What about when it's not a machine but foreign labour?
I'm not convinced I can program any better than a well educated, smart guy in India. I can document in English better than many of them, but I don't really like documentation. Right now my only advantages are English ability and physical proximity.
Some people in my position want the government to step in and make it more expensive to use people overseas, but not me. I want to find something I can do well that they can't, but at the moment I'm not sure what that is. This is a bit stressful, so I can understand some people's desire to have the government protect their jobs, but I know in the long run that's a bad idea for me and the country.
I dunno, I think you have to know at least as much as the most knowledgable student in the class. In my final High School physics class our teacher loved Physics, but never knew the answer to our advanced questions. He tried to look some of them up but either couldn't understand the answer, or didn't have time to understand it. As a result, the lessons were useless and boring to the 1/3 of the class that was more advanced than him. That attitude was also passed on to the rest of the class, and it ended up being a class nobody liked much.
A good teacher should really prepare for the class by not only knowing what material he/she wants to cover, but also what the likely points of confusion will be, and what the likely questions will be. To do this well, you really need to understand what you're talking about, even if you don't necessarily understand that particular aspect completely.
Personal use, commission, or fame, or altruism, or as a hobby...
I'm currently using an operating system where basically nothing was done on commission, and it's better than the other OS on the machine where everything was done for sale.
I've also done other non-software things for non-monetary reasons, and will continue to do so. Now some of those things might have been done differently and better if money had been involved, but they were pretty damn good if you ask me.
Do you think that most musicians play only because they think they're going to become big stars and make lots of money? No, most do it because they really like music. They'd sure like to make oodles of money at it, but either way they're going to keep playing.
I think the music scene would be much better if IP disappeared. I like some commercial music ok, but the best music I've heard in a long, long time was at a pub this weekend where a bunch of guitarists got together to play for fun. Sure, they were selling CDs at the end of their act, but they honestly didn't care that not too many people were buying. In fact, one guitarist ended his set saying "Thanks guys, I've got to go now, I have to go play a soul-sucking coporate gig..." He was happier to make no money paying to a good crowd, than to make money playing to a bad crowd.
A principal axiom of human life is that economics doesn't often have much of a role in an individual person's decisions.
Oh, c'mon. People are only human. How often do you see buildings built in earthquake zones that are demolished when they're hit? The possibility of an earthquake was well known, and they could have built the house to handle earthquakes, as well as buy shelving and cupboards with latches, etc. The fact is, while Earthquakes and the Slashdot Effect are devastating to the unprepared, they're also very rare.
The difference is that nobody can predict earthquakes, whereas Slashdot editors can predict the Slashdot effect with 100% accuracy. I could go in and tweak my web server so that requests with a Slashdot referer were completely ignored, or so more than X requests a minute were ignored, or all kinds of things, but that's a lot of work for a very unlikely event. Can you really blame people for being pissed at getting slashdotted?
It would be courteous for Slashdot editors to send a quick "heads up" if a small-looking site is about to hit the front page. They're under no obligation to do it, but it would be nice.
You're making a few assumptions that I'm not sure are valid. The first one is that a pedophile will necessarily abuse children. That's the basis of all the laws on the books, but is there any proof? I'm sure they're more likely to abuse children, but you're basically saying that people have no willpower, that every person who has a preference will follow it. Stop for a second and replace "children" with "supermodels".
If Joe has a preference for supermodels, does that necessarily mean he'll ever have sex with one? Does it even mean he'll try? Realistically there's no reason a supermodel would ever be interested in him, so the only option he'd have to have sex with one would be rape. While Joe is no megagenius, he's also no idiot. He realizes that if he gets caught raping a supermodel that his whole life will be ruined. Nobody will respect him, he'll go to jail, etc. So Joe shrugs and says "well maybe I'll just try to find me a Sears catalogue model". Someone with pedophile tendancies might shrug and say, I'll just find me a young-looking mate, and that might be enough to satisfy them.
Is pedophelia something that makes people insane? Is there an extreme lack of judgement and/or willpower that automatically goes with having an attraction to kids? I doubt it. It is probably a preference just like any other, just taken to an extreme. Some like big breasts, some like curly hair, and most like younger rather than older, but for most people it's a preference rather than an obsession. The media goes so completely psycho over every case that it just seems like the slightest preference for youth over age means that someone is a psychopath.
The other assumption is the much more controversial one. Is any sexual contact between an adult and a child necessarily damaging? Throughout history many cultures have thought that it was natural. In situations where the adult uses his/her power over the child to force him/her to do something sexual of course it would be damaging, but what about other cases? I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the damage caused to kids is from the reactions of those around them.
I've seen situations where a kid was almost hit by a car, but didn't notice or particularly care. A mother comes running up, screaming because she was so scared that the kid would be hit, and that fear gets translated to the kid who starts bawling. If everybody around you acts as if something is awful it is bound to shape how you feel about it, especially if you're a child.
At the same time, I would guess that nearly all cases of pedophiles getting sexually involved with kids in the current world are harmful to the child. The only ones who would act on their desires are the insane. They know how serious the risks are, and how their lives will be ruined if they're caught, but they do it anyway. Can anybody in that situation not act in a way that's harmful to the child?
I just wish a little science would replace the hysteria over pedophelia. I remember reading a book that talked about some of the recently discovered (50 years ago) tribes in New Guinea, and how many different types of relationships these tribes had. In some, males and females never lived together at all, and in one I think there was some sort of adult-child sexual contact. I think it would really be helpful to study groups that haven't been "polluted" by our morals and cultural norms. They could be studied to see if children in these situations really are damaged by the very act of sexual contact with an adult, or if the damage depends on the situation.
Thanks for backing me up. I was afraid that I was only going to get flamed for what I wrote. The one thing that gives me pause in what you said is the mental hospital idea. The same logic used to be used to try to cure homosexuals. Looking back, most people see that as barbaric. These days homosexuality is accepted as just another sexual preference, as are people who like wearing diapers, people who like being tortured, or like torturing others, etc. Now I actually can't imagine a world where pedophelia is considered just another sexual preference, but the similarity bothers me. If pedophiles are put in a mental hospital, I would hope that it isn't to cure them, but rather to help them understand where their desires come from, why acting out on their fantasies would be harmful to a child, and how to make sure they never lose control. If instead the hospital tries to "cure" them so they think that only women who look like Barbie are good looking, then that just frightens me.
Or maybe the music industry is selling what people want but are ashamed to admit they want. Heck, it wouldn't be the
first time.
I think people over-react to child porn. Just look at the replies in this topic. Everybody seems to have to put "I don't like kiddie-porn but..." in every message. It's almost like "I'm not a communist but..." Does anybody really think that someone who doesn't include that disclaimer goes out and rapes kids?
Exploitation of anybody, including children is bad. No question. I fully support going after anybody who makes, sells or buys child porn, but I'm not 100% sold on going after people who possess it. If it is simply found "in their possession", which could possibly even mean that it showed up in their browser cache. Should you be in trouble because you mistype a URL and get one of the many
porn typo sites?
Maybe intentionally seeking out child porn online should be illegal, but the penalty should reflect the crime. Someone who doesn't buy, sell, or make kiddie porn hasn't hurt any kids. Now the the argument is of course that viewing child porn leads to other crimes against kids. But isn't that the kind of thing that Slashdotters hate when it comes to other things? Just because someone loves playing violent video games and perhaps even makes a level that reflects their school or office doesn't necessarily mean they're going to go shooting up their school or office. Perhaps the punishment for seeking out child porn should be giving up all their privacy in case they can't control their urges.
This isn't intended to be flamebait. I'm sure there's many a libertarian who would agree with me that any action that doesn't actually hurt somebody else shouldn't be illegal. If you're going to moderate it down because you don't like what I'm saying, consider posting a reply instead. And it's not offtopic, the topic is child-porn and law, isn't it?
Ever since I've started using OS X I've used the Terminal too, the trouble is that it seems just slightly unresponsive. I especially notice it when I'm trying to autocomplete using the tab key. It's almost as if it has to reload some sound library to make the bell sound, and that ties things up for a fraction of a second. Has anybody else noticed this slight lack of responsiveness in Terminal?
In case it matters I'm using the newest release of Jaguar on an iBook with 256 MB of RAM.
The Regin of terror? What's that? Do you mean
Reagan? I wouldn't exactly associate his term in office with terror, although perhaps it was terrible at times.
Or perhaps you mean the Region of terror? Hmm, where is that exactly, Afghanistan? Iraq? The USA?
But for the long term interests of peace in the world a long, bloody, drawn-out war may be the best outcome of this attack.
If the US has an easy time of this war, with few American casualties, unilateral war will seem like a reasonable policy choice whenever the US doesn't like a leader or a country. Part of the reason there's so much support for a war in Iraq is that things were so easy for the US in Afghanistan.
If solving international issues with bombs and soldiers becomes the norm for the US, some of the people who currently chant anti-American slogans and burn US flags will cross the line and sign up to become terrorists. More terrorists will lead to more terrorist attacks. More terrorist attacks will lead to more curtailing of personal freedoms, and more violence to counter terrorists.
On the other hand, if the current war becomes long and bloody it might convince the US to choose diplomacy over military action in solving future problems. Choosing diplomacy over military action can't help but decrease the number of terrorists targeting the US. If eventually this path leads the US to become a truly altruistic country, and a well-liked, well-respected member of the international community, aside from a few insane zealots there won't be any terrorists to worry about.
Maybe a short war is not the best outcome for the long term. Bye-bye karma.
It's french. It means basically "there it is". When used as an interjection in English it is used to
call attention to something. It is not walla. Though, I guess if you're part of the "freedom fries" crowd you need a new word... Hmm... maybe "Freedomla!"
Anyhow, back to that 30 second skip button. I use mine so often I'm surprised the decal on the button hasn't come off. The only annoyance is that most commercials aren't 4 minutes, some are 3, some are 2, some are even 3 1/2. Luckily when I go too far I just hit the 8-seconds-back button a few times and voila, no commercials!
That's the one argument that I've heard for this practice that I partially agree with. But I would suggest that if you're going to force people to learn a language that isn't used often in the real world, it should at least be a language with more to offer then Pascal. Teach Smalltalk or Ruby and let people learn about more hard-core OOP. Teach Lisp and let people see things from a functional programming perspective. But Pascal? It's a compiled imperative language that offers little if anything over C, and lacks some useful C features (from what I can recall anyhow).
I definitely see the point of showing people languages other than C/C++ in school, but I don't really see the point of choosing a compiled imperative language other than C/C++.
That's cool and all, but sometimes Universities go too far. Where I went to University they insisted on teaching us programming in Pascal. Sure, the algorithms are the same everywhere, but why learn a language that nobody uses outside a University?
Well I happen to agree with the previous poster. I hate banner ads and won't look at them, even on a site I enjoy like Slashdot. I generally don't go around telling people that they should block Slashdot's ads, but if someone were to ask me how I'd definitely tell them. I don't think it's immoral or unvirtuous to do this because I'm saving people from banner ads. I think there's more virtue in saving someone's poor eyeballs than there is in saving an interesting business' profit margins.
If Slashdot went away because it couldn't make money in its current business model I'd lament its passing but it wouldn't change my opinion. For a while I was concerned Slashdot's demise was just around the corner because it relied only on banner ads, but this new feature gives me hope.
I think this is a great answer to the question of "why should I subscribe?" It doesn't take anything away from the freeloaders like me, but it does give something tangible to subscribers. Chances are, they will never have to worry about a linked site being slashdotted. That, on its own, is sometimes worth the money. They can even use it to essentially "buy karma" if that's important to them. They can get this karma by making a mirror of linked sites then posting the mirror (and getting Karma) once the story goes live, or by researching the issues in the article and having interesting, reasoned comments ready by the time the story goes live -- this also gives them the opportunity to make it more likely their positions are heard. Aside from these tangible benefits, it also gives them a feeling of being special. It's like a backstage pass to Slashdot.
And folks, remember this as prior art once someone patents: "A system wherein high priority agents have an enhanced temporal relationship to data as compared to low priority agents."
I just went and visited
http://www.isonews.com/ and noticed something. They're using an image that used to be part of the site as part of the new site. Am I wrong, or is that infringing on the copyright owned by the creator of that image?
Shouldn't the DOJ now be charged with "conspiracy to violate criminal copyright laws" for using that image without permission?
Think is an intransitive verb, meaning it doesn't take an object. Transitive verbs can be followed by prepositional phrases (think about that) or by adverbs (think differently). Adjectives can only modify nouns. In your examples both different and large are adjectives. So both think different and think large use incorrect grammar.
Other languages such as Spanish allow for implied subjects (tengo hambre vs. yo tengo hambre), in which both phrases are grammatically correct. However, there are no rules in English that allow for implied objects.
Yup, I'm a pedantic
a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?k ey=grammar*1+0">grammarian and damn proud of it.
This may be the wrong place to ask this question since Slashdot is mostly computer geeks and not marketing geeks, but I'll try anyhow:
Has there ever been a study that shows conclusively that advertising works?
I ask this question because I know that there are times when it doesn't work. My dad used to work for the local phone company in an economics position. At one point a study came across his desk that said that in studies the phone company had done, the rate of advertising for long distance services had absolutely no effect on the rate of long distance calls. But did they stop advertising? No! His take on this was that advertising was so ingrained in the corporate culture that nobody was willing to get rid of it, even if it didn't work.
Now this is one study of one service offered by a local monopoly so it's not anything I'd use to generalize, but I sure found it interesting. Here was a huge company that had seen a study saying that their advertising had no effect but they still kept advertising.
I just wonder how much of advertising is based on sound science. I would imagine that there are situations where advertising does work. If people are unaware of a product, advertising can announce its existence. Another one I'm sure works is advertising sales or discounts. Again, informing a potential consumer of a fact that might change their mind about buying a product. But what about advertising for established brands? If Coke stopped advertising altogether, how much of an effect would it have on their bottom line? Do the costs of their ads pay for themselves in increased sales?
I would love to see fewer ads. I already use an ad blocking proxy so I miss most of the ones on the web, but I still see commercials, billboards, magazine ads, and all kinds of other obnoxious things every day. Wouldn't it be great if someone could prove that most of these ads just don't work? I'd even be happier if they were replaced by more effective, informative ads. I just always have the impression that ads are chosen because the people with the advertising budget like them, not because anybody can show what effect they'll have on sales. Maybe I'm wrong?
Now there are other ways of doing that that are almost as readable and almost as useful but isn't that neat? What makes treating everything as an object even more useful is that you can treat everything the same way. You can always say obj.inspect and get something useful out of it. This is great when you're debugging something and wonder: "What the heck is this function returning?", whether it's an integer, a hash or a complex object, object.inspect will always work.
Java makes things confusing by having both primitive types (int) and object types (Integer), because in some situations you want to be dealing with an object, but the language isn't flexible enough to let you treat the object form of an Integer the same way you would a primitive int.
What I think makes Ruby so cool is that essentially everything in Ruby is, or can be an object, but it doesn't get in the way.
I agree that languages that are inflexible can be rough because they limit your options, but how is treating everything like an object inflexible?
How about kids looking for information on
bugs, or
reptiles; or hungry people looking for
meat; or jewelry buffs looking for
precious stones or fetishists looking for
satisfaction; or tired people looking for
coffee.
If you're completely out of touch with the computer scene you might have a lot of trouble finding what you're looking for on the Internet. It's impressive how many common terms have been co-opted for use in computer-related projects. In fact, I challenge you to search for Java and find coffee.
The most painful part of that?
on
HDTV via GNU Radio
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Looking at the images and seeing that huge ugly
NBC bug in the lower-right corner. You'd think that at HD resolution the least they could do is make it smaller, but no. At least this was on the original broadcast network. When I watch The Daily Show on Canada's comedy network they plaster their opaque bug on top of the original comedy central one, and as a result I every so often miss out on something that the bug is crawling over. Is there any hope of HDTV killing these things? If it's a digital signal couldn't they transmit the bug out of band and let the TV reconstruct it when people change channels or something?
Ok you said that the whole point of the GNU project was to develop a free operating system. I don't dispute that, but has GNU released an operating system? I say they didn't lead development because to my knowledge once all the parts necessary to release a free OS became available I'm not aware of them laying out an entire OS, front to back, installer, booter, configuration files and all, and releasing it.
My impression (and I could be completely wrong about this), is that they created almost all the necessary parts of an OS, but until the Linux kernel came along nobody had ever integrated them all together into a fully functional, working OS. And futher as far as I know, once a free kernel did become available in the form of Linux, they didn't grab it and assemble an OS from all the parts.
You want a point-for-point rebuttal of the FAQ? Well I won't promise to do that but I'll take a few shots:
They say "by the time Linux was written, the system was almost finished" -- so why is it then that 12 years after Linux was started there still is no working GNU system? The kernel is probably the toughest part of a system, the hardest to get right, and the most important. It may not use as many lines of code as the rest of those GNU components but that's not necessarily the best measure of importance. Even if GNU code comprises the second most important part of the system, there's no need for dual naming.
Next they say current developers of "Linux" don't share the same philosophy as the FSF and that calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the importance of the philosphy of the FSF. But if the people creating complete systems using the GNU tools and the Linux kernel don't share the FSF's views, then it makes sense *not* to call the system GNU/Linux to acknowledge that the people developing these systems don't necessarily share the philosophy of the FSF.
The next argument actually counters their own arguments as to why the systems should be called GNU/Linux. They say it should be called GNU/Linux because "by the time Linux was written, the system was almost finished". They make it seem as though Linux development basically took an almost-complete GNU system and designed a kernel to use it, but then they explain that the whole reason it's called Linux is that in the beginning very few GNU tools were used. If that's the case then the fact it uses many GNU tools is a matter of convenience rather than philosophy. By their own admission, the Linux operating system was developed starting in 1991, and bit by bit GNU software was added to it. The end result ended up resembling the GNU system but at no point were the developers trying to create the GNU system. Part of the philosophy of the FSF is that the code is out there and people are free to do what they want with it. In this case they wanted to make an OS. The fact they used GNU software doesn't mean they believe in the GNU philosophy.
I think their whole view is that Linux is a kernel used to make the GNU system work, the kernel is less important than the sum of all the GNU parts, so GNU should be in the name, and it should be the first part of the name. I would counter that mere inclusion of a lot of GNU components doesn't make it a GNU system. Unless the initial goal of the people creating the system was to implement the GNU system it doesn't deserve that recognition. The GNU parts were convenient "off the shelf" components, added bit by bit to something based around the one essential part which is common to all Linux variants and which defines what it is to be Linux -- the kernel. Secondly I think the fact Hurd's stable release is at 0.2 points to the fact that the kernel is very important. If it were easy to make a GNU system just by adding a new kernel, there would be many other GNU/* systems out there. There are, however, a fair number of Linux systems with few GNU components, such as the TiVo. To me that says that the kernel is the most important part of the system, no matter how many additional GNU components may be included.
Never? You've never read a single criticism of the FSF's position that responds to their actual arguments on the issue?
How about this. The one thing guaranteed to be common about all Linux distributions is the kernel -- Linux. While all current end-user distributions use a lot of GNU software, end-user distributions are not the only form of Linux. My TiVo runs Linux. It has almost no GNU programs on it by default, but it is a Linux OS.
Secondly, things are named by the people who drive their development. The FSF claims that Linus developed the last remaining puzzle piece in the GNU system, the kernel. But if he's the one who finally got a widely-used stable system, he's the one who gets to name it. Most inventions are simply improvements on existing products, or amalgamations of several products, but the person who choses which parts to use and who makes a complete system out of those products can call the whole system whatever he/she wants.
Finally, things with a GNU in their name are almost universally things whose development is driven and led by the FSF. From what I know, the FSF didn't lead development of operating systems based on the Linux kernel. GNU Emacs is called GNU Emacs because RMS is the one who chooses which features get implemented, what code is good enough to be checked into CVS, and basically runs the development program. Calling all operating systems based on the Linux kernel GNU/Linux would imply that RMS or the FSF is providing a similar leadership role to those projects, which it isn't. If the FSF wants to direct development of a Linux based OS, choosing what software is included, how the installer works, what package management system to use, how the/etc directory is laid out, etc. then it would not be misleading to call their version GNU/Linux, or heck, even GNU-OS if they prefer. (I know they're probably saving that name for when they have Hurd ready but if they wanted to use it for a Linux based OS that's their right).
That was my thought too. Can MS legitimately choose not to license Linux? If it were a PC then I don't think they could, because then they'd be a monopolist restricting competitors.
Is the XBox different? It's a console and they don't have a monopoly on consoles -- can console makers decide who gets to release official games for their console? I think they can and should. If a console company wants to keep a good reputation for their console they should be allowed to restrict software that bears the official seal of approval. That way consumers can say "if it has the logo it won't be a complete rip-off".
But on the other hand, I think you should be allowed to do anything you want with something you own. You should be allowed to tweak your car's engine or run an unsigned application on your console. Certain tweaks can still be illegal -- if your car pollutes too much because you tweaked the engine, then you can get arrested for that. Just like if you modify your console and run illegally copied games, you can get nailed for copyright violation.
Here's where the DMCA muddies things. From what I understand, the only way to run unsigned code on an XBox is to first install a mod chip. That has now become illegal thanks to the DMCA. So if I want to run a legal application/OS like Linux on the XBox without violating the DMCA I have to have signed code.
What I think will happen is that MS will refuse to sign the code -- or just ignore it, and the result of that will be that the only way to run code to which you own the copyright on a device that you own, is to break the law by violating the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
I've asked before, but let me ask again. The isonews.com site features a logo from the original site. Isn't that copyright violation?
What about when it's not a machine but foreign labour?
I'm not convinced I can program any better than a well educated, smart guy in India. I can document in English better than many of them, but I don't really like documentation. Right now my only advantages are English ability and physical proximity.
Some people in my position want the government to step in and make it more expensive to use people overseas, but not me. I want to find something I can do well that they can't, but at the moment I'm not sure what that is. This is a bit stressful, so I can understand some people's desire to have the government protect their jobs, but I know in the long run that's a bad idea for me and the country.
I dunno, I think you have to know at least as much as the most knowledgable student in the class. In my final High School physics class our teacher loved Physics, but never knew the answer to our advanced questions. He tried to look some of them up but either couldn't understand the answer, or didn't have time to understand it. As a result, the lessons were useless and boring to the 1/3 of the class that was more advanced than him. That attitude was also passed on to the rest of the class, and it ended up being a class nobody liked much.
A good teacher should really prepare for the class by not only knowing what material he/she wants to cover, but also what the likely points of confusion will be, and what the likely questions will be. To do this well, you really need to understand what you're talking about, even if you don't necessarily understand that particular aspect completely.
Personal use, commission, or fame, or altruism, or as a hobby...
I'm currently using an operating system where basically nothing was done on commission, and it's better than the other OS on the machine where everything was done for sale.
I've also done other non-software things for non-monetary reasons, and will continue to do so. Now some of those things might have been done differently and better if money had been involved, but they were pretty damn good if you ask me.
Do you think that most musicians play only because they think they're going to become big stars and make lots of money? No, most do it because they really like music. They'd sure like to make oodles of money at it, but either way they're going to keep playing.
I think the music scene would be much better if IP disappeared. I like some commercial music ok, but the best music I've heard in a long, long time was at a pub this weekend where a bunch of guitarists got together to play for fun. Sure, they were selling CDs at the end of their act, but they honestly didn't care that not too many people were buying. In fact, one guitarist ended his set saying "Thanks guys, I've got to go now, I have to go play a soul-sucking coporate gig..." He was happier to make no money paying to a good crowd, than to make money playing to a bad crowd.
A principal axiom of human life is that economics doesn't often have much of a role in an individual person's decisions.
Oh, c'mon. People are only human. How often do you see buildings built in earthquake zones that are demolished when they're hit? The possibility of an earthquake was well known, and they could have built the house to handle earthquakes, as well as buy shelving and cupboards with latches, etc. The fact is, while Earthquakes and the Slashdot Effect are devastating to the unprepared, they're also very rare.
The difference is that nobody can predict earthquakes, whereas Slashdot editors can predict the Slashdot effect with 100% accuracy. I could go in and tweak my web server so that requests with a Slashdot referer were completely ignored, or so more than X requests a minute were ignored, or all kinds of things, but that's a lot of work for a very unlikely event. Can you really blame people for being pissed at getting slashdotted?
It would be courteous for Slashdot editors to send a quick "heads up" if a small-looking site is about to hit the front page. They're under no obligation to do it, but it would be nice.
You're making a few assumptions that I'm not sure are valid. The first one is that a pedophile will necessarily abuse children. That's the basis of all the laws on the books, but is there any proof? I'm sure they're more likely to abuse children, but you're basically saying that people have no willpower, that every person who has a preference will follow it. Stop for a second and replace "children" with "supermodels".
If Joe has a preference for supermodels, does that necessarily mean he'll ever have sex with one? Does it even mean he'll try? Realistically there's no reason a supermodel would ever be interested in him, so the only option he'd have to have sex with one would be rape. While Joe is no megagenius, he's also no idiot. He realizes that if he gets caught raping a supermodel that his whole life will be ruined. Nobody will respect him, he'll go to jail, etc. So Joe shrugs and says "well maybe I'll just try to find me a Sears catalogue model". Someone with pedophile tendancies might shrug and say, I'll just find me a young-looking mate, and that might be enough to satisfy them.
Is pedophelia something that makes people insane? Is there an extreme lack of judgement and/or willpower that automatically goes with having an attraction to kids? I doubt it. It is probably a preference just like any other, just taken to an extreme. Some like big breasts, some like curly hair, and most like younger rather than older, but for most people it's a preference rather than an obsession. The media goes so completely psycho over every case that it just seems like the slightest preference for youth over age means that someone is a psychopath.
The other assumption is the much more controversial one. Is any sexual contact between an adult and a child necessarily damaging? Throughout history many cultures have thought that it was natural. In situations where the adult uses his/her power over the child to force him/her to do something sexual of course it would be damaging, but what about other cases? I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the damage caused to kids is from the reactions of those around them.
I've seen situations where a kid was almost hit by a car, but didn't notice or particularly care. A mother comes running up, screaming because she was so scared that the kid would be hit, and that fear gets translated to the kid who starts bawling. If everybody around you acts as if something is awful it is bound to shape how you feel about it, especially if you're a child.
At the same time, I would guess that nearly all cases of pedophiles getting sexually involved with kids in the current world are harmful to the child. The only ones who would act on their desires are the insane. They know how serious the risks are, and how their lives will be ruined if they're caught, but they do it anyway. Can anybody in that situation not act in a way that's harmful to the child?
I just wish a little science would replace the hysteria over pedophelia. I remember reading a book that talked about some of the recently discovered (50 years ago) tribes in New Guinea, and how many different types of relationships these tribes had. In some, males and females never lived together at all, and in one I think there was some sort of adult-child sexual contact. I think it would really be helpful to study groups that haven't been "polluted" by our morals and cultural norms. They could be studied to see if children in these situations really are damaged by the very act of sexual contact with an adult, or if the damage depends on the situation.
Thanks for backing me up. I was afraid that I was only going to get flamed for what I wrote. The one thing that gives me pause in what you said is the mental hospital idea. The same logic used to be used to try to cure homosexuals. Looking back, most people see that as barbaric. These days homosexuality is accepted as just another sexual preference, as are people who like wearing diapers, people who like being tortured, or like torturing others, etc. Now I actually can't imagine a world where pedophelia is considered just another sexual preference, but the similarity bothers me. If pedophiles are put in a mental hospital, I would hope that it isn't to cure them, but rather to help them understand where their desires come from, why acting out on their fantasies would be harmful to a child, and how to make sure they never lose control. If instead the hospital tries to "cure" them so they think that only women who look like Barbie are good looking, then that just frightens me.
Or maybe the music industry is selling what people want but are ashamed to admit they want. Heck, it wouldn't be the first time.
I think people over-react to child porn. Just look at the replies in this topic. Everybody seems to have to put "I don't like kiddie-porn but..." in every message. It's almost like "I'm not a communist but..." Does anybody really think that someone who doesn't include that disclaimer goes out and rapes kids?
Exploitation of anybody, including children is bad. No question. I fully support going after anybody who makes, sells or buys child porn, but I'm not 100% sold on going after people who possess it. If it is simply found "in their possession", which could possibly even mean that it showed up in their browser cache. Should you be in trouble because you mistype a URL and get one of the many porn typo sites?
Maybe intentionally seeking out child porn online should be illegal, but the penalty should reflect the crime. Someone who doesn't buy, sell, or make kiddie porn hasn't hurt any kids. Now the the argument is of course that viewing child porn leads to other crimes against kids. But isn't that the kind of thing that Slashdotters hate when it comes to other things? Just because someone loves playing violent video games and perhaps even makes a level that reflects their school or office doesn't necessarily mean they're going to go shooting up their school or office. Perhaps the punishment for seeking out child porn should be giving up all their privacy in case they can't control their urges.
This isn't intended to be flamebait. I'm sure there's many a libertarian who would agree with me that any action that doesn't actually hurt somebody else shouldn't be illegal. If you're going to moderate it down because you don't like what I'm saying, consider posting a reply instead. And it's not offtopic, the topic is child-porn and law, isn't it?
This brings up a question...
Ever since I've started using OS X I've used the Terminal too, the trouble is that it seems just slightly unresponsive. I especially notice it when I'm trying to autocomplete using the tab key. It's almost as if it has to reload some sound library to make the bell sound, and that ties things up for a fraction of a second. Has anybody else noticed this slight lack of responsiveness in Terminal?
In case it matters I'm using the newest release of Jaguar on an iBook with 256 MB of RAM.
The Regin of terror? What's that? Do you mean Reagan? I wouldn't exactly associate his term in office with terror, although perhaps it was terrible at times.
Or perhaps you mean the Region of terror? Hmm, where is that exactly, Afghanistan? Iraq? The USA?
But for the long term interests of peace in the world a long, bloody, drawn-out war may be the best outcome of this attack.
If the US has an easy time of this war, with few American casualties, unilateral war will seem like a reasonable policy choice whenever the US doesn't like a leader or a country. Part of the reason there's so much support for a war in Iraq is that things were so easy for the US in Afghanistan.
If solving international issues with bombs and soldiers becomes the norm for the US, some of the people who currently chant anti-American slogans and burn US flags will cross the line and sign up to become terrorists. More terrorists will lead to more terrorist attacks. More terrorist attacks will lead to more curtailing of personal freedoms, and more violence to counter terrorists.
On the other hand, if the current war becomes long and bloody it might convince the US to choose diplomacy over military action in solving future problems. Choosing diplomacy over military action can't help but decrease the number of terrorists targeting the US. If eventually this path leads the US to become a truly altruistic country, and a well-liked, well-respected member of the international community, aside from a few insane zealots there won't be any terrorists to worry about.
Maybe a short war is not the best outcome for the long term. Bye-bye karma.
It's french. It means basically "there it is". When used as an interjection in English it is used to call attention to something. It is not walla. Though, I guess if you're part of the "freedom fries" crowd you need a new word... Hmm... maybe "Freedomla!"
Anyhow, back to that 30 second skip button. I use mine so often I'm surprised the decal on the button hasn't come off. The only annoyance is that most commercials aren't 4 minutes, some are 3, some are 2, some are even 3 1/2. Luckily when I go too far I just hit the 8-seconds-back button a few times and voila, no commercials!
Hey Ben (cool name btw since it's mine too)
That's the one argument that I've heard for this practice that I partially agree with. But I would suggest that if you're going to force people to learn a language that isn't used often in the real world, it should at least be a language with more to offer then Pascal. Teach Smalltalk or Ruby and let people learn about more hard-core OOP. Teach Lisp and let people see things from a functional programming perspective. But Pascal? It's a compiled imperative language that offers little if anything over C, and lacks some useful C features (from what I can recall anyhow).
I definitely see the point of showing people languages other than C/C++ in school, but I don't really see the point of choosing a compiled imperative language other than C/C++.
That's cool and all, but sometimes Universities go too far. Where I went to University they insisted on teaching us programming in Pascal. Sure, the algorithms are the same everywhere, but why learn a language that nobody uses outside a University?
Well I happen to agree with the previous poster. I hate banner ads and won't look at them, even on a site I enjoy like Slashdot. I generally don't go around telling people that they should block Slashdot's ads, but if someone were to ask me how I'd definitely tell them. I don't think it's immoral or unvirtuous to do this because I'm saving people from banner ads. I think there's more virtue in saving someone's poor eyeballs than there is in saving an interesting business' profit margins.
If Slashdot went away because it couldn't make money in its current business model I'd lament its passing but it wouldn't change my opinion. For a while I was concerned Slashdot's demise was just around the corner because it relied only on banner ads, but this new feature gives me hope.
I think this is a great answer to the question of "why should I subscribe?" It doesn't take anything away from the freeloaders like me, but it does give something tangible to subscribers. Chances are, they will never have to worry about a linked site being slashdotted. That, on its own, is sometimes worth the money. They can even use it to essentially "buy karma" if that's important to them. They can get this karma by making a mirror of linked sites then posting the mirror (and getting Karma) once the story goes live, or by researching the issues in the article and having interesting, reasoned comments ready by the time the story goes live -- this also gives them the opportunity to make it more likely their positions are heard. Aside from these tangible benefits, it also gives them a feeling of being special. It's like a backstage pass to Slashdot.
And folks, remember this as prior art once someone patents: "A system wherein high priority agents have an enhanced temporal relationship to data as compared to low priority agents."
I just went and visited http://www.isonews.com/ and noticed something. They're using an image that used to be part of the site as part of the new site. Am I wrong, or is that infringing on the copyright owned by the creator of that image?
Shouldn't the DOJ now be charged with "conspiracy to violate criminal copyright laws" for using that image without permission?
(though one who should aim better when trying to hit preview)
Think is an intransitive verb, meaning it doesn't take an object. Transitive verbs can be followed by prepositional phrases (think about that) or by adverbs (think differently). Adjectives can only modify nouns. In your examples both different and large are adjectives. So both think different and think large use incorrect grammar.
Other languages such as Spanish allow for implied subjects (tengo hambre vs. yo tengo hambre), in which both phrases are grammatically correct. However, there are no rules in English that allow for implied objects.
Yup, I'm a pedantic a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?k ey=grammar*1+0">grammarian and damn proud of it.
This may be the wrong place to ask this question since Slashdot is mostly computer geeks and not marketing geeks, but I'll try anyhow:
Has there ever been a study that shows conclusively that advertising works?
I ask this question because I know that there are times when it doesn't work. My dad used to work for the local phone company in an economics position. At one point a study came across his desk that said that in studies the phone company had done, the rate of advertising for long distance services had absolutely no effect on the rate of long distance calls. But did they stop advertising? No! His take on this was that advertising was so ingrained in the corporate culture that nobody was willing to get rid of it, even if it didn't work.
Now this is one study of one service offered by a local monopoly so it's not anything I'd use to generalize, but I sure found it interesting. Here was a huge company that had seen a study saying that their advertising had no effect but they still kept advertising.
I just wonder how much of advertising is based on sound science. I would imagine that there are situations where advertising does work. If people are unaware of a product, advertising can announce its existence. Another one I'm sure works is advertising sales or discounts. Again, informing a potential consumer of a fact that might change their mind about buying a product. But what about advertising for established brands? If Coke stopped advertising altogether, how much of an effect would it have on their bottom line? Do the costs of their ads pay for themselves in increased sales?
I would love to see fewer ads. I already use an ad blocking proxy so I miss most of the ones on the web, but I still see commercials, billboards, magazine ads, and all kinds of other obnoxious things every day. Wouldn't it be great if someone could prove that most of these ads just don't work? I'd even be happier if they were replaced by more effective, informative ads. I just always have the impression that ads are chosen because the people with the advertising budget like them, not because anybody can show what effect they'll have on sales. Maybe I'm wrong?
In Ruby:
1.times { puts "Hello World!" }
Now there are other ways of doing that that are almost as readable and almost as useful but isn't that neat? What makes treating everything as an object even more useful is that you can treat everything the same way. You can always say obj.inspect and get something useful out of it. This is great when you're debugging something and wonder: "What the heck is this function returning?", whether it's an integer, a hash or a complex object, object.inspect will always work.
Java makes things confusing by having both primitive types (int) and object types (Integer), because in some situations you want to be dealing with an object, but the language isn't flexible enough to let you treat the object form of an Integer the same way you would a primitive int.
What I think makes Ruby so cool is that essentially everything in Ruby is, or can be an object, but it doesn't get in the way.
I agree that languages that are inflexible can be rough because they limit your options, but how is treating everything like an object inflexible?
How about kids looking for information on bugs, or reptiles; or hungry people looking for meat; or jewelry buffs looking for precious stones or fetishists looking for satisfaction; or tired people looking for coffee.
If you're completely out of touch with the computer scene you might have a lot of trouble finding what you're looking for on the Internet. It's impressive how many common terms have been co-opted for use in computer-related projects. In fact, I challenge you to search for Java and find coffee.
Looking at the images and seeing that huge ugly NBC bug in the lower-right corner. You'd think that at HD resolution the least they could do is make it smaller, but no. At least this was on the original broadcast network. When I watch The Daily Show on Canada's comedy network they plaster their opaque bug on top of the original comedy central one, and as a result I every so often miss out on something that the bug is crawling over. Is there any hope of HDTV killing these things? If it's a digital signal couldn't they transmit the bug out of band and let the TV reconstruct it when people change channels or something?
Ok you said that the whole point of the GNU project was to develop a free operating system. I don't dispute that, but has GNU released an operating system? I say they didn't lead development because to my knowledge once all the parts necessary to release a free OS became available I'm not aware of them laying out an entire OS, front to back, installer, booter, configuration files and all, and releasing it.
My impression (and I could be completely wrong about this), is that they created almost all the necessary parts of an OS, but until the Linux kernel came along nobody had ever integrated them all together into a fully functional, working OS. And futher as far as I know, once a free kernel did become available in the form of Linux, they didn't grab it and assemble an OS from all the parts.
You want a point-for-point rebuttal of the FAQ? Well I won't promise to do that but I'll take a few shots:
I think their whole view is that Linux is a kernel used to make the GNU system work, the kernel is less important than the sum of all the GNU parts, so GNU should be in the name, and it should be the first part of the name. I would counter that mere inclusion of a lot of GNU components doesn't make it a GNU system. Unless the initial goal of the people creating the system was to implement the GNU system it doesn't deserve that recognition. The GNU parts were convenient "off the shelf" components, added bit by bit to something based around the one essential part which is common to all Linux variants and which defines what it is to be Linux -- the kernel. Secondly I think the fact Hurd's stable release is at 0.2 points to the fact that the kernel is very important. If it were easy to make a GNU system just by adding a new kernel, there would be many other GNU/* systems out there. There are, however, a fair number of Linux systems with few GNU components, such as the TiVo. To me that says that the kernel is the most important part of the system, no matter how many additional GNU components may be included.
Never? You've never read a single criticism of the FSF's position that responds to their actual arguments on the issue?
How about this. The one thing guaranteed to be common about all Linux distributions is the kernel -- Linux. While all current end-user distributions use a lot of GNU software, end-user distributions are not the only form of Linux. My TiVo runs Linux. It has almost no GNU programs on it by default, but it is a Linux OS.
Secondly, things are named by the people who drive their development. The FSF claims that Linus developed the last remaining puzzle piece in the GNU system, the kernel. But if he's the one who finally got a widely-used stable system, he's the one who gets to name it. Most inventions are simply improvements on existing products, or amalgamations of several products, but the person who choses which parts to use and who makes a complete system out of those products can call the whole system whatever he/she wants.
Finally, things with a GNU in their name are almost universally things whose development is driven and led by the FSF. From what I know, the FSF didn't lead development of operating systems based on the Linux kernel. GNU Emacs is called GNU Emacs because RMS is the one who chooses which features get implemented, what code is good enough to be checked into CVS, and basically runs the development program. Calling all operating systems based on the Linux kernel GNU/Linux would imply that RMS or the FSF is providing a similar leadership role to those projects, which it isn't. If the FSF wants to direct development of a Linux based OS, choosing what software is included, how the installer works, what package management system to use, how the /etc directory is laid out, etc. then it would not be misleading to call their version GNU/Linux, or heck, even GNU-OS if they prefer. (I know they're probably saving that name for when they have Hurd ready but if they wanted to use it for a Linux based OS that's their right).
That was my thought too. Can MS legitimately choose not to license Linux? If it were a PC then I don't think they could, because then they'd be a monopolist restricting competitors.
Is the XBox different? It's a console and they don't have a monopoly on consoles -- can console makers decide who gets to release official games for their console? I think they can and should. If a console company wants to keep a good reputation for their console they should be allowed to restrict software that bears the official seal of approval. That way consumers can say "if it has the logo it won't be a complete rip-off".
But on the other hand, I think you should be allowed to do anything you want with something you own. You should be allowed to tweak your car's engine or run an unsigned application on your console. Certain tweaks can still be illegal -- if your car pollutes too much because you tweaked the engine, then you can get arrested for that. Just like if you modify your console and run illegally copied games, you can get nailed for copyright violation.
Here's where the DMCA muddies things. From what I understand, the only way to run unsigned code on an XBox is to first install a mod chip. That has now become illegal thanks to the DMCA. So if I want to run a legal application/OS like Linux on the XBox without violating the DMCA I have to have signed code.
What I think will happen is that MS will refuse to sign the code -- or just ignore it, and the result of that will be that the only way to run code to which you own the copyright on a device that you own, is to break the law by violating the DMCA.