can talk.
Irrelevant to my comments. My comment basically said: you are responsible for your actions. Act irresponsibly, suffer the consequences. The reason I have never had more than a speeding ticket is because I do not wish to suffer the consequences for violating laws intended to keep society functioning...now, if I thought a law was unjust and worth fighting over, that would be a different story...
somehow you think that throwing people into jail for a longer period of time is the answer
No, I don't. I think the answer is to throw them in jail after the first or second offense (depending on the crime). I've known people who have gotten away with ridiculous violations of the law that have never been punished; to this day, their attitude towards the law is disrespectful and their behavior continues to degrade. Maybe if the judicial system had held them accountable, they would have wisened up?
If you are a programmer
Good guess. :). I am a programmer.
imagine how devastating that would be to your career and your ability to function well in society.
Tough on me, I say. Actions have consequences. I screw up someone else's life and my life should just be peachy afterwards? I don't think so. I should have considered the future before I screwed up in the first place. Who is responsible for my actions? Me. Who should pay the consequence for my bad decisions? Me. What happens if there is no consequence to bad decisions? Hmmm...I think I will continue to make bad decisions, don't you?
higher tax bills and no solutions to the problem
Higher taxes are inevitable. I would love to see solutions - I would be ecstatic if rehabilitation worked in every case but this does not change the fact that sometimes the bad decisions you make are going to haunt you for the rest of your life.
If you could spend half the money that we currently do on prisons and offer a job to every 18-25 year old male (those most likely to commit crimes) I am sure that you would see crime rates drop.
I agree. However, we both can (probably) agree that this is not going to happen. So, what then?