I have to agree. I have a sweet Tele and a Les Paul and everyone stops to look at the Les Paul. It's just a much better looking instrument with its nice binding, perfect finish, carved top, etc etc. It wouldn't be so bad if they all didn't want to also touch it. They're always disappointed when I hand them the Tele to pick away on instead. It's one thing if you know how to play. Then you can touch the Lester. If you just want to feel what it's like to hold a guitar, it's the Telecaster for you.
hmmm.... maybe. The problem with the UN is its structure. It's an organization that can have human rights abusing governments having seats on the Human Rights Commission. I'd hate to see something similar happen to an internet commission with Iran and China with seats since they're two of the biggest censors of internet content out there right now.
If internet control fell under the purview of the Security Council, then perhaps it would be better. China would veto anything that attempts to liberalize the network but the US, UK, and/or France would probably veto anything that attempted to clamp down. And then we would have enough governance stagnation to allow the network to be free on its own with little or no oversight (the best thing for freedom in my mind).
My problem with the UN is that bad governments out number good governments by a wide margin. As much as we complain in the US or UK about Big Brother or free speech limitations, in the whole these are still "good" governments in that they at least attempt to listen to their peoples. If the UN were organized to have every country get one equal vote in all matters, countries like Sudan or North Korea would have an equal say in all matters with the United States. If we were to change the UN to be more representative of populations, like the US House of Representatives, we would all be grossly outnumbered by the likes of say China.
This all sounds kind of alarmist, I'll admit, but even with reform, the UN would still be an organization with serious flaws. And given those flaws, I think I would still prefer internet governance to fall under the purview of the Commerce Department for all of its current failings. Better the devil you know, I guess.
Where this is coming from is that this country is in the same place, culturally, as we were with comic books in the 50's. At the time, all the great crime and horror comics were being published by one house (EC) and politicians - and one doctor who's name escapes me - screamed about how terrible this was for kids and how the nation was going to be full of little murderers if something wasn't done. There were congressional hearings, banner headlines, all the same as we're seeing right now for video games.
In response, the comics industry put together the "voluntary" Comics Code Of America which most DC and Marvel books carried into the mid-90's that included various draconian "guidelines" forbidding , for instance, a comic to show anything bad happening to a police officer.
The sad fact was that most of these books were picked up at news stands by bank clerks, butchers, and other adults who wanted something entertaining to read on their way to work and not so much by children. What the comics code did was essentially dumb down comics to the point that adults stopped reading them through out the 50's, 60's, and early 70's and basically put EC out of business since news stands wouldn't carry comics that didn't have the Comics Code stamp on their covers.
It's too bad to see that the same thing is happening today with video games. I mean, I read that the median - median, average - age of video gamers is 27. That said, if we can have movies - and thankfully, comic books again - for adults, why not video games also? The box says 17+, so is it Rockstar's fault if parents are buying nine year old little Johnny a game that includes violence and now sex? The common sense answer, as you've said, is no.
Universal had nothing to do with the TV show. It was produced by Mutant Enemy a division of Fox Television and released on DVD by Fox Home Video. Universal purchased the *movie* rights.
Personally I think the reason wine drinkers fare better is because they're less likely to drink to excess.
Says you.
There was about a six month period that I was drinking two bottles of not bad French AC wine a night. And this is while I was still doing one of the largest projects I've ever coded. Living in New York means you can pretty much drink as much as you want though, as long as you can pay the rent.
Ahem... of course... I got a little thicker through the middle than I would have liked from all the drunken lying around DVD watching, so now I'm drinking *maybe* a glass a night and at the damned gym every morning. I hate not drinking but I hate being fat even more, so... the answer became obvious after a point.
I live in NYC and those ships sail up and down the Hudson everyday, unchecked until they arrive in port. The bomb doesn't need to be unloaded before it's detonated. Whoever put it on board could easily wait for the ship to get up to say, 34th St before pushing the button taking out most of Manhattan and a good chunk of Jersey. The detectors you put so much faith in are *in* the ports, not along the rivers.
I have read this thread and no one has been expressing "admiration" for what happened. But we do have to admit that they beat us at a game we thought we had loaded, in this case National Security, and we have to figure out how they did it so it doesn't happen again. If we just assume they were stupid and lucky, then we've learned nothing. Saying that someone's winning strategy was clever or brilliant because it was successful is not the same thing as saying that it was great and good, which is why no one has said the latter.
It was a government project, sure, but the only thing the government specified was the *ends* not the *means*. If the government had tried to define all the protocols I doubt it would have worked. It's like all defense department contracting. They tell the contractor they want their jet to take of and land vertically and to go so fast with so many weapons and it's up to the contractor to figure out how it gets done.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. I have a sweet Tele and a Les Paul and everyone stops to look at the Les Paul. It's just a much better looking instrument with its nice binding, perfect finish, carved top, etc etc. It wouldn't be so bad if they all didn't want to also touch it. They're always disappointed when I hand them the Tele to pick away on instead. It's one thing if you know how to play. Then you can touch the Lester. If you just want to feel what it's like to hold a guitar, it's the Telecaster for you.
hmmm.... maybe. The problem with the UN is its structure. It's an organization that can have human rights abusing governments having seats on the Human Rights Commission. I'd hate to see something similar happen to an internet commission with Iran and China with seats since they're two of the biggest censors of internet content out there right now.
If internet control fell under the purview of the Security Council, then perhaps it would be better. China would veto anything that attempts to liberalize the network but the US, UK, and/or France would probably veto anything that attempted to clamp down. And then we would have enough governance stagnation to allow the network to be free on its own with little or no oversight (the best thing for freedom in my mind).
My problem with the UN is that bad governments out number good governments by a wide margin. As much as we complain in the US or UK about Big Brother or free speech limitations, in the whole these are still "good" governments in that they at least attempt to listen to their peoples. If the UN were organized to have every country get one equal vote in all matters, countries like Sudan or North Korea would have an equal say in all matters with the United States. If we were to change the UN to be more representative of populations, like the US House of Representatives, we would all be grossly outnumbered by the likes of say China.
This all sounds kind of alarmist, I'll admit, but even with reform, the UN would still be an organization with serious flaws. And given those flaws, I think I would still prefer internet governance to fall under the purview of the Commerce Department for all of its current failings. Better the devil you know, I guess.
It's nice to hear a little bit of common sense.
Where this is coming from is that this country is in the same place, culturally, as we were with comic books in the 50's. At the time, all the great crime and horror comics were being published by one house (EC) and politicians - and one doctor who's name escapes me - screamed about how terrible this was for kids and how the nation was going to be full of little murderers if something wasn't done. There were congressional hearings, banner headlines, all the same as we're seeing right now for video games.
In response, the comics industry put together the "voluntary" Comics Code Of America which most DC and Marvel books carried into the mid-90's that included various draconian "guidelines" forbidding , for instance, a comic to show anything bad happening to a police officer.
The sad fact was that most of these books were picked up at news stands by bank clerks, butchers, and other adults who wanted something entertaining to read on their way to work and not so much by children. What the comics code did was essentially dumb down comics to the point that adults stopped reading them through out the 50's, 60's, and early 70's and basically put EC out of business since news stands wouldn't carry comics that didn't have the Comics Code stamp on their covers.
It's too bad to see that the same thing is happening today with video games. I mean, I read that the median - median, average - age of video gamers is 27. That said, if we can have movies - and thankfully, comic books again - for adults, why not video games also? The box says 17+, so is it Rockstar's fault if parents are buying nine year old little Johnny a game that includes violence and now sex? The common sense answer, as you've said, is no.
Anyway, just some history to go with it.
Universal had nothing to do with the TV show. It was produced by Mutant Enemy a division of Fox Television and released on DVD by Fox Home Video. Universal purchased the *movie* rights.
Personally I think the reason wine drinkers fare better is because they're less likely to drink to excess.
Says you.
There was about a six month period that I was drinking two bottles of not bad French AC wine a night. And this is while I was still doing one of the largest projects I've ever coded. Living in New York means you can pretty much drink as much as you want though, as long as you can pay the rent.
Ahem... of course... I got a little thicker through the middle than I would have liked from all the drunken lying around DVD watching, so now I'm drinking *maybe* a glass a night and at the damned gym every morning. I hate not drinking but I hate being fat even more, so... the answer became obvious after a point.
I live in NYC and those ships sail up and down the Hudson everyday, unchecked until they arrive in port. The bomb doesn't need to be unloaded before it's detonated. Whoever put it on board could easily wait for the ship to get up to say, 34th St before pushing the button taking out most of Manhattan and a good chunk of Jersey. The detectors you put so much faith in are *in* the ports, not along the rivers.
I have read this thread and no one has been expressing "admiration" for what happened. But we do have to admit that they beat us at a game we thought we had loaded, in this case National Security, and we have to figure out how they did it so it doesn't happen again. If we just assume they were stupid and lucky, then we've learned nothing. Saying that someone's winning strategy was clever or brilliant because it was successful is not the same thing as saying that it was great and good, which is why no one has said the latter.
It was a government project, sure, but the only thing the government specified was the *ends* not the *means*. If the government had tried to define all the protocols I doubt it would have worked. It's like all defense department contracting. They tell the contractor they want their jet to take of and land vertically and to go so fast with so many weapons and it's up to the contractor to figure out how it gets done.