Yes, but there are alternatives that provide the same value that don't require us to institutionalize a state-sponsored notion of morality. The fact that it's opt-in makes less bad than it would be were it mandatory, but it's still a very, very bad thing.
Pornography is not intrinsically exploitive or brutal. In practice, it often is. I believe that is because attitudes like yours prevail in our society, demonizing human sexuality. Our society also glorifies violence. It is impossible for anyone to grow up in our society with a normal sexuality. It is the very weight of censure against those who practice a sexuality that is natural to them rather than one imposed from outside that warps sex.
No. My point was that whether there is any merit in the idea or not has nothing to do with your free-wheeling "if we build it, they will come, and if they don't, I guess it wasn't such a good idea" approach to legislation. As you correctly point out, the preservation of state parks is an idea that can be defended completely independently of their free-market economy "value".
That is my point. Your "it's opt-in so it's a good thing" argument is irrelevant because it doesn't speak to the value of the scheme independently from its free-market economy value. If legislation like this passes, it should pass because we have carefully considered its value to society, not because we figure that if it doesn't have any people just won't use it so "no harm done".
I was objecting to the idea, not the mechanical implementation. Whether it is ICANN or the good ol' U. S. of A. imposing their sanitized "what a child should see" view of the world, the idea stinks on ice. Yes, even if it's opt-in, it's still imposing -- see my previous remarks.
ICANN has to date (to my knowledge at least) wisely steered clear of regulatory issues. It is a management body, not a regulatory body. To the extent that it has attempted regulation, it has overstepped its mandate.
Many things that are totally acceptable for an individual parent to do to protect her children are completely unacceptable for any government to do. Many things that are totally acceptable for an individual government to do are completely unacceptable for an international body to do. Bodies like ICANN must have the lightest touch of all.
You miss my point. Even opt-in, the scheme is intrusive because it presents a government-endorsed perception of what is inappropriate for children. It is censorship, of a most insidious sort.
A functional parallel can be found in the world of video rental stores. Some stores just put the MPAA (or whatever the association is) ratings on the box. Some provide a more detailed summary: Number of "objectionable words and phrases", amount and type of nudity, amount and type of violence, and so on. With the former scheme, you, the informed and concerned parent, have to accept someone else's values as to which box they slotted a particular movie into, because you want to protect your kids. With the latter scheme, you can apply your values and still protect your kids.
This is acceptable in the world of video rentals because:
You can choose between the two video stores.
There isn't a special "United States Government Video Store", enacted as a piece of legislation and presented as a measure designed to "protect your kids" that only presents scheme 1.
This is legislation to build that video store. That is why it is wrong.
Because some people are responsible parents and want to protect their children from dangerous material on the internet instead of harmless pornography. Can you allocate an IP range to any sites that present the latest erection-inducing pictures of United States missiles killing civilians in a country far away?
If this was a private venture, it would be a much less bad idea. However, the fact that it is being proposed as a law makes it a very different story. It makes the question of who decides of tantamount importance indeed. This scheme is different from prior schemes intended to "protect children from the dangers of the internet" because this one, if enacted, will be backed by the full faith and trust of the United States government.
Do children need to be protected from danger on the internet? Yes -- from predation. Not from information. If an individual parent disagrees, let her opt-in to a private program. Don't homogenize the perception of what's appropriate viewing for children by enacting state-endorsed legislation.
<laugh> That's funny, but it's also scary. No one can meaningfully certify that they're not exposing children to pedophiles and so on. You can't even certify that if you take them to the grocery store.
This is crazy. Record labels get a billion dollars, and Napster does all the work of distributing their music? If a record label wants any money from me for music they own the rights to, they had better provide me with high bandwidth, high accessibility download sites that give me the music I want in a uniform, high-quality format. Something I don't like about Napster is that quality varies widely. Something else I don't like about it is that it's too damn hard to find music I like. The best thing going for it is that it's free, and the next best thing about it is that record labels don't get a penny. This is a deal that does nothing to improve Napster but makes users pay for it (either directly, or indirectly through advertising). The RIAA should jump at this deal, but Napster will lose its users to alternatives because Napster users won't. ---
Look over the "pilot's" head in the pictures of the prototype. There's an exact duplicate of that fan on the back of my computer. The case for the fantabulous personal flying machine is exactly the same color as my computer, and shares similar aerodynamic properties (none). The test pilot (not the newswoman, who is obviously not geared up to use the equipment) is wearing a helmet and manipulating a control which could quite easily be parts of an elaborate VR setup.
I think what we're dealing with here is one of two things.
A computer optimized for running Windows 2010: Cyborg Edition.
Are you kidding? I went into the South Park movie with no expectations. I'd only seen the show a couple of times and didn't think it was that great. The movie had me laughing as hard as I could for the entire run length!
Let me put it another way:
Satan was Saddam's bitch. His bitch!
<shaking head> There's just no reasoning with some people.
Beavis and Butthead bad. Simpsons good. (South Park great!)
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Update is a trojan. </obligatory aniti-MS sentiment>
Yes, but there are alternatives that provide the same value that don't require us to institutionalize a state-sponsored notion of morality. The fact that it's opt-in makes less bad than it would be were it mandatory, but it's still a very, very bad thing.
Pornography is not intrinsically exploitive or brutal. In practice, it often is. I believe that is because attitudes like yours prevail in our society, demonizing human sexuality. Our society also glorifies violence. It is impossible for anyone to grow up in our society with a normal sexuality. It is the very weight of censure against those who practice a sexuality that is natural to them rather than one imposed from outside that warps sex.
No. My point was that whether there is any merit in the idea or not has nothing to do with your free-wheeling "if we build it, they will come, and if they don't, I guess it wasn't such a good idea" approach to legislation. As you correctly point out, the preservation of state parks is an idea that can be defended completely independently of their free-market economy "value".
That is my point. Your "it's opt-in so it's a good thing" argument is irrelevant because it doesn't speak to the value of the scheme independently from its free-market economy value. If legislation like this passes, it should pass because we have carefully considered its value to society, not because we figure that if it doesn't have any people just won't use it so "no harm done".
I was objecting to the idea, not the mechanical implementation. Whether it is ICANN or the good ol' U. S. of A. imposing their sanitized "what a child should see" view of the world, the idea stinks on ice. Yes, even if it's opt-in, it's still imposing -- see my previous remarks.
ICANN has to date (to my knowledge at least) wisely steered clear of regulatory issues. It is a management body, not a regulatory body. To the extent that it has attempted regulation, it has overstepped its mandate.
Many things that are totally acceptable for an individual parent to do to protect her children are completely unacceptable for any government to do. Many things that are totally acceptable for an individual government to do are completely unacceptable for an international body to do. Bodies like ICANN must have the lightest touch of all.
You miss my point. Even opt-in, the scheme is intrusive because it presents a government-endorsed perception of what is inappropriate for children. It is censorship, of a most insidious sort.
A functional parallel can be found in the world of video rental stores. Some stores just put the MPAA (or whatever the association is) ratings on the box. Some provide a more detailed summary: Number of "objectionable words and phrases", amount and type of nudity, amount and type of violence, and so on. With the former scheme, you, the informed and concerned parent, have to accept someone else's values as to which box they slotted a particular movie into, because you want to protect your kids. With the latter scheme, you can apply your values and still protect your kids.
This is acceptable in the world of video rentals because:
This is legislation to build that video store. That is why it is wrong.
That should read, "State legislation endorsing a particular perception."
That's the model that should be used for private ventures in a free-market economy -- not whether to pass a law in a democratic society.
Because some people are responsible parents and want to protect their children from dangerous material on the internet instead of harmless pornography. Can you allocate an IP range to any sites that present the latest erection-inducing pictures of United States missiles killing civilians in a country far away?
If this was a private venture, it would be a much less bad idea. However, the fact that it is being proposed as a law makes it a very different story. It makes the question of who decides of tantamount importance indeed. This scheme is different from prior schemes intended to "protect children from the dangers of the internet" because this one, if enacted, will be backed by the full faith and trust of the United States government.
Do children need to be protected from danger on the internet? Yes -- from predation. Not from information. If an individual parent disagrees, let her opt-in to a private program. Don't homogenize the perception of what's appropriate viewing for children by enacting state-endorsed legislation.
Nicely done! The funniest thing I've read on slashdot in a long while.
<laugh> That's funny, but it's also scary. No one can meaningfully certify that they're not exposing children to pedophiles and so on. You can't even certify that if you take them to the grocery store.
This is crazy. Record labels get a billion dollars, and Napster does all the work of distributing their music? If a record label wants any money from me for music they own the rights to, they had better provide me with high bandwidth, high accessibility download sites that give me the music I want in a uniform, high-quality format. Something I don't like about Napster is that quality varies widely. Something else I don't like about it is that it's too damn hard to find music I like. The best thing going for it is that it's free, and the next best thing about it is that record labels don't get a penny. This is a deal that does nothing to improve Napster but makes users pay for it (either directly, or indirectly through advertising). The RIAA should jump at this deal, but Napster will lose its users to alternatives because Napster users won't.
---
Look over the "pilot's" head in the pictures of the prototype. There's an exact duplicate of that fan on the back of my computer. The case for the fantabulous personal flying machine is exactly the same color as my computer, and shares similar aerodynamic properties (none). The test pilot (not the newswoman, who is obviously not geared up to use the equipment) is wearing a helmet and manipulating a control which could quite easily be parts of an elaborate VR setup.
I think what we're dealing with here is one of two things.
Are you kidding? I went into the South Park movie with no expectations. I'd only seen the show a couple of times and didn't think it was that great. The movie had me laughing as hard as I could for the entire run length!
Let me put it another way:
Satan was Saddam's bitch. His bitch!
<shaking head> There's just no reasoning with some people.
Beavis and Butthead bad. Simpsons good. (South Park great!)