You're not insane; the current practice of trying children as adults is (though I'd support dropping the criminal definition of "adult" as low as 16 years of age).
However, treating children as adults in other inappropriate ways won't fix that. And the kids who want to mostly see R-rated flicks and smoke cigs anyway.
Right... So toddlers should be allowed to drive cars? Thirteen-year-olds should have access to all the booze they want? Parents should have no hand in governing their children's media consumption?
That's nothing short of deranged. A child that was allowed to "grow and develop freely", entirely without the socializing influence of parents and other members of family and society would not be a civilized human, but an animal.
Did you read the article, or even the/. blurb at the top of the page? Since details seem to have escaped you, allow me to quote:
Circuit City will no longer sell 'Mature' rated games to children under 17 years of age at its stores
without a parent being around.
So, it sounds to me like Circuit City is cooperating with parents to provide the monitoring you seem to like. Exactly how you could interpret this as some sort of corporate statist paternalism is unclear; they are defaulting to not selling violent games to the kiddies, and explicitly allowing parents to override that default at will. I don't see where it disallows a parent from exercising any sort of right.
Your argument is a non-sequitur;/. is a primarily English site because their chosen market/constituency/whatever speaks mostly English. If, suddenly, Malawi came to dominate Internet culture, you can bet that either you'd be seeing lots more posts in Chichewa, or/. wouldn't be nearly as much the force in Internet culture that it is now.
The point is that the websites in the story were doing what they thought was prudent to reach their desired markets. Their government's response smacks of provicialist censorship.
I'm sure that game makers aren't thrilled about this, and I'm sure Circuit City can expect to get some serious flak or lose preferential wholesale pricing from major game distributors, but really, is this so awful?
Over and over on/., we keep hearing the classic argument against censorship "for the children": Parents should be the ones responsible for monitoring the media consumption of minors in the household. That would be a Good Thing. This helps make that happen. Even better, the government isn't involved.
How is this worse than carding people for an "R"-rated movie? Or carding those who buy cigs or booze? Few sane people argue that minors should enjoy all the rights and privileges of adult citizens, and this seems like a sane extension of that.
Remember these ad based companies are starving, they don't have much cash on hand at all.
Yeah, but that's not his problem. They owe him money, and they're threatening to renege on their obligations entirely if he doesn't give legally binding consent to let them renege partially.
This is a very drastic decision for them and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasnt an absolute necessity.
If they're in such dire straits, what the hell were they doing acquiring Bla-bla? They should have used that cash to pay their affiliates.
Perhaps they really are out of money, but I have no way to verify that - this may just be a ploy to reduce the amounts they pay affiliates. Either way, it's not the poster's problem, and there's no reason he should put up with it.
IANAL, YMMV, all disclaimers apply, void in Wisconsin, etc.
If they're contractually obligated to send you the money, I'd suggest that you find a lawyer who'll work on contingency for a portion of the proceeds, and sue them. They're bascially telling you that unless you let them rewrite the contract, they'll break it anyway. That's wrong, and even if it won't net you much cash, there's no reason to let them think they can screw people like that.
I mean, it's one thing for them to want to rewrite the terms of the contract going forward, but this is bullshit - they're attempting to dodge obligations they've made. Such arrogance should not be tolerated. If they can't meet their financial obligations, let the bastards file for bankruptcy like everyone else.
It's the Russian COSMOSPHERES! The Russians have had CONTROL OVER GRAVITY since 1965! Even if the NA$A scientists have been kept in the dark by their FA$CI$T MA$TER$, the Russians are sending a clear signal that they have SPACE-BASED GRAVITY WEAPONS that they will turn on the UNITED $TATE$ at the SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION.
This IMPORANT INFORMATION should be DISSEMINATED etc etc...
With apologies to Robert McElwaine, and everyone else.
Anyone who thinks steganography is a useful tool for secure communication over the long haul really needs to get past the "gee whiz" stage (read: get his head out of his ass) and read the relevant material in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography or some other reputable source.
If you're hiding information in a picture of a giraffe that you pass back and forth with your co-conspirator, you'd better have a good reason to be passing pictures of giraffes back and forth or it will be just as conspicuous as if you were sending a random-looking stream of encrypted bits.
Further, you'd better have a good stash of source materials, rather than just some ol' picture you got off the net - otherwise, it would be easy to use an image search tool to find the original source image, diff the two, and get out the "secret" bits.
What worries me about this "innovation" from AOL is the potential for large subsets of users to get together to ban political speech that they don't like - for example, by voting down the Village Voice site or gwbush.com or the RNC website.
Some things (and not all that many) are best done by majority vote, but some things are better left to individual discretion.
I think that to have any hope of success, a small ISP is going to have to provide something more than a pipe and phone support. It's entirely likely that you will be unable to compete on price alone, and will have to provide something more to your users, such as providing high-quality access where there is no high-quality Internet connection (due to distance from dialup centers, poor phone line quality, lack of broadband), or provide something more than just the 'net.
AOL (for all its truly bogus deficiencies) is a fine example - besides web, mail, and Usenet access, they provide an enclosed, relatively easy-to-use interface, built-in content filtering, and a host of other services that your average family users would want. For this, they get to charge quite a premium (something like US$22 - don't know what it would be in Oz).
Attempting to compete in AOL's space would be foolhardy, but you could follow their example and pick some underserved segment of the population and give them the features they want. One idea: serve up a geek-friendly service. The Internet has been dumbed down so much that those who would like things like a full NNTP feed or shell access have trouble finding it with the right combination of reliability and price.
I say, look at what the Internet isn't doing well right now, pick a niche you're competent to serve, and hope for the best.
I'm not saying that IBM is different than any other corporation, and I'm not sure how you got that out of what I wrote. My point was that not all Linux vendors are inherently unstable - in fact, I expect IBM to be around for decades to come.
Mundie says forking code is bad? Makes sense - it's not like Microsoft has ever, say, split a code base for their flagship OS to serve different market needs...
Also, he seems to deliberately confuse free (speech) with free (beer), probably as a subtle way of cultivating FUD about the viability of Linux vendors. You know, because your company's chosen Linux services vendor - say, IBM - could go under any day now.
Whatever.
I'm fortunate to work in a place where the management is technically inclined, and will laugh this off like the desperate raving that it is. I have to wonder what sort of effect this has on suits who don't know any better, though. Has someone like ESR put up a response yet?
Well, there's always the fact that when you're writing a how-to for a novice audience (and many seasoned programmers would be novices when approaching the task of writing a kernel driver), you write an example that covers the necessary material, and as little else as possible. Doing an AWE64 or a 3Com 10/100 network card or a USB gadget driver might be a neat project, but would also involve a lot of particulars about the manufacturer's hardware that wouldn't have anything to do with what he's trying to teach.
Anyway, it seems a fine approach to me. Between the knowledge in the article, available source code, and appropriate hardware specs, I imagine a determined hacker could start writing his first real device driver with this article as a starting point.
Perhaps you're unclear on the concept: the idea of that clause in the first amendment is to keep religious people in power from forcing others to hew to their beliefs. They have absolute freedom of conscience in their private lives, but in their public roles they must not push their beliefs on the rest of us.
Competing ideas are great. Using the government to coerce my obedience to the ideals of some religous pinhead who doesn't understand that not everyone believes as he does, though, is not OK.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean... that some laws should not be motivated by religious beliefs.
Great. So where do you draw the line? Maybe most of us can agree that "thou shalt not kill" is a fine guideline, but what other religious dicta do you think should be codified as the law of the land? Stoning adulterers? Not speaking ill of some Congressman's favorite church?
Call me nutz, but I just don't buy into the idea that the laws that I have to follow should be based on someone else's religion.
And religion is a valid basis for moral values.
Bollocks. Looking at the evidence both historically and in my day-to-day experience, I don't see any indication that believers in one or another religion are any nicer, more honest, less bloodthirsty, or more fit to govern than believers in some other religion or non-believers.
Further, I don't at all understand how a set of collectively agreed-upon myths is supposed to represents a basis for morality, especially when the myths can promote anything at all, from turning the other cheek to the use of Zyklon-B on "undesirables".
Thanks, but I didn't need that pointed out - I can quote much of the Bill of Rights from memory, including that bit. Further, I never said that phrase was in the Constitution - I'm not sure why you think that I do, but I suggest you start reading posts before you respond to them.
The passage you mention is generally taken to mean that Congress is not allowed to legislate based on a purely religious perspective (which some of the Honorable nitwits here appear to be doing), which would be tantamount to either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I'm not sure what else you think "separation of church and state" means.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.halfkeyboard.com/propaganda/index.html
Nothing like an honest webmaster, eh?
OK,
- B
--
However, treating children as adults in other inappropriate ways won't fix that. And the kids who want to mostly see R-rated flicks and smoke cigs anyway.
OK,
- B
--
That's nothing short of deranged. A child that was allowed to "grow and develop freely", entirely without the socializing influence of parents and other members of family and society would not be a civilized human, but an animal.
OK,
- B
--
In the future: Read before posting.
OK,
- B
--
The point is that the websites in the story were doing what they thought was prudent to reach their desired markets. Their government's response smacks of provicialist censorship.
OK,
- B
--
Over and over on /., we keep hearing the classic argument against censorship "for the children": Parents should be the ones responsible for monitoring the media consumption of minors in the household. That would be a Good Thing. This helps make that happen. Even better, the government isn't involved.
How is this worse than carding people for an "R"-rated movie? Or carding those who buy cigs or booze? Few sane people argue that minors should enjoy all the rights and privileges of adult citizens, and this seems like a sane extension of that.
OK,
- B
--
Just curious.
OK,
- B
--
Yeah, but that's not his problem. They owe him money, and they're threatening to renege on their obligations entirely if he doesn't give legally binding consent to let them renege partially.
This is a very drastic decision for them and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasnt an absolute necessity.
If they're in such dire straits, what the hell were they doing acquiring Bla-bla? They should have used that cash to pay their affiliates.
Perhaps they really are out of money, but I have no way to verify that - this may just be a ploy to reduce the amounts they pay affiliates. Either way, it's not the poster's problem, and there's no reason he should put up with it.
Sue them into bankruptcy, says I.
OK,
- B
--
If they're contractually obligated to send you the money, I'd suggest that you find a lawyer who'll work on contingency for a portion of the proceeds, and sue them. They're bascially telling you that unless you let them rewrite the contract, they'll break it anyway. That's wrong, and even if it won't net you much cash, there's no reason to let them think they can screw people like that.
I mean, it's one thing for them to want to rewrite the terms of the contract going forward, but this is bullshit - they're attempting to dodge obligations they've made. Such arrogance should not be tolerated. If they can't meet their financial obligations, let the bastards file for bankruptcy like everyone else.
OK,
- B
--
And besides, McElwaine is still out there, just with a smaller readership.
OK,
- B
--
This IMPORANT INFORMATION should be DISSEMINATED etc etc...
With apologies to Robert McElwaine, and everyone else.
OK,
- B
--
OK,
- B
--
If you're hiding information in a picture of a giraffe that you pass back and forth with your co-conspirator, you'd better have a good reason to be passing pictures of giraffes back and forth or it will be just as conspicuous as if you were sending a random-looking stream of encrypted bits.
Further, you'd better have a good stash of source materials, rather than just some ol' picture you got off the net - otherwise, it would be easy to use an image search tool to find the original source image, diff the two, and get out the "secret" bits.
OK,
- B
--
Some things (and not all that many) are best done by majority vote, but some things are better left to individual discretion.
OK,
- B
--
AOL (for all its truly bogus deficiencies) is a fine example - besides web, mail, and Usenet access, they provide an enclosed, relatively easy-to-use interface, built-in content filtering, and a host of other services that your average family users would want. For this, they get to charge quite a premium (something like US$22 - don't know what it would be in Oz).
Attempting to compete in AOL's space would be foolhardy, but you could follow their example and pick some underserved segment of the population and give them the features they want. One idea: serve up a geek-friendly service. The Internet has been dumbed down so much that those who would like things like a full NNTP feed or shell access have trouble finding it with the right combination of reliability and price.
I say, look at what the Internet isn't doing well right now, pick a niche you're competent to serve, and hope for the best.
OK,
- B
--
OK,
- B
--
In the future, read the posts you're replying to.
OK,
- B
--
OK,
- B
--
Also, he seems to deliberately confuse free (speech) with free (beer), probably as a subtle way of cultivating FUD about the viability of Linux vendors. You know, because your company's chosen Linux services vendor - say, IBM - could go under any day now.
Whatever.
I'm fortunate to work in a place where the management is technically inclined, and will laugh this off like the desperate raving that it is. I have to wonder what sort of effect this has on suits who don't know any better, though. Has someone like ESR put up a response yet?
OK,
- B
--
One obvious thing you missed, though, was a retinal scanning display - now that would make the package complete.
Oh, yeah, and the free (speech) development tools and OS, etc., etc.
OK,
- B
--
Anyway, it seems a fine approach to me. Between the knowledge in the article, available source code, and appropriate hardware specs, I imagine a determined hacker could start writing his first real device driver with this article as a starting point.
OK,
- B
--
Is that so hard to understand?
--
It's a pluralistic society, Jack. Get used to it.
--
Great. So where do you draw the line? Maybe most of us can agree that "thou shalt not kill" is a fine guideline, but what other religious dicta do you think should be codified as the law of the land? Stoning adulterers? Not speaking ill of some Congressman's favorite church?
Call me nutz, but I just don't buy into the idea that the laws that I have to follow should be based on someone else's religion.
And religion is a valid basis for moral values.
Bollocks. Looking at the evidence both historically and in my day-to-day experience, I don't see any indication that believers in one or another religion are any nicer, more honest, less bloodthirsty, or more fit to govern than believers in some other religion or non-believers.
Further, I don't at all understand how a set of collectively agreed-upon myths is supposed to represents a basis for morality, especially when the myths can promote anything at all, from turning the other cheek to the use of Zyklon-B on "undesirables".
--
The passage you mention is generally taken to mean that Congress is not allowed to legislate based on a purely religious perspective (which some of the Honorable nitwits here appear to be doing), which would be tantamount to either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I'm not sure what else you think "separation of church and state" means.
Did you really need that explained? OK,
- B
--