Heh.. no kidding. I was working on a friend's wiring a few years ago, and to my great dismay, I discovered that their double switching hall light was wired in such a way that they would open/close and reverse neutral and hot to the lighting fixture! Like you say, it's not rocket science... but good lord some places have frightening wiring.
No comment on the current story, so it's a somewhat offtopic rant. But, with all this recent obsession with "crime and punishment" the west seems to have developed lately, perhaps some of it is rubbing off on me.
I think it's high time we started to get tough on people who abuse to law to conduct legal assault on innocent people. Whether you use a lawyer, a can of spray paint, or a molotov cocktail should make no difference. If you harm someone who is innocent, you should be punished.
A fear or pornography is rooted in the religious belief that on some level, sex itself is harmful and/or immoral. Consider the term: innocent. Someone who is a virgin is often described as innocent. The opposite of innocent is guilty. Guilty of what?
We are a heavily Christian-influenced society and many of our collective morals are derived from this. It's still so pervasive that we don't recognize it. But we are changing, slowly, to a more neutral "live and let live" mentality.
Whether piracy is pro-business or not is a non-issue; the statement "DRM is anti-consumer" stands on its own.
Whether DRM by its current definition is or is not impossible to implement securely is roughly as debatable as whether or not evolution is a scientific theory. You're welcome to have the debate, but those in the know will likely not join it.
DRM will fail on its own, because it is anti-consumer, and impossible (cryptographically speaking) to implement securely. We live in a (mostly) free market society. As publishing firms continue to push DRM, new markets will open and will eventually replace the DRM firms, by offering superior products.
In the meantime, fight it, because it is a good thing to fight.
But fight even harder against legislation that enshrines and codifies their right to monopolize above and beyond encrypting their content. The most important tool we have in protecting art and the public domain is our freedom to innovate, create, analyze and discuss. These freedoms are being threatened every day - not just in the United States. Even my own country (Canada) is under attack by the various recording companies and individuals with a stake the game.
The DMCA is bad, but it can get even worse. While the market can currently fend off corporate greed and attacks on fair-use and information exchange, it cannot do so if we allow corrupt legislators to override the individual decisions we all make every day.
Google censors results from Americans at the request of the American government. We don't talk about it because the vast majority of people in the country despise the distasteful type of search results they filter. But nevertheless, if you truly believe in free speech, it is hypocritical to suggest that limiting one type of speech is ok while limiting another is not.
Yes, there are terms you can use on google that will produce an error message ("some results have been censored due to legal request; for more information see chillingeffects.org.") Get creative, and you'll see it.
I'm not blaming google; they must follow the law of the land. Nevertheless, there you have it.
The Internet is not a playground for children. It's not a fun Christian diversion. It's a network for anyone and everyone to connect to one another electronically. Let's not turn it into Disneyland or Utah. The last thing society needs is FCC-like regulations on everything they do online. Besides, the responsibility in raising children shouldn't fall into the hands of people than don't have any. Parents need to police this issue, not parents AND single individuals.
Contrary to public belief, kids are quite smart. I would actually turn this around: the internet IS a "playground" for children.
Some kids have it pretty rough, growing up under the thumb of parents who aren't smart. I hate to use the word stupid, because I'm sure in their minds they have justified their faith in religious doctrine and eternal safety or purity or whatever the hell it is they believe in. The internet is as much a tool of freedom for these kids as it is for a Chinese dissident.
The question I'm asking myself is: can we hang on long enough for these kids to grow up and obsolete their parents?
In 20 years the current generation who have grown up with the Internet will become leaders unlike those in the past. Some significant percentage of them who would have grown up to be not smart will have had childhoods where they COULD learn about forbidden things, they could challenge the establishment, and they could ask the wrong questions.
It's up to our (slashdot) generation to hold on, protect the freedom of the internet from the people who aren't smart, and hopefully hand it off to the leaders of tomorrow in one piece.
I stopped going to movie theaters about three years ago. I read on the bottom of the ticket I bought a warning that said "cellular phones with cameras are not permitted in the theater."
I did enjoy watching movies on the big screen, but if that's the way you treat your customers, then fine. I'll take my business elsewhere.
I've since abandoned them for live shows at bars and concerts (in small venues). It's a little more expensive, but they treat their customers with more respect. And there's beer.
This has been a big conflict for me internally, because I'm of the freedom or death crowd.
But, I've managed to rationalize it in my own mind like this: North American anglos have consistently marched towards the repeal of rights (particularly the Americans), especially with regards to sex and freedom of speech/protest, and seem to be more tolerant of war. By denying the right to express ourselves in English predominantly, we protect other rights because the loudmouth, aggressive anglos leave in disgust.:)
If we were a sovereign and independent nation, we wouldn't need bill 101 as we wouldn't have to fear constant intellectual takeover by the rest of Canada.
I personally agree that the age with which you can be charged with a crime should not equal 18, but whatever age we set, I feel it is morally unacceptable to disallow those people affected to vote.
That is, if we say "those who are 12 and over can be charged with a crime," then I believe it is morally unjustifiable (I would even say illegal) to deny them the right to vote.
No rights without responsibility. No responsibility without rights.
If you save in that format, some of your formatting information will be lost, because OO supports some formatting elements that cannot be specified in the.DOC format. Whether or not that bears consequences depends on the formatting features used in the document.
If you save a photoshop project in.JPG, you will lose metadata. It would be appropriate to warn the user "Hey! If you only save your work in this format, you will lose some of your data/metadata."
This is a far less extreme situation, but I can certainly understand why it bears mentioning.
If it's publically funded, it is morally bankrupt to restrict access to those who paid for it.
Imagine you receive a bill from the publically owned water utility. You pay them $500 as required by law, and they still cut your water off. Then they send you another letter, saying that if you want water, you'll have to negotiate an additional water-access contract.
People would never stand for that. Why should access to publically funded research results be any different?
Every time I see kids treated like adults, they act like adults. Every time I see kids treated like kids, they act like kids. Oddly enough the maturity of their behavior tends to be pretty proportional to the trust you place in them...
Agreed, 100%.
The phrase monkey see, monkey do, cuts both ways. While growing up in a violent environment (not video games - that's fake; I mean real violent environments like warzones and gang violence prone urban zones) tends to produce violent kids, kids with good, strong role models tend to be more intelligent and responsible. Humans emulate. It's what we've evolved to do.
Where it gets complicated, though, is determining: what is a good role model?
Personally, I think the anti-game, anti-fun, anti-alcohol, anti-drug, anti-sex, anti-everything protect-you-at-any-cost soccer moms are terrible role models, because they perpetuate the "do as I say, because I'm better than you" creed. More often than not, it is rooted in hypocrisy. And that is more damaging than any video game could ever be.
I wasn't really referring to this specific article. If you're not outraged by the fact they lied to lead your country into an illegal war and occupation, they paid private contractors to do it and sacrificed American lives for profit, they passed illegal law after illegal law, authorizing illegal wiretaps against American citizens, and repeatedly attacked the education and scientific institutes of the United States, then you're half asleep.
It is my personal belief that your government has been subverted by traitors to the American way. One hopes they will step down as required by law in two years, but this regime's callous disregard in that matter is certainly cause for alarm.
Let kids vote. If you can be held accountable for a crime, then you have the right to vote. Period.
Same goes for felons. It literally blows my mind Americans can be denied the right to vote. It is incompatible with me. If you are expected to follow the law, and you can be jailed for breaking it, you need the right to vote. Period. No exceptions, ever.
Nothing to do with the current story at all, really... who knows the details? But, it always surprises me how many people think kids are stupid.
Naive, yes. Learning, and devoid of much factual knowledge, yes. But stupid?
It seems more a reflection of the person making the supposition. I clearly recall my youth, and I certainly was not stupid. I was hacking 8080's, dialing BBSs, "dating" girls (the horror!), riding bikes with my friends as we pretended the FBI was on to us for swearing on a CB radio...
I know I'm not alone, and I feel sorry for anyone whose childhood was so retarded or stunted by their parents that they could not enjoy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ours is better. If a 14 yo really wants to have sex with an 80 year old, let him/her.
Rope. Judge. Tree. Some assembly required. :)
Heh.. no kidding. I was working on a friend's wiring a few years ago, and to my great dismay, I discovered that their double switching hall light was wired in such a way that they would open/close and reverse neutral and hot to the lighting fixture! Like you say, it's not rocket science... but good lord some places have frightening wiring.
We started punishing people who abuse the law?
No comment on the current story, so it's a somewhat offtopic rant. But, with all this recent obsession with "crime and punishment" the west seems to have developed lately, perhaps some of it is rubbing off on me.
I think it's high time we started to get tough on people who abuse to law to conduct legal assault on innocent people. Whether you use a lawyer, a can of spray paint, or a molotov cocktail should make no difference. If you harm someone who is innocent, you should be punished.
Wow.. I'm not even a smoker and all I have to say is "go fuck yourself." You are not that important.
.. who have idiot parents? I was lucky. Not everyone is.
The Internet is a tool of freedom for young people with stupid parents just as much as it is for adults with stupid governments.
A fear or pornography is rooted in the religious belief that on some level, sex itself is harmful and/or immoral. Consider the term: innocent. Someone who is a virgin is often described as innocent. The opposite of innocent is guilty. Guilty of what?
We are a heavily Christian-influenced society and many of our collective morals are derived from this. It's still so pervasive that we don't recognize it. But we are changing, slowly, to a more neutral "live and let live" mentality.
And piracy is pro-business?
Whether piracy is pro-business or not is a non-issue; the statement "DRM is anti-consumer" stands on its own.
Whether DRM by its current definition is or is not impossible to implement securely is roughly as debatable as whether or not evolution is a scientific theory. You're welcome to have the debate, but those in the know will likely not join it.
DRM will fail on its own, because it is anti-consumer, and impossible (cryptographically speaking) to implement securely. We live in a (mostly) free market society. As publishing firms continue to push DRM, new markets will open and will eventually replace the DRM firms, by offering superior products.
In the meantime, fight it, because it is a good thing to fight.
But fight even harder against legislation that enshrines and codifies their right to monopolize above and beyond encrypting their content. The most important tool we have in protecting art and the public domain is our freedom to innovate, create, analyze and discuss. These freedoms are being threatened every day - not just in the United States. Even my own country (Canada) is under attack by the various recording companies and individuals with a stake the game.
The DMCA is bad, but it can get even worse. While the market can currently fend off corporate greed and attacks on fair-use and information exchange, it cannot do so if we allow corrupt legislators to override the individual decisions we all make every day.
Just my $0.02.
Google censors results from Americans at the request of the American government. We don't talk about it because the vast majority of people in the country despise the distasteful type of search results they filter. But nevertheless, if you truly believe in free speech, it is hypocritical to suggest that limiting one type of speech is ok while limiting another is not.
See this, this, or for more general information, chillingeffects.org.
Yes, there are terms you can use on google that will produce an error message ("some results have been censored due to legal request; for more information see chillingeffects.org.") Get creative, and you'll see it.
I'm not blaming google; they must follow the law of the land. Nevertheless, there you have it.
.. was graciously provided by: citizens like you!
You know the old saying... death and taxes.The Internet is not a playground for children. It's not a fun Christian diversion. It's a network for anyone and everyone to connect to one another electronically. Let's not turn it into Disneyland or Utah. The last thing society needs is FCC-like regulations on everything they do online. Besides, the responsibility in raising children shouldn't fall into the hands of people than don't have any. Parents need to police this issue, not parents AND single individuals.
Contrary to public belief, kids are quite smart. I would actually turn this around: the internet IS a "playground" for children.
Some kids have it pretty rough, growing up under the thumb of parents who aren't smart. I hate to use the word stupid, because I'm sure in their minds they have justified their faith in religious doctrine and eternal safety or purity or whatever the hell it is they believe in. The internet is as much a tool of freedom for these kids as it is for a Chinese dissident.
The question I'm asking myself is: can we hang on long enough for these kids to grow up and obsolete their parents?
In 20 years the current generation who have grown up with the Internet will become leaders unlike those in the past. Some significant percentage of them who would have grown up to be not smart will have had childhoods where they COULD learn about forbidden things, they could challenge the establishment, and they could ask the wrong questions.
It's up to our (slashdot) generation to hold on, protect the freedom of the internet from the people who aren't smart, and hopefully hand it off to the leaders of tomorrow in one piece.
Well. Said.
I stopped going to movie theaters about three years ago. I read on the bottom of the ticket I bought a warning that said "cellular phones with cameras are not permitted in the theater."
I did enjoy watching movies on the big screen, but if that's the way you treat your customers, then fine. I'll take my business elsewhere.
I've since abandoned them for live shows at bars and concerts (in small venues). It's a little more expensive, but they treat their customers with more respect. And there's beer.
This has been a big conflict for me internally, because I'm of the freedom or death crowd.
But, I've managed to rationalize it in my own mind like this: North American anglos have consistently marched towards the repeal of rights (particularly the Americans), especially with regards to sex and freedom of speech/protest, and seem to be more tolerant of war. By denying the right to express ourselves in English predominantly, we protect other rights because the loudmouth, aggressive anglos leave in disgust. :)
If we were a sovereign and independent nation, we wouldn't need bill 101 as we wouldn't have to fear constant intellectual takeover by the rest of Canada.
Ah ben.
I personally agree that the age with which you can be charged with a crime should not equal 18, but whatever age we set, I feel it is morally unacceptable to disallow those people affected to vote.
That is, if we say "those who are 12 and over can be charged with a crime," then I believe it is morally unjustifiable (I would even say illegal) to deny them the right to vote.
No rights without responsibility. No responsibility without rights.You do? What metadata is lost? All of the camera information is still there after saving. I thought only "Save for web..." removed metadata.
Layers, undo levels, filter settings, etc.I get your point, but it is there for a reason.
If you save in that format, some of your formatting information will be lost, because OO supports some formatting elements that cannot be specified in the .DOC format. Whether or not that bears consequences depends on the formatting features used in the document.
If you save a photoshop project in .JPG, you will lose metadata. It would be appropriate to warn the user "Hey! If you only save your work in this format, you will lose some of your data/metadata."
This is a far less extreme situation, but I can certainly understand why it bears mentioning.
I have to fast this morning until 11am because I have this health screening thing at work.
If it's publically funded, it is morally bankrupt to restrict access to those who paid for it.
Imagine you receive a bill from the publically owned water utility. You pay them $500 as required by law, and they still cut your water off. Then they send you another letter, saying that if you want water, you'll have to negotiate an additional water-access contract.
People would never stand for that. Why should access to publically funded research results be any different?
Every time I see kids treated like adults, they act like adults. Every time I see kids treated like kids, they act like kids. Oddly enough the maturity of their behavior tends to be pretty proportional to the trust you place in them ...
Agreed, 100%.
The phrase monkey see, monkey do, cuts both ways. While growing up in a violent environment (not video games - that's fake; I mean real violent environments like warzones and gang violence prone urban zones) tends to produce violent kids, kids with good, strong role models tend to be more intelligent and responsible. Humans emulate. It's what we've evolved to do.
Where it gets complicated, though, is determining: what is a good role model?
Personally, I think the anti-game, anti-fun, anti-alcohol, anti-drug, anti-sex, anti-everything protect-you-at-any-cost soccer moms are terrible role models, because they perpetuate the "do as I say, because I'm better than you" creed. More often than not, it is rooted in hypocrisy. And that is more damaging than any video game could ever be.
I wasn't really referring to this specific article. If you're not outraged by the fact they lied to lead your country into an illegal war and occupation, they paid private contractors to do it and sacrificed American lives for profit, they passed illegal law after illegal law, authorizing illegal wiretaps against American citizens, and repeatedly attacked the education and scientific institutes of the United States, then you're half asleep.
It is my personal belief that your government has been subverted by traitors to the American way. One hopes they will step down as required by law in two years, but this regime's callous disregard in that matter is certainly cause for alarm.
Easiest way to solve the issue?
Let kids vote. If you can be held accountable for a crime, then you have the right to vote. Period.
Same goes for felons. It literally blows my mind Americans can be denied the right to vote. It is incompatible with me. If you are expected to follow the law, and you can be jailed for breaking it, you need the right to vote. Period. No exceptions, ever.
Nothing to do with the current story at all, really... who knows the details? But, it always surprises me how many people think kids are stupid.
Naive, yes. Learning, and devoid of much factual knowledge, yes. But stupid?
It seems more a reflection of the person making the supposition. I clearly recall my youth, and I certainly was not stupid. I was hacking 8080's, dialing BBSs, "dating" girls (the horror!), riding bikes with my friends as we pretended the FBI was on to us for swearing on a CB radio...
I know I'm not alone, and I feel sorry for anyone whose childhood was so retarded or stunted by their parents that they could not enjoy it.