I personally will/do check all content my children veiw on the web, They don't know the password to log on, and I have taken the proper measures to record where they go if I am out of the room for a few minutes. I still state that a ratings systems is a good place to start for parents. I would still look at all content, but certain content would not need to be viewed. This could be done by country and simply regulated in each country. I see your points, all of them, But I feel that it can exist. How about we agree to disagree on this ?
Just a over-simplified viewpoint. What if Singer's mother decided now that she didn't like what he had become and considered him sick, would she have the right to kill him ? Ummm NO. But if enough of us agree that he is sick should we as a society be able to remove him ? Ummm NO.
It is obvious that you would like to make this an abortion debate, and I will not get off topic for that. We are talking about babies that have been born.
This form of domain squatting is exactly censorship. It is forcing the belief that a certain word is not acceptable down all of our throats. NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, it is just a word and the context in whixh it may be used can be offensive to some but may not be to others. The domain squatting in this case is entirely wrong 1) For the simple reason that have not re-directed the domain name 2) Because they own a domain strcitly to keep someone else from using it because they MIGHT disagree with the connotations of it's use 3) by logical extension of reason 2 IT IS CENSORSHIP
I will say it again because it is just a word, NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER. There have I offended you ? I hope not because I wasn't referinmg to you when I typed it. Blacks use the word to refer to each other, why can't I use it ? I am white so it is offensive, thats bullshit.
Everyone who has not read his book should just stop commenting. What he suggests is not to better help others, it is that the hapiness if the couple creates a child that is not disabled outweighs the wrong of killing a child. Read it then come back, the man is sick but I wouldn't advocate killing him and firmly believe he has a right to his beliefs even though I vehemtly disagree with him. I have know many parapelegics, asmahtics, and people with other disabilities that were happy with their life. Every one deserves a chance to live.
That said. I recently had to hlep amke a decision to stop life support for my grandmother, it was the hardest decision I ever made. The professor refers to in his book a hemophiliac child, not one with no arms or no legs.
Why does everyone take my messages the wrong way ? I said it provides a starting point for parents. Any parent who relies simply on the government to decide what their child should see is an idiot
I will put it on this level then since you only read what you wanted to. I think that all parent would agree that some chick sucking off a dog would be inapproiate. I am not saying that a rating system is a be all/end all simply that some site should have enforced ratings worldwide. I stated I am with my chilren even when watching television, and that I find the warnings on TV shows helpful, As for all the arguments about movie and NC-17 stuff, the theatre as a company has the right to decide what they show and what they don't, not you. There is no basic right to see a movie in a theatre that I can find anywhere so that is a moot point.
I will answer this post and the one blow it with this, I did not say a rating system would cure everything I stated that they HELP parents make informed decisions. I get up and walk out of movies with my kids, I watch television when they do. I also know that if a show comes on network television that has a parental warning I should at least watch it once without the kids in the room. I think ratings give a parent a place to start but are not the be all/end all of parenting and anyone who does should not have children. I think ratings should be for explicit content so that it is easier to see, not so I can let my kid surf the net without me sitting there. It is a place for parents to start.
How can you say that implementing a ratings system is even close to cenorship. We have ratings on movies, video games, and comic books. It help parents a great deal, they don't have to research every single thing a child wants to buy/see/use. The net is a nice place but can get filthy in a real quick manner. I am all in favor of a mandatory rating system. Not censorship but ratings, the content is allowed but rated. This is not a bad thing in the least, and if you can't se it you must not be a parent.
I hate to be argumentative, OK so I don't but here goes. Most of the general populous does not give one shit about what happens to the artist or how much control they have over their music. The Backstreet Boys, Mariah Carey, and Spice Girls are proof of this. It is a very limited number of people who care about anything more than maybe requesting the latest Spice Girls song on the radio. The record companies will always be around, they will find a way to absorb MP3 and still keep the atrists under their thumb. Hate to break it to you, the artists themsleves are at fault for signing the contracts, the companies would not be in the position they are if the artists didn't play dumb when contracts came around.
Being of African descent (as well as some Polish and German) and having been called a "nigger" myself, and the loss of one more possible mouthpiece for that kind of bigotry is a Good Thing.
No it is not a Good Thing. By your own statement you make yourself a cenorship advocate. In the USA we all have the right to believe what we want, and to speak about what we believe. Domain squatting is wrong, and I disagree with this action by the NAACP. I disagree with a lot of their actions but most of the time they are a good group. This is bullshit, they now own an offensive domain name and we now know they practice the same tactics that we all bitched about GW Bush using not so long ago on/. I am beginning to see how this works, if people like someone or something it is OK for them to do things that others do and get slammed for. It's called equality folks, the NAACP is as right as GW Bush no matter which one you like more or which one you like less.
I've about had it up to here with these reports (not the reports themselves, but the content) that corp's seem to have it in their heads that since they paid for the equipment, they own it, and that by extension, since they pay for the employees, they own them as well.
They do not "own" the employess, but they have every right to tell them what they can and cannot do on the companies computer systems. They own the time they pay you for, and furthermore if you weren't doing things that were against company policy you would probably not scream so loud about this issue. I have not made use of this kind of tool yet, but if own the computer it is my right to see what it is used for.
I've been filing this kind of stuff under "Corporate Human-rights abuses". It reminds me of the same kind of nonsense one would expect from a facist government, not a modern corporation.
"Human Rights" you make me laugh, you don't have a "right" to work at a specific company and if you are doing something that could lose them money then they have a right to find out. Companies are not the gov't. All of this bleeding heart crap irritates me, you would take away the rights of the companies owners to satisfy yourself.
I do not think that this info would come anywhere near Fear, Uncertantiy and Doubt, at least not in the manner that we usually use this term. The information presented in the article is an attempt to inform the citizens of a country, who are traveling abroad what they might expect, there is no malice involved. Why would you not want this information made public ?
Sun gains nothing useful from this partial closure of the source
Lets start with this comment. They maintain the right to close the source should the product start bleeding money. This is a safegaurd, a company that has shareholders must act in the best interest of the shareholders or they are in violation of the law, with the Mozilla failure it has been proven that Open Sourcing a product does not always improve it.
They know that the time their developers spend on improving this product in-house is time and money lost. They must know that they would just gain, gain, gain, if they opened StarOffice up completely.
Yet again, Open Source does not and can not be the right route for ALL software and a company has the right to maintain control of thier code and profits.
There is an analogy that can be made here, referring to big brass in Sun management: big dinosaurs move and think slowly. The question is, will they see the light soon enough, change, and survive?
Sun is going nowhere, and I mean not leaving any time soon. I would wager that you will not see an "Open Source World" while you are alive and maybe not ever. It is a basic right of a company or individual to close thier source if they so desire, when are the OS warriors going to realize that their way may not be someone else's way ? That is my main question.
Actually in theory it is easier to kill someone with a pointy stick.
1. For most people to kill with a gun you have to be almost as close as you would with a pointy stick 2. Pointy sticks are easier to come by than guns 3. Poity sticks are more acurrate than guns in most peoples hands 4. Pointy sticks don't malfunctio 5. Pointy sticks are more fun to use than guns
to not choose Linux for the enterprise or end user environment, and SCO misses them all. Instead they choose to spead lies and BS. I put Linux in as a server for a terrabyte or more to backed up through NIGHTLY it is still running without a glitch. They fail to mention comapnies like LinuxCare and other that provide support.
I do not think that most of the unwashed masses are ready for Linux yet and vice/versa but it is getting better and better with every release. I run a LUG where I live and we are participating in the Linux Demo Day event. We expect over 200 people at our LUG meeting that week. Our LUG is much smaller than that, the last Linux/NT shootout we had here attracted more than 3000 people in a single day. What is SCO thinking ? They sound very afraid and it upsets me that they would send this out to their customers, at least it has done one thing, Linux has garnered more press from this, and bad press is better than no press at all. Lets keep up the fight and prove SCO very wrong.
It is not true that "For every piece of evidence anyone provides someone else can disprove it." If you believe that, you haven't looked at the evidence.
I have looked at the evidince and it is just as ridiculous as the means that would have to be used to disprove it.
It is absurd to to propose teaching creation along side evolution, because creationists have formulated no theory to explain what we know about biology
You are wrong about this. It is not absurd, it is absurd not to. It also absurd not to teach the big bag theory. As I stated before I can disprove as much as anyone of these groups can prove, I was not trying to single out evolution.
I was going to post a long list of "fact" that dis-prove evolution, but I have decided against it. I instead will only this, our Constitution does not stop the state from teaching religion, it only stops the state from banning religion. All mean of describing they way life came to be on this planet are theories, as none of them can be proven. If any of the idiots out there had looked a little deeper into this issue you would have found that it (evoloutionary theory) is no longer REQUIRED to be taught. This allows a broader base of things to be shown to the students, so why is this a bad thing ? Teach all theories, evolution, big bang, creation, etc.. Every single one requires faith as none of them have ANY verifiable proof.
I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory, neither can anyone else. For every piece of evidernce anyone provides someone else can disprove it. We are all here, and that is what matters. You can flame me all you want, but I cannot see how this is a bad thing at all. I will not say what my beliefs are but I want my children to learn about all of the theories on how life on this planet began, as all of them are equally preposterous, and let them decide for themsleves what they believe. It is wrong to force the theory of evolution, which is not the most accpted theory any longer, having given way to the big bang, down a students throat and tell them it is true and force tham to answer questions on a test. Tecah your children well, give them the choice of what to believe. If you deny your children access to evolution (if you are a creationist) or creation (if you are an evolutionist) then you have done them a horrible disservice. To all of you who see this as a victory or defeat get your head out of your asses, this is simply progress and needs to happen to make way for our children to be taught all theories with equal importance. I can't believe the amount of FUD (emphasis on FEAR) that I have seen in this thread, it appalls me that thinking people cannot accept that other theories may be right, and should be taught. I am horrified at the anti-religion side of/. that i have seen today, for a group that screams about persoanl freedoms to be reduced to telling someone they are an idiot because of their beliefs is sick. Every one of you is a hypocrite, evoluntionists and creationists alike. I will not state my beliefs in this post because I would be sickened to be associated with either side of this debate right now. This is worse than distro-wars.
Slashdot Mirror
It's gotta be gutter punk. Sloppy Seconds, Sex Pistols, Blanks, Dead Boys, Fear. etc etc.....
I personally will/do check all content my children veiw on the web, They don't know the password to log on, and I have taken the proper measures to record where they go if I am out of the room for a few minutes. I still state that a ratings systems is a good place to start for parents. I would still look at all content, but certain content would not need to be viewed. This could be done by country and simply regulated in each country. I see your points, all of them, But I feel that it can exist. How about we agree to disagree on this ?
Just a over-simplified viewpoint. What if Singer's mother decided now that she didn't like what he had become and considered him sick, would she have the right to kill him ? Ummm NO. But if enough of us agree that he is sick should we as a society be able to remove him ? Ummm NO.
I never said that "potnetial was a valid argument. It is basic. Everyone deserves a chance to live.
It is obvious that you would like to make this an abortion debate, and I will not get off topic for that. We are talking about babies that have been born.
This form of domain squatting is exactly censorship. It is forcing the belief that a certain word is not acceptable down all of our throats. NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, it is just a word and the context in whixh it may be used can be offensive to some but may not be to others. The domain squatting in this case is entirely wrong
1) For the simple reason that have not re-directed the domain name
2) Because they own a domain strcitly to keep someone else from using it because they MIGHT disagree with the connotations of it's use
3) by logical extension of reason 2 IT IS CENSORSHIP
I will say it again because it is just a word, NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER. There have I offended you ? I hope not because I wasn't referinmg to you when I typed it. Blacks use the word to refer to each other, why can't I use it ? I am white so it is offensive, thats bullshit.
Everyone who has not read his book should just stop commenting. What he suggests is not to better help others, it is that the hapiness if the couple creates a child that is not disabled outweighs the wrong of killing a child. Read it then come back, the man is sick but I wouldn't advocate killing him and firmly believe he has a right to his beliefs even though I vehemtly disagree with him. I have know many parapelegics, asmahtics, and people with other disabilities that were happy with their life. Every one deserves a chance to live.
That said. I recently had to hlep amke a decision to stop life support for my grandmother, it was the hardest decision I ever made. The professor refers to in his book a hemophiliac child, not one with no arms or no legs.
Actaully the example the professor used in his book was one of a hemophiliac child. My poor uncle was a hemophiliac and dies at a young age of 65.
Why does everyone take my messages the wrong way ? I said it provides a starting point for parents. Any parent who relies simply on the government to decide what their child should see is an idiot
You are an idiot. Copy protection is not censorship it is protecting the companies intrests and it is their right to do. Get off it.
I will put it on this level then since you only read what you wanted to. I think that all parent would agree that some chick sucking off a dog would be inapproiate. I am not saying that a rating system is a be all/end all simply that some site should have enforced ratings worldwide. I stated I am with my chilren even when watching television, and that I find the warnings on TV shows helpful, As for all the arguments about movie and NC-17 stuff, the theatre as a company has the right to decide what they show and what they don't, not you. There is no basic right to see a movie in a theatre that I can find anywhere so that is a moot point.
I will answer this post and the one blow it with this, I did not say a rating system would cure everything I stated that they HELP parents make informed decisions. I get up and walk out of movies with my kids, I watch television when they do. I also know that if a show comes on network television that has a parental warning I should at least watch it once without the kids in the room. I think ratings give a parent a place to start but are not the be all/end all of parenting and anyone who does should not have children. I think ratings should be for explicit content so that it is easier to see, not so I can let my kid surf the net without me sitting there. It is a place for parents to start.
How can you say that implementing a ratings system is even close to cenorship. We have ratings on movies, video games, and comic books. It help parents a great deal, they don't have to research every single thing a child wants to buy/see/use. The net is a nice place but can get filthy in a real quick manner. I am all in favor of a mandatory rating system. Not censorship but ratings, the content is allowed but rated. This is not a bad thing in the least, and if you can't se it you must not be a parent.
I hate to be argumentative, OK so I don't but here goes. Most of the general populous does not give one shit about what happens to the artist or how much control they have over their music. The Backstreet Boys, Mariah Carey, and Spice Girls are proof of this. It is a very limited number of people who care about anything more than maybe requesting the latest Spice Girls song on the radio. The record companies will always be around, they will find a way to absorb MP3 and still keep the atrists under their thumb. Hate to break it to you, the artists themsleves are at fault for signing the contracts, the companies would not be in the position they are if the artists didn't play dumb when contracts came around.
Being of African descent (as well as some Polish and German) and having been called a "nigger" myself, and the loss of one more possible mouthpiece for that kind of bigotry is a Good Thing.
/. I am beginning to see how this works, if people like someone or something it is OK for them to do things that others do and get slammed for. It's called equality folks, the NAACP is as right as GW Bush no matter which one you like more or which one you like less.
No it is not a Good Thing. By your own statement you make yourself a cenorship advocate. In the USA we all have the right to believe what we want, and to speak about what we believe. Domain squatting is wrong, and I disagree with this action by the NAACP. I disagree with a lot of their actions but most of the time they are a good group. This is bullshit, they now own an offensive domain name and we now know they practice the same tactics that we all bitched about GW Bush using not so long ago on
It is nice to see someone else on io.com they are a great ISP and they are gonna bring the Metaverse back.....YAY !!!!!
Federal Law only requires the break for employess of a company, contractors do not get this by law.
I've about had it up to here with these reports (not the reports themselves, but the content) that corp's seem to have it in their heads that since they paid for the equipment, they own it, and that by extension, since they pay for the employees, they own them as well.
They do not "own" the employess, but they have every right to tell them what they can and cannot do on the companies computer systems. They own the time they pay you for, and furthermore if you weren't doing things that were against company policy you would probably not scream so loud about this issue. I have not made use of this kind of tool yet, but if own the computer it is my right to see what it is used for.
I've been filing this kind of stuff under "Corporate Human-rights abuses". It reminds me of the same kind of nonsense one would expect from a facist government, not a modern corporation.
"Human Rights" you make me laugh, you don't have a "right" to work at a specific company and if you are doing something that could lose them money then they have a right to find out. Companies are not the gov't. All of this bleeding heart crap irritates me, you would take away the rights of the companies owners to satisfy yourself.
I do not think that this info would come anywhere near Fear, Uncertantiy and Doubt, at least not in the manner that we usually use this term. The information presented in the article is an attempt to inform the citizens of a country, who are traveling abroad what they might expect, there is no malice involved. Why would you not want this information made public ?
Sun gains nothing useful from this partial closure of the source
Lets start with this comment. They maintain the right to close the source should the product start bleeding money. This is a safegaurd, a company that has shareholders must act in the best interest of the shareholders or they are in violation of the law, with the Mozilla failure it has been proven that Open Sourcing a product does not always improve it.
They know that the time their developers spend on improving this product in-house is time and money lost. They must know that they would just gain, gain, gain, if they opened StarOffice up completely.
Yet again, Open Source does not and can not be the right route for ALL software and a company has the right to maintain control of thier code and profits.
There is an analogy that can be made here, referring to big brass in Sun management: big dinosaurs move and think slowly. The question is, will they see the light soon enough, change, and survive?
Sun is going nowhere, and I mean not leaving any time soon. I would wager that you will not see an "Open Source World" while you are alive and maybe not ever. It is a basic right of a company or individual to close thier source if they so desire, when are the OS warriors going to realize that their way may not be someone else's way ? That is my main question.
****OFF TOPIC MODERATE ME DOWN****
Actually in theory it is easier to kill someone with a pointy stick.
1. For most people to kill with a gun you have to be almost as close as you would with a pointy stick
2. Pointy sticks are easier to come by than guns
3. Poity sticks are more acurrate than guns in most peoples hands
4. Pointy sticks don't malfunctio
5. Pointy sticks are more fun to use than guns
You can figure out whether or not I am serious
- right now
to not choose Linux for the enterprise or end user environment, and SCO misses them all. Instead they choose to spead lies and BS. I put Linux in as a server for a terrabyte or more to backed up through NIGHTLY it is still running without a glitch. They fail to mention comapnies like LinuxCare and other that provide support.I do not think that most of the unwashed masses are ready for Linux yet and vice/versa but it is getting better and better with every release. I run a LUG where I live and we are participating in the Linux Demo Day event. We expect over 200 people at our LUG meeting that week. Our LUG is much smaller than that, the last Linux/NT shootout we had here attracted more than 3000 people in a single day. What is SCO thinking ? They sound very afraid and it upsets me that they would send this out to their customers, at least it has done one thing, Linux has garnered more press from this, and bad press is better than no press at all. Lets keep up the fight and prove SCO very wrong.
THAT IS WHAT I SAID, I just didn't have the time to list all of them and since the debate is about C vs E I chose those two use
It is not true that "For every piece of evidence anyone provides someone else can disprove it." If you believe that, you haven't looked at the evidence.
I have looked at the evidince and it is just as ridiculous as the means that would have to be used to disprove it.
It is absurd to to propose teaching creation along side evolution, because creationists have formulated no theory to explain what we know about biology
You are wrong about this. It is not absurd, it is absurd not to. It also absurd not to teach the big bag theory. As I stated before I can disprove as much as anyone of these groups can prove, I was not trying to single out evolution.
I was going to post a long list of "fact" that dis-prove evolution, but I have decided against it. I instead will only this, our Constitution does not stop the state from teaching religion, it only stops the state from banning religion. All mean of describing they way life came to be on this planet are theories, as none of them can be proven. If any of the idiots out there had looked a little deeper into this issue you would have found that it (evoloutionary theory) is no longer REQUIRED to be taught. This allows a broader base of things to be shown to the students, so why is this a bad thing ? Teach all theories, evolution, big bang, creation, etc..
/. that i have seen today, for a group that screams about persoanl freedoms to be reduced to telling someone they are an idiot because of their beliefs is sick. Every one of you is a hypocrite, evoluntionists and creationists alike. I will not state my beliefs in this post because I would be sickened to be associated with either side of this debate right now. This is worse than distro-wars.
Every single one requires faith as none of them have ANY verifiable proof.
I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory, neither can anyone else. For every piece of evidernce anyone provides someone else can disprove it. We are all here, and that is what matters. You can flame me all you want, but I cannot see how this is a bad thing at all. I will not say what my beliefs are but I want my children to learn about all of the theories on how life on this planet began, as all of them are equally preposterous, and let them decide for themsleves what they believe. It is wrong to force the theory of evolution, which is not the most accpted theory any longer, having given way to the big bang, down a students throat and tell them it is true and force tham to answer questions on a test. Tecah your children well, give them the choice of what to believe. If you deny your children access to evolution (if you are a creationist) or creation (if you are an evolutionist) then you have done them a horrible disservice. To all of you who see this as a victory or defeat get your head out of your asses, this is simply progress and needs to happen to make way for our children to be taught all theories with equal importance. I can't believe the amount of FUD (emphasis on FEAR) that I have seen in this thread, it appalls me that thinking people cannot accept that other theories may be right, and should be taught. I am horrified at the anti-religion side of