And they're getting plenty of help with things like safeweb and the anonymizer (I used that in high school:^> )
I think that what will be needed are school-by-school decisions on whether or not to censor. I firmly believe that creative souls will continually invent new fair and effective methods to 'protect' our kids (not that I believe they're being 'assaulted'). What is necessary in the end is the ability for parents in a single community to decide for themselves how they will go about internet censorship in their schools, NOT the federal gov't. (See my previous post)
Perhaps a bigger issue (at least for the libertines and constitutionalists), is not whether or not there should be censorship software in the schools, but whether or not it is right for the federal government or even a state government to be dictating censorship at all.
Some might say that this idea is the epitomy of the "middle road" requested in a previous thread. I disagree. I think this idea is the most extreme stance -- that of demanding that the decision to withhold anything from my children remain MY decision and not that of a federal or state entity.
I am well aware of the extent of my wishful thinking. At this point it would probably take another revolution to get our rights back.
It appears the only difference here between apache virtual hosts with host forwarding (Yes, you CAN have multiple domain names hosted on apache all on port 80...) and AVES is that AVES would run as a daemon that listens to all ports (or at least assigned ones.
Personally, I think it would have been much more efficient and flexible to simply have extended an inetd daemon to provide the same functionality.
Granted I didn't download the technical docs (It's not worth my time right now) but what's this stuff about an AVES Service Provider? This seems rather wasteful and unnecessary. Besides, doesen't that mean the ISP would have to be running AVES?? If that is the case, then I can guarantee that AVES will never be accepted. Just TRY to get verizon or UUNet to run some newfangled, untested, possibly unstable and unsecure daemon that may not even be compatible with their routers.
All things considered, AVES seems to be good for nothing but a doctoral thesis (at least, it's good if this kid's reeeeealy lucky)
that's just my $.02.
[BTW, for an example of multiple apache virtual hosts port 80 with host forwarding, crack into www.cynaptec.com. If they've got the same setup I designed 2.5 years ago, you'll see how it's done. (Not that I expect they would have kept anything I designed after I had to sue them:^> ) *coughCROOKScough* ]
Well, I'm feeling a little more calm now and I've actually read some of the other posts. I apologize for vitrol expelled by my rant above. My opinion is nothing to apologize for... just my bitching and yelling.
If you read this and you have some mod points left, mod this other person's post up!
At least on slashdot, people actually care enough about the value of thought that they will attempt to educate their fellow man. I will of course stick to my opinions until someone has a well thought-out, backed-up and compelling arguement that convinces me otherwise. CowboyNeal, CmdrTaco, Jamie, you two have no excuse. You guys have every right to post what you want, and I have every right to say that you are demonstrably moronic. TTFN.
OK, I'm definitely one for open opinion and freedom of speech, but what the hell is this????
...when the Republicans come to censor our movies...
Anyway these are the films...that John Ashcroft will ban, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition
Is the person who posted this purposefully LOOKING for a flamewar???
OK, perhaps this is an offtopic comment, but I would submit to anyone who pays attention to what is going on in the US capitol that NO ONE POLITICAL PARTY IS EXCLUSIVELY SUIGGESTING CENSORSHIP. Members of both the Democrat and Republican parties each have proposed large scale censorship in our country (which by the very letter of the bill of rights is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!) Personally, I believe that polarizing the opinion of people so that they are compelled to take one side over another is simply Orwellian. There can be no freedom of thought when everybody is on the defense of their subjugative protectorate! Goddammit, when will people learn to think for themselves and try to make a difference, instead of blindly electing political calves to fatten and vainly defend.
Oh, I'm certain that plenty of poeple reading this are saying 'not MY party!!!' but that's just the problem... when people begin dividing into factions that believe they are representing the better good they are immediately taken advantage of. This kind of blind faith had brought us misery throughout history!!!! Being Catholic myself, I begin with the Crusades, then I move on to Nazi Germany, and finally our current party-centric political system... Is anyone reminded of 1984???
Dammit, this's got me pissed.
Well then in order to bring this full circle, I reiterate: I am deeply appalled that the editors at slashdot have (for the second time since I joined) invited flaimbaiting trolls to spread their mindless drivel and uninformed, incorrect, and purposefully misleading doublespeak.
Well, now what I've whined like the libertine I believe I am, (do NOT Read Libertarian! I have merely stated I believe in the principle of total human liberty within the bounds of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not that I claim to belong to any political party of organized agenda.) I should state that on a practical level, I find the post's primary assumption, that Congress may attempt to censor movies based solely on a possibly estimated body count ridiculous. Why? you ask?? Because 1: Americans care about TV. (wedon't care about much else, though) A movement as broad as this would have to be hidden so deep in a pork barrel it would be years until it managed to squeeze through the house. 2: Politicians get lots of money from Hollywood... And I seriously doubt they's give up all that lobbying and settle for their basic wage as members of the house.
Oh, one more thing... Does anyone else find it strange that it's April Fool's day and this post is such a joke it's not funny???
</RANT>
This probably seems too obvious. but could you imagine Disney filming a movie with these things??
Jurassic Park: XXVII
Well,the movies could be filmed in real time without having to wait for a render farm to create your effect!
Come to think of it, the technology could have a couple practical uses -- mobile autonomous camera control, rough-terrain heavy equipment transport, automatic bug squisher... OK, I'm stretching, but you get the idea.
In addition, if Disney ever decides to license or share this technology, imagine what such a robot could be used for... Earthquake rescue, anybody? Terrorist negotiations? Unmanned ice-cream vendor? (it'll be a real hit with the kiddies at the park!)
Ahhh. A breath of fresh air in the clear thinking of libertarian (at least one at heart).
For some statistics posted by the house itself, read my other comment to this discussion nad follow the link at the bottom.
OK, I don't claim to know anything about NASA reuseable launch program, or the psychological guilt factor of being 'rich' . I don't claim to know a hell of a lot on taxes, politics, or economics. What I do know is that if the Bush tax plan is approved then I will be paying five percent less, my parents will be paying six percent less, and my girlfriend's parents (who support seven kids on about $30K/year and can barely keep up) will have to pay NONE.
I suggest you avoid bringing up topics you apparently know nothing about, especially if you are considering it in jest. Leave ignorance to those people who don't care about things. I'd like to think that we slashdotters would like to be informed and accurately informed, and to form our opinions based on truly legitimate information, not just some crack editorialist for Salon.com. I had observed that the website containing the article does not list any of the author's credentials, save for "editor." I do believe I would much more likely trust someone described as "veteran economist," or (wink, wink) "masters in business degree from Harvard."
Now, in true slashdot fashion, if anybody would like to get the FACTS and make an INFORMED decision, try following this link. It is on the House of Representatives website. While I couldn't find a copy of the actual tax proposal itself, feel free to browse house.gov
and even better, c-span has loads of information on everything that the house and the President does.
If somebody happens to find a link to that tax proposal, please post it!
BTW, Now that I think of it, this whole tirade could be considered off-topic... but I believe that a call for awareness of the facts is highly important, and core to what has made slashdot so great.
-- < RANT > I propose to the IETF that the surrounding tags become official identification for slashdot.com readers! </RANT >
Re:Good, The New Workers need to unionise.
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
In many ways, the modern workers union is like the 'well armed militia' described in the constitution, and we should protect it as such.
Well, I must concur... RIGHT ON. While I believe that (within practical reason) American corporations should be free to operate as they choose, I also fully support and believe in the right of the workers to organize and control their own destinies. Also, our judicial system offers much power to those who may be abused unconstitutionally, and the collective resources of a union can allow a small group of people the same representation and legal recourse as any large business.
I might add, though, that I think it is unfortunate and sad that many of the unions themselves are abusing our judicial branch and populist opinion in order to gain power and influence that is not directly beneficial to the people they claim to represent. People in this nation owe it to themselves to make sure they are getting a fair shake from not only their employers, but also their representatives and unions.
Well, I digress. I really didn't mean to make such a broad, drawn-out comment like that. But that's the way I see things.
"I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Freedom is the ability to chose for your self...last time I looked this was supposed to be a free country."
Yep, it's a free country indeed. I think murder should be legal too... not that I'd ever want to kill anybody, but I don't think anybody's right to do so should be repressed... ('Cause only commies would take away our freedoms like that, the barbarians!)
(This is sarchasm. My point, hopefully, is clearly made.)
Ahamos previously wrote: "This is simply not the election in which to use (waste) a protest vote. The prospect of Al Gore signing laws into effect is simply too harrowing for words."
That said, I find your point completely understood. Also, I agree wholeheartedly. Alas, Masachusetts is all but guaranteed a vote for democrats... no forseeable possibility for anything else. The best I can do here is like voting for my dog. But, in some states it just may make a dent in the sand.
BTW, About the Republicans vs Whigs, I'm relying on now-blurry high-school history, but if I remember correctly, Abraham Lincoln was the first republican president. The republicans had in their interest at the time some constitutionally-heavy issues such as slavery, tariffs, and federally run infrastructure improvement. The democrats, though the dominant party of the time, fell prey to the flailing of desparate whigs too afraid of the republican's views but without enough unity to make a stand against them...
Politics are a funny thing. Well, the elections up and coming will write their own page in political history, I am sure. Vote.
Oddly enough, I find myself happy to see such an empassioned discussion on something so (relatively) mundane as the statistical/qualitative importance of the party for which one's vote is cast.
You state a perfectly legitimate logical conclusion that votes cast for any other than the 'mainstream' parties will not be included in determining the elected party. However, you have one inaccurate statement that ruins much of what you have proposed: "...the electors subscribe to the 2 party system."
The electors (I am assuming you mean electorate) 'subscribe' to whatever party achieves the majority of the popular vote in that state. Indeed, this system DOES make it more difficult for a 'third' party to gain footing towards being elected, however it is important to note that IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. Remember the Whigs? They were big shots in the 1800's. Then along came the Republicans, a piddling political minority of the time, considered too radical to be legitimate...
Votes cast for alternate political parties are indeed an important and necessary method by which the voting populous makes it's wishes known. Any significant (5%+) number of votes for an alternative party will indoubtedly have an affect on how other elected officials handle political issues. If the small guys can't win then at least they can yap at the heels of the bigger dogs.
Also, one can assume that one vote for an alternative party may be one vote less for a mainstream party. Anybody out there program assemby? You can understand how that works... when bringing new operands in, the others will be replaced!;->
Slashdot Mirror
There's no doubting that kids are smart...
:^> )
And they're getting plenty of help with things like safeweb and the anonymizer (I used that in high school
I think that what will be needed are school-by-school decisions on whether or not to censor. I firmly believe that creative souls will continually invent new fair and effective methods to 'protect' our kids (not that I believe they're being 'assaulted'). What is necessary in the end is the ability for parents in a single community to decide for themselves how they will go about internet censorship in their schools, NOT the federal gov't. (See my previous post)
Perhaps a bigger issue (at least for the libertines and constitutionalists), is not whether or not there should be censorship software in the schools, but whether or not it is right for the federal government or even a state government to be dictating censorship at all.
Some might say that this idea is the epitomy of the "middle road" requested in a previous thread. I disagree. I think this idea is the most extreme stance -- that of demanding that the decision to withhold anything from my children remain MY decision and not that of a federal or state entity.
I am well aware of the extent of my wishful thinking. At this point it would probably take another revolution to get our rights back.
It appears the only difference here between apache virtual hosts with host forwarding (Yes, you CAN have multiple domain names hosted on apache all on port 80...) and AVES is that AVES would run as a daemon that listens to all ports (or at least assigned ones.
:^> ) *coughCROOKScough* ]
Personally, I think it would have been much more efficient and flexible to simply have extended an inetd daemon to provide the same functionality.
Granted I didn't download the technical docs (It's not worth my time right now) but what's this stuff about an AVES Service Provider? This seems rather wasteful and unnecessary. Besides, doesen't that mean the ISP would have to be running AVES?? If that is the case, then I can guarantee that AVES will never be accepted. Just TRY to get verizon or UUNet to run some newfangled, untested, possibly unstable and unsecure daemon that may not even be compatible with their routers.
All things considered, AVES seems to be good for nothing but a doctoral thesis (at least, it's good if this kid's reeeeealy lucky)
that's just my $.02.
[BTW, for an example of multiple apache virtual hosts port 80 with host forwarding, crack into www.cynaptec.com. If they've got the same setup I designed 2.5 years ago, you'll see how it's done. (Not that I expect they would have kept anything I designed after I had to sue them
I do believe I have been inspired... I am going to begin coding immediately and the entire implementation shall be written in.... ash!
*Chuckles to Doggy_Door_Man*
Well, I'm feeling a little more calm now and I've actually read some of the other posts. I apologize for vitrol expelled by my rant above. My opinion is nothing to apologize for... just my bitching and yelling.
If you read this and you have some mod points left, mod this other person's post up!
At least on slashdot, people actually care enough about the value of thought that they will attempt to educate their fellow man. I will of course stick to my opinions until someone has a well thought-out, backed-up and compelling arguement that convinces me otherwise. CowboyNeal, CmdrTaco, Jamie, you two have no excuse. You guys have every right to post what you want, and I have every right to say that you are demonstrably moronic. TTFN.
Is the person who posted this purposefully LOOKING for a flamewar??? OK, perhaps this is an offtopic comment, but I would submit to anyone who pays attention to what is going on in the US capitol that NO ONE POLITICAL PARTY IS EXCLUSIVELY SUIGGESTING CENSORSHIP. Members of both the Democrat and Republican parties each have proposed large scale censorship in our country (which by the very letter of the bill of rights is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!) Personally, I believe that polarizing the opinion of people so that they are compelled to take one side over another is simply Orwellian. There can be no freedom of thought when everybody is on the defense of their subjugative protectorate! Goddammit, when will people learn to think for themselves and try to make a difference, instead of blindly electing political calves to fatten and vainly defend.
Oh, I'm certain that plenty of poeple reading this are saying 'not MY party!!!' but that's just the problem... when people begin dividing into factions that believe they are representing the better good they are immediately taken advantage of. This kind of blind faith had brought us misery throughout history!!!! Being Catholic myself, I begin with the Crusades, then I move on to Nazi Germany, and finally our current party-centric political system... Is anyone reminded of 1984???
Dammit, this's got me pissed.
Well then in order to bring this full circle, I reiterate: I am deeply appalled that the editors at slashdot have (for the second time since I joined) invited flaimbaiting trolls to spread their mindless drivel and uninformed, incorrect, and purposefully misleading doublespeak.
Well, now what I've whined like the libertine I believe I am, (do NOT Read Libertarian! I have merely stated I believe in the principle of total human liberty within the bounds of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not that I claim to belong to any political party of organized agenda.) I should state that on a practical level, I find the post's primary assumption, that Congress may attempt to censor movies based solely on a possibly estimated body count ridiculous. Why? you ask?? Because 1: Americans care about TV. (wedon't care about much else, though) A movement as broad as this would have to be hidden so deep in a pork barrel it would be years until it managed to squeeze through the house. 2: Politicians get lots of money from Hollywood... And I seriously doubt they's give up all that lobbying and settle for their basic wage as members of the house. Oh, one more thing... Does anyone else find it strange that it's April Fool's day and this post is such a joke it's not funny??? </RANT>
THINK FOR YOURSELVES!
This probably seems too obvious. but could you imagine Disney filming a movie with these things??
Jurassic Park: XXVII
Well,the movies could be filmed in real time without having to wait for a render farm to create your effect!
Come to think of it, the technology could have a couple practical uses -- mobile autonomous camera control, rough-terrain heavy equipment transport, automatic bug squisher... OK, I'm stretching, but you get the idea.
In addition, if Disney ever decides to license or share this technology, imagine what such a robot could be used for... Earthquake rescue, anybody? Terrorist negotiations? Unmanned ice-cream vendor? (it'll be a real hit with the kiddies at the park!)
Ahhh. A breath of fresh air in the clear thinking of libertarian (at least one at heart). For some statistics posted by the house itself, read my other comment to this discussion nad follow the link at the bottom.
OK, I don't claim to know anything about NASA reuseable launch program, or the psychological guilt factor of being 'rich' . I don't claim to know a hell of a lot on taxes, politics, or economics. What I do know is that if the Bush tax plan is approved then I will be paying five percent less, my parents will be paying six percent less, and my girlfriend's parents (who support seven kids on about $30K/year and can barely keep up) will have to pay NONE.
/RANT >
I suggest you avoid bringing up topics you apparently know nothing about, especially if you are considering it in jest. Leave ignorance to those people who don't care about things. I'd like to think that we slashdotters would like to be informed and accurately informed, and to form our opinions based on truly legitimate information, not just some crack editorialist for Salon.com. I had observed that the website containing the article does not list any of the author's credentials, save for "editor." I do believe I would much more likely trust someone described as "veteran economist," or (wink, wink) "masters in business degree from Harvard."
Now, in true slashdot fashion, if anybody would like to get the FACTS and make an INFORMED decision, try following this link. It is on the House of Representatives website. While I couldn't find a copy of the actual tax proposal itself, feel free to browse house.gov and even better, c-span has loads of information on everything that the house and the President does.
If somebody happens to find a link to that tax proposal, please post it!
BTW, Now that I think of it, this whole tirade could be considered off-topic... but I believe that a call for awareness of the facts is highly important, and core to what has made slashdot so great.
-- < RANT > I propose to the IETF that the surrounding tags become official identification for slashdot.com readers! <
In many ways, the modern workers union is like the 'well armed militia' described in the constitution, and we should protect it as such.
Well, I must concur... RIGHT ON. While I believe that (within practical reason) American corporations should be free to operate as they choose, I also fully support and believe in the right of the workers to organize and control their own destinies. Also, our judicial system offers much power to those who may be abused unconstitutionally, and the collective resources of a union can allow a small group of people the same representation and legal recourse as any large business.
I might add, though, that I think it is unfortunate and sad that many of the unions themselves are abusing our judicial branch and populist opinion in order to gain power and influence that is not directly beneficial to the people they claim to represent. People in this nation owe it to themselves to make sure they are getting a fair shake from not only their employers, but also their representatives and unions.
Well, I digress. I really didn't mean to make such a broad, drawn-out comment like that. But that's the way I see things.
Yep, it's a free country indeed. I think murder should be legal too... not that I'd ever want to kill anybody, but I don't think anybody's right to do so should be repressed... ('Cause only commies would take away our freedoms like that, the barbarians!)
(This is sarchasm. My point, hopefully, is clearly made.)
Ahamos previously wrote: "This is simply not the election in which to use (waste) a protest vote. The prospect of Al Gore signing laws into effect is simply too harrowing for words."
That said, I find your point completely understood. Also, I agree wholeheartedly. Alas, Masachusetts is all but guaranteed a vote for democrats... no forseeable possibility for anything else. The best I can do here is like voting for my dog. But, in some states it just may make a dent in the sand.
BTW, About the Republicans vs Whigs, I'm relying on now-blurry high-school history, but if I remember correctly, Abraham Lincoln was the first republican president. The republicans had in their interest at the time some constitutionally-heavy issues such as slavery, tariffs, and federally run infrastructure improvement. The democrats, though the dominant party of the time, fell prey to the flailing of desparate whigs too afraid of the republican's views but without enough unity to make a stand against them...
Politics are a funny thing. Well, the elections up and coming will write their own page in political history, I am sure. Vote.
Oddly enough, I find myself happy to see such an empassioned discussion on something so (relatively) mundane as the statistical/qualitative importance of the party for which one's vote is cast.
;->
You state a perfectly legitimate logical conclusion that votes cast for any other than the 'mainstream' parties will not be included in determining the elected party. However, you have one inaccurate statement that ruins much of what you have proposed: "...the electors subscribe to the 2 party system."
The electors (I am assuming you mean electorate) 'subscribe' to whatever party achieves the majority of the popular vote in that state. Indeed, this system DOES make it more difficult for a 'third' party to gain footing towards being elected, however it is important to note that IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. Remember the Whigs? They were big shots in the 1800's. Then along came the Republicans, a piddling political minority of the time, considered too radical to be legitimate...
Votes cast for alternate political parties are indeed an important and necessary method by which the voting populous makes it's wishes known. Any significant (5%+) number of votes for an alternative party will indoubtedly have an affect on how other elected officials handle political issues. If the small guys can't win then at least they can yap at the heels of the bigger dogs.
Also, one can assume that one vote for an alternative party may be one vote less for a mainstream party. Anybody out there program assemby? You can understand how that works... when bringing new operands in, the others will be replaced!
I hope I've been constructive in some fashion...