Absolutely agree. What scares me aren't WMDs, no, its bankers & bugs. Both have the ability to destroy our nice cosy world, and unlike the nukes, there's nobody in control.
I disagree, we never had a choice to do anything other than build these systems with their bugs. I know because I was there back in the dawn of remote digital telemetry systems. We had enough issues with just getting the stuff out of the door on time and to budget (and usually failed on both counts). Development models such UML & quality standards like ISO9001 just didn't exist back then.
We we pioneers, not engineers.
The real problem here is with the CEOs of the corporations that use this old tech. They won't do anything about it until they are forced to, either because some hacker causes the sort of damage that results in multi-million dollar law suits, or (and this is much less likely) the legislators force them to do something about it.
I just checked to see if the filter would block children from accessing the website of the UK's most important helpline for children, childline [www.childline.org.uk]. Guess what? It does - you really really really couldn't make this shit up. Lets hope the little darlings aren't feeling suicidal as a result, because it also blocks their access to the Samaritans [www.samaritans.org]. Speechless!
What scares you so? The notion that we might want to stop kids from doing stuff that their parents can do like drinking, smoking, driving, voting, standing for election,... no wait, actually that last one might be a good thing.
The accuracy these filters, or rather their lack of, is a bit of a moot point. The biggest problem from my point of view is that these filters are optional. This means some kids won't be protected by these measures because they will still have access to unfiltered Internet content. One draconian option could be to make the filters mandatory for everyone, but even Cameron would probably think that that would be a bad idea. I'd like to suggest an alternative, namely that content filters should be mandatory on all Internet connections used by children. The UK public are quite happy with age based censorship in the film & video game industries, and there are plenty of other things that adults can legally do that children can't, so maybe what the government should be doing is to make it an offense to allow a child to have unfiltered access to the Internet.
Copyright would be fine if it benefited all those involved in the creative process, but it hasn't benefited those who have enabled the musicians to live for the rest of their life on the back of a few years work. I'm referring to the engineers & academics who designed the recording equipment and the means to then mass produce cheap copies of the musician's works. These engineers & academics will have gotten nothing more than a one time wage payment for their work, but without them, musicians would have to actually work for a living, just like everyone else.
Its even more absurd in the UK. It is illegal to drive on our motorways unless you have passed your test, not even under the supervision of a qualified instructor, but once you've passed your test, you cam immediately take a 400 bhp sports car for a spin on any road, including motorways, without any further lessons. What is even more absurd, if I were a learner I would be allowed to drive on the A2 road near London. The A2 isn't a motorway, but does a good impersonation of one, albeit one with narrow lanes and shoulders. Why is the A2 OK for learners, but not the M25 motorway that crosses it? Bureaucratic madness!!!!!
The big pain is when you have to go back to old tech. My own car has cruise control, but on a recent trip to the USA I ended up renting what was probably the only vehicle in the whole state of Nevada that didn't have this. I then spent the next 2 weeks driving over 2000 miles along straight, empty roads. Constantly having to check the speedo was tiresome.
a) Just wondering why do you think I am a he - clearly some very narrow minded thinking on your part?
b) Who is this traitor in chief? Obama? I deliberately did not mention the constitution of any country. The argument is about whether historic norms are always going to be acceptable centuries later. Clearly they are not. Slavery being a bloody good example.
Why a fool? What part of my original post even hinted at liberties being unimportant? My point was that what was important 200 years ago could be absurd today. In the UK, in 1813, slavery was legal (and would be for another two decades). Imagine if the UK came up with a written constitution at that time. It is not unreasonable to say that that constitution would enshrined the right to own slaves, and if such a document existed I am reasonably sure that land owners who depended on slave labour would argue that emancipation of slaves was unconstitutional. My point is that the world changes, and that having an written constitution can be a bad thing because it is difficult to change as those with a vested interest will go to the courts if they think that their "constitutional rights" are being undermined.
I think the right to vote would be an excellent example. I live in the UK and 200 years ago only gentlemen of means had the right to vote. That made sense to those in power back then as the peasants were uneducated, and couldn't possibly know how to vote correctly. Today the "peasants" are educated and can make informed decisions. If the UK had a 200 year old written constitution, would there be those that arguing that universal suffrage is unconstitutional and should not be allowed? Who knows.
... and unlike countries with a formal written constitution, we aren't shackled to a set of rules that made sense 200 years ago, but now look totally absurd.
I'd be interested in what other fluid could have carved the canyons and washouts that litter the surface of mars. Water is simple and very common. I'm not sure that there is enough liquid hydrocarbon out there to create these flow structures.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm posting this from Opera 12. I think that tells you what I think of /. Beta.
Absolutely agree. What scares me aren't WMDs, no, its bankers & bugs. Both have the ability to destroy our nice cosy world, and unlike the nukes, there's nobody in control.
I disagree, we never had a choice to do anything other than build these systems with their bugs. I know because I was there back in the dawn of remote digital telemetry systems. We had enough issues with just getting the stuff out of the door on time and to budget (and usually failed on both counts). Development models such UML & quality standards like ISO9001 just didn't exist back then.
We we pioneers, not engineers.
The real problem here is with the CEOs of the corporations that use this old tech. They won't do anything about it until they are forced to, either because some hacker causes the sort of damage that results in multi-million dollar law suits, or (and this is much less likely) the legislators force them to do something about it.
Sir Fred Hoyle had something to say about this way back in the 80's. ( http://www.hoyle.org.uk/resources/virusesfromspacecompressed.pdf ). Life on Earth may not have originated on Earth, but rained down from space.
I just checked to see if the filter would block children from accessing the website of the UK's most important helpline for children, childline [www.childline.org.uk]. Guess what? It does - you really really really couldn't make this shit up. Lets hope the little darlings aren't feeling suicidal as a result, because it also blocks their access to the Samaritans [www.samaritans.org]. Speechless!
What scares you so? The notion that we might want to stop kids from doing stuff that their parents can do like drinking, smoking, driving, voting, standing for election, ... no wait, actually that last one might be a good thing.
The accuracy these filters, or rather their lack of, is a bit of a moot point. The biggest problem from my point of view is that these filters are optional. This means some kids won't be protected by these measures because they will still have access to unfiltered Internet content. One draconian option could be to make the filters mandatory for everyone, but even Cameron would probably think that that would be a bad idea. I'd like to suggest an alternative, namely that content filters should be mandatory on all Internet connections used by children. The UK public are quite happy with age based censorship in the film & video game industries, and there are plenty of other things that adults can legally do that children can't, so maybe what the government should be doing is to make it an offense to allow a child to have unfiltered access to the Internet.
Copyright would be fine if it benefited all those involved in the creative process, but it hasn't benefited those who have enabled the musicians to live for the rest of their life on the back of a few years work. I'm referring to the engineers & academics who designed the recording equipment and the means to then mass produce cheap copies of the musician's works. These engineers & academics will have gotten nothing more than a one time wage payment for their work, but without them, musicians would have to actually work for a living, just like everyone else.
Its even more absurd in the UK. It is illegal to drive on our motorways unless you have passed your test, not even under the supervision of a qualified instructor, but once you've passed your test, you cam immediately take a 400 bhp sports car for a spin on any road, including motorways, without any further lessons. What is even more absurd, if I were a learner I would be allowed to drive on the A2 road near London. The A2 isn't a motorway, but does a good impersonation of one, albeit one with narrow lanes and shoulders. Why is the A2 OK for learners, but not the M25 motorway that crosses it? Bureaucratic madness!!!!!
The big pain is when you have to go back to old tech. My own car has cruise control, but on a recent trip to the USA I ended up renting what was probably the only vehicle in the whole state of Nevada that didn't have this. I then spent the next 2 weeks driving over 2000 miles along straight, empty roads. Constantly having to check the speedo was tiresome.
a) Just wondering why do you think I am a he - clearly some very narrow minded thinking on your part? b) Who is this traitor in chief? Obama? I deliberately did not mention the constitution of any country. The argument is about whether historic norms are always going to be acceptable centuries later. Clearly they are not. Slavery being a bloody good example.
Why a fool? What part of my original post even hinted at liberties being unimportant? My point was that what was important 200 years ago could be absurd today. In the UK, in 1813, slavery was legal (and would be for another two decades). Imagine if the UK came up with a written constitution at that time. It is not unreasonable to say that that constitution would enshrined the right to own slaves, and if such a document existed I am reasonably sure that land owners who depended on slave labour would argue that emancipation of slaves was unconstitutional. My point is that the world changes, and that having an written constitution can be a bad thing because it is difficult to change as those with a vested interest will go to the courts if they think that their "constitutional rights" are being undermined.
I think the right to vote would be an excellent example. I live in the UK and 200 years ago only gentlemen of means had the right to vote. That made sense to those in power back then as the peasants were uneducated, and couldn't possibly know how to vote correctly. Today the "peasants" are educated and can make informed decisions. If the UK had a 200 year old written constitution, would there be those that arguing that universal suffrage is unconstitutional and should not be allowed? Who knows.
... and unlike countries with a formal written constitution, we aren't shackled to a set of rules that made sense 200 years ago, but now look totally absurd.
I'd be interested in what other fluid could have carved the canyons and washouts that litter the surface of mars. Water is simple and very common. I'm not sure that there is enough liquid hydrocarbon out there to create these flow structures.
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyllllantysiliogogogoch, oh wait that's only one word.