Keep in mind that if only 1000 of people will be increasing their bandwidth to 100mb from lets say 10mb (yes, these are fictional numbers, live with it) that that will increase the bandwidth necessary at NAPs and the like from 10gb to 100gb. In other words, I wouldn't expect to see home users get this type of bandwidth anytime soon since the ISPs aren't prepared to handle it.
Bottom line is that most parents don't like the idea of their kid having access to hardcore porn around the block at the local library. Yes, we all know that filtering software doesn't work perfectly, but it works a heck of a lot better than using no filtering software at all. Given the two alternatives: accidently blocking some health-related sites and blocking most of the porn or not accidently blocking anything and allowing all porn most parents will choose the former.
If you truly are disturbed because the filtering software filters geniuine topics such as health web sites and the like then go out and create a filter solution that will work, don't just sit around and complain and expect something to happen because of it.
If you are disturbed by libraries censoring porn because you believe that you have the constitutional right to access porn using tax-payer funded equipment then I'm sorry but you are in the minority.
Lets see, to vote for Gore do I punch the hole next to the big arrow pointing from Buchanon or do I punch the hole next to the big arrow pointing from Gore. This is so confusing!
>Even though they have similar agendas it matters >for a rather important reason. The reason being >the number of supreme justices that are >retiring. I believe up to 4 supremes may retire, >which the president appoints. If Bush is in >office, the supremes that he appoints will be >conservative and that will be a very bad thing >for all of us!!
Actually, the supreme courts upcoming vacancies is the exact reason why I voted for Bush since I definately want to see conservatives appointed there. Just as a side note, I'm really glad that Nader ran for president:-)
I realize that this is definately not the popular view on Slashdot, but I figured I'd share my minority opinion.
>If he succeeds in overturning roe vs wade with >possible supreme court appointments (if he even >wants to try), watch the 60's social movements >come back with a vengance. The people won't let >him get away with it.
I think you're forgetting that around 50% of those "people" you're referring to voted for him and his policies. I don't doubt in the slightest that there would be protests by portions of the population, but the protesters will not be in the majority.
It's not a democracy, it's a republic, the states elect the president not the people. And that is the way that it should remain, there is no need to take that power away from the states.
So the fact that movie actors, rock stars, and TV personalities are promising to leave the states if Bush wins is supposed to discourage us from voting for him? Heck, publish a list of 100 of them that have taken the oath to leave and I'll bet Bush will win by a landslide.
One thing to consider is liability. At the work site the company can monitor the work environment to make sure there aren't any hazards that will harm the employees (and cause the company to have to pay for it) whereas at the home office the company has no or little control over this, yet I believe they still can be forced to pay for employee injuries that occur there.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that if only 1000 of people will be increasing their bandwidth to 100mb from lets say 10mb (yes, these are fictional numbers, live with it) that that will increase the bandwidth necessary at NAPs and the like from 10gb to 100gb. In other words, I wouldn't expect to see home users get this type of bandwidth anytime soon since the ISPs aren't prepared to handle it.
Bottom line is that most parents don't like the idea of their kid having access to hardcore porn around the block at the local library. Yes, we all know that filtering software doesn't work perfectly, but it works a heck of a lot better than using no filtering software at all. Given the two alternatives: accidently blocking some health-related sites and blocking most of the porn or not accidently blocking anything and allowing all porn most parents will choose the former.
If you truly are disturbed because the filtering software filters geniuine topics such as health web sites and the like then go out and create a filter solution that will work, don't just sit around and complain and expect something to happen because of it.
If you are disturbed by libraries censoring porn because you believe that you have the constitutional right to access porn using tax-payer funded equipment then I'm sorry but you are in the minority.
Lets see, to vote for Gore do I punch the hole next to the big arrow pointing from Buchanon or do I punch the hole next to the big arrow pointing from Gore. This is so confusing!
>Even though they have similar agendas it matters >for a rather important reason. The reason being >the number of supreme justices that are >retiring. I believe up to 4 supremes may retire, >which the president appoints. If Bush is in >office, the supremes that he appoints will be >conservative and that will be a very bad thing >for all of us!! Actually, the supreme courts upcoming vacancies is the exact reason why I voted for Bush since I definately want to see conservatives appointed there. Just as a side note, I'm really glad that Nader ran for president :-)
I realize that this is definately not the popular view on Slashdot, but I figured I'd share my minority opinion.
>If he succeeds in overturning roe vs wade with >possible supreme court appointments (if he even >wants to try), watch the 60's social movements >come back with a vengance. The people won't let >him get away with it. I think you're forgetting that around 50% of those "people" you're referring to voted for him and his policies. I don't doubt in the slightest that there would be protests by portions of the population, but the protesters will not be in the majority.
It's not a democracy, it's a republic, the states elect the president not the people. And that is the way that it should remain, there is no need to take that power away from the states.
So the fact that movie actors, rock stars, and TV personalities are promising to leave the states if Bush wins is supposed to discourage us from voting for him? Heck, publish a list of 100 of them that have taken the oath to leave and I'll bet Bush will win by a landslide.
One thing to consider is liability. At the work site the company can monitor the work environment to make sure there aren't any hazards that will harm the employees (and cause the company to have to pay for it) whereas at the home office the company has no or little control over this, yet I believe they still can be forced to pay for employee injuries that occur there.