With each release of Windows since Win95, I have had need to use the Windows help function. Each time I first used this function, it proved to be of little or no help, primarily wasting my time in demonstrating itself to be so.
Despite the arcane nature of the Linux man files, they are always there for me to read, and don't lead me through a silly and time-wasting checklist ("Did this help you...?" nonsense). I used to hate the man files for their arcane readability, but have found them, over time, to be far more explanatory and reliable than any Windows help I have tried.This is not surprising, though, as the Windows help files try to help you without explaining what is really going on.
However, I can tell you are fairly fond of Windows, and see any criticism of Windows as baseless, so I won't press the point further.
However, I see now why some people complain about the moderation on Slashdot: how a ham-handed response like "And how is that different than most Linux based software?" manages to get modded up to 3 while far more enlightened and/or thought-provoking messages (not necessarily my own, as I have made some intentionally silly remarks) get entirely missed, well, it boggles the mind.
No manual shipped. Online guide sucks dick. Good GUI design shouldn't require a manual to get it to run well. Sorry, but XP is all about preserving an income, and not about providing a decent OS.
Who is this 'Joe Average' and why are we always thinking we have to play to his level? If we applied this way of thinking to everything, cars would run down embedded tracks in the road, preventing collisions yet also preventing you from leaving the pavement for picnics, road trips, etc.
If we applied it to telephony, we'd still be cranking up the dial for Gertrude at the central switchboard and asking her to connect us to long distance... Then asking Mary at long distance to connect us to Albuquerque... Then... You get the picture.
Nowadays, we LEARN TO DRIVE and we LEARN TO DIAL A PHONE NUMBER. Joe Average just has to keep up.
I have successfully held out on XP here at work. In fact, we have but ONE pc running it, and only that because it was a laptop that came preinstalled with it. Personally, XP feels like a crazy gene-splicing experiment using DNA from Windows and the Fisher Price Little People. I have yet to discover any significant improvement in the OS. It is a memory hog--and for no reason other than the fact that is now needs RAM to present this gaudy, new Colorform-type GUI. Additionally, I find extra steps where there used to be none, specifically catering to the self-inflicted mental retardation of this 'Joe Average' person. Screw Joe Average. Joe Average is the guy in school who was a screw-up and a class clown and never learned anything, and whose antics kept YOU from learning anything, either. If Joe Average wants to use a computer, make him turn off the pro-wrestling and crack open a 'Learn Visually' book on the subject.
While I have spent my fair share of time getting my knickers in a twist over all this copy protection BS, I confess I don't fear for the future, for a few reasons.
First, technology is reducing the stranglehold that record companies have over production and distribution, and not due to Napster. If I were an artist contracted to one of the big companies, I'd cool my heels collecting $$ from them until my contract expired, then spend the $$ on my own means of production and distribution (home studio and website). Once enough artists realize they have this power, it will begin to crack the RIAA's foundation. In fact, due to technology, artists will have much greater flexibility in how their works are distributed, and won't be beholden to CD-pressing facories.
Second, too many companies are making too much money on MP3 players, and this is a wildfire that no amount of industry money can put out.
Third, the combination of the two create a self-defeating cycle for RIAA. The more they try to control the artists and distribution, the less inclined current artists will be to play along, and new artists will be to join in. The tighter their self-imposed restrictions, the smaller their paying audience will be. So, eventually, you will see more independent artists, both big names retreating from the RIAA debacle, and new ones, recording in garages and distributing from home via DSL, cable, and wireless without need of burning a single CD. New independence from corporate control will foster a new and invigorated creative environment, and the removal of the corporate firewall between artist and audience will allow for far better feedback between the two, thus driving creative expression further. Hell, artists will be able to host concerts from home, even getting around the mammoth performance hall nightmare, yet still reaching as many, or more, people.
I see it as roughly analogous to highly-distributed computing, in that a centralized server (RIAA and the Big Record Companies) is less important because of the extensive use of distributed systems (garage bands newly-energized by the freeing influence of technology). Eventually, the only ones playing the RIAA game will be those who just don't get it.
Microsoft is now looking at becoming a hardware company, acc. to what I read, so that they can ensure their monopoly, er, I mean, ensure copy-protection of data.
It seems to me that, seeing the dwindling returns from the Windows OS ( since people are nearing the point of wising up to the game, and sticking with older versions that 'work' as opposed to newer ones that open new security holes), M$ is looking toward a renewable income source, whereby the only WindowsOS comes with new M$ PCs.
This would assure more control of the revenue stream for M$, assuming the public are lemming-enough to keep following their lead. However, with Apple gaining a sliver of market share recently, I don't see an easy road ahead for M$, unless they succeed (a sure bet, btw) in circumventing antitrust/monopoly punishment.
After reading a lot of off-the-cuff rants, I thought I would cruise over to Microtel's site (www.buymicrotel.com) to find the info I desired: why are they doing this?
Well, this is the first I read any news at all about Microtel. For those of you who need or want to know, they are a shop whose mission is: "To be the leader in delivering fully-integrated infrastructure solutions, professional services, and support through cutting-edge customization capabilities."
Other corporation info says that they are in the customization business, and they use Linux (Mandrake 8.1, it says elsewhere on the site). Their list of customization 'levels' includes "optimization of the Linux kernel"
Looks to me like Walmart just agreed to sell something they weren't already selling, and making money is ok with them, regardless of who/where it comes from. I hope these bits of info help others to get a wider perspective on the Walmart/Microtel phenomenon.
Why do we have to beam Kirk and Friends down to the planet to shoot things, when we can just stay shipside on the other side o' the planet and teleport phaser blasts into the Komm's and Yang's asses for a laugh?!?
Color me silly, but don't people paying for broadband do so with the understanding that they can handle massive amounts of data in less time? This may be streaming video or audio, or even P2P. Ergo, aren't they (Cable monopolies, er, I mean, 'companies') cutting themselves off at the knees by setting caps? Also, P2P doesn't necessarily equate to stealing. What about people working cooperatively on multimedia (musicians, animators, etc) via broadband?
It is my hope that the cable companies doing this go out of business. After all, why would ANYONE pay for broadband if they were going to be limited to the capacity of narrowband??? This is why I love my DSL. As far as cable companies are concerned, I say SCREW THEM ALL!;-)
"Wrong, we are not the government, because WE are not in the majority."
'Of the People, by the People, for the People' is still strong. As long as citizens choose from a slate of interested citizens to serve in public office, or come to the fore themselves as candidates, we, as a body, wil be the ones who appoint those who steer the ship of State. Majority rule certainly sucks eggs at times, but tyranny is fended off by the fact that minority rights are protected, at least on paper.
If people opt out of the system and choose not to vote or stand for office, they reap what they sow.
Truth be told, minority rights sometimes TRUMP majority rule, as in the 2000 presidential [s]election. The track that led to that debacle was liberally greased by the embarrasing number of Americans who believe that not voting is their way of 'participating' in the process.
So, in a sense, we do get the government we deserve. Sitting out in an election is an abdication of liberty that I, for one, cannot comprehend, but when enough people take that route, a candidate or referendum that otherwise might have general popular support will fail. On the other hand, unpopular candidates or referendums, which face an electorate little interested in taking part in voting them down, will succeed. So, if we have a bloated, self-serving government with no geeks in it, who have we to blame but ourselves?
"Government policy decisions are rarely based on "what works best," because it is the public's money they are spending."
Blah blah blah bash the government blah blah blah... Guess what folks? ***WE*** are the government. 'What works best' rarely wins out, usually because a bloc of opposing party hacks want to stuff pork into an appropriations bill, and good ideas get watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.
So stop blaming some remote gummint--as Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy, and it is us."
Ok... I am NOT a programmer. I would like to be, but most of the suggested approaches I have read here are really missing the point of the post, (Duhhhh... at least I think so...). It doesn't help me at all to continually parrot "BAWWWK! Learn code, learn code! BAWWWK!" I have read code til I was stooped over like a man thrice my age, and I still am unclear on the concept.
Additionally, it is just as useless to me to suggest that I just write programs until I get it right. Anyone ever heard the old adage about an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters eventually producing the works of Shakespeare? Well, as in that example, simply barfing code onto a page until it lurches to life as a marginally-functional program means a long time between initial keystroke and thrilling to the sight of "Hello, world!" on your monitor.
Personally (and bear in mind that I am a theatre major-turned-network administrator--i.e.: right-brain artsy-fartsy type learning to use his left lobe) I need something more in order to absorb the complexities associated with arcane code. What this post is getting at, I think, is more of a content-with-context approach.
As an initial approach, I am sure many people would benefit from simple representations of complex processes as a foundation for learning. This doesn't simply mean learning to flowchart, but some sort of symbolic representation which indicates both the flow of the program and the environment within which it must run.
For example, the first truly 'original' program I wrote, in order to self-teach myself shell scripting, was a simple script which started with a variable set to zero, and which would add one to that variable, display it onscreen as "This program has now run X times", then save the resulting variable to a separate file. On subsequent executions of the script, it would read the variable from the outside file, process it as decribed above, and spit out the result onscreen and as the new value of the outside file.
Now, this may sound like a moronic little program, but until I figured out how the STATIC CODE interacted with the VARIABLE OUTPUT (maintained in a file outside the script) I was as stumped as John Bobbit after Lorena wigged-out on him. For me, it was just as important to understand the system of input and output and file storage and retrieval as it was to learn how to script.
Most programming books I see take too dry an approach to lining up all the code, with very little in the way of analogy (in my moron script, it was important to learn how the script 'hands off' the output to a file where it is 'stored' until the script needs to 'pull it out' again. I know this makes me sound like an abject moron, but I have yet to find an instructional tool that brings the concept of programming as close to home as analogy.
Ok... Time to get back to work, trying to get Slashcode working here at work... Anyone have a spare magic wand I can wave over my computer??
My favorite alluded-to M$ whine was: "It [M$] also says that it is a more reliable partner than smaller, less well-established open source distributors."
Which, to me, is tantamount to saying, "why go anywhere else for your gratification needs, when we've been feeding your crack cocaine addiction steadilly all this time (and without our repeated bitch-slappin', pimp-beatings of you leaving marks, either!). Oh, and, by the way, here is this week's security patch #y to repair security patch #x we issued yesterday."
Let me make this clear: porn did not win a victory here. The victory was won for information that would otherwise be blocked by mechanisms that don't know the difference between a tit and a tat. THe argument from a library standpoint has never been in favor of porn, and always in favor of access to protected speech. The argument from the extreme nutty right has always been in favor of draconian thought policing and always against intellectual freedom.
"And since when is using MY tax dollars to give someone free internet access a ``right,'' anyway?"
D'oh! Guess what? You aren't the only person paying taxes! Isn't that an amazing discovery?!? Not only that, but other people paying taxes might actually want their taxes to pay for access to as much information as possible.
Isn't that just a fucking amazing thing? Next they'll be putting both peanut butter AND jelly in sandwiches. Sheesh.
"I don't want my tax dollars should be used to help someone who doesn't have their own access to the internet to view this stuff."
First of all, you are buying into the fallacious argument that money is being spent specifically to dole out porn, which is not the case. Secondly, your attitude is one of "if the poor can't afford it, then too bad." Public libraries are often the ONLY access people have to affordable information. The use of indiscriminate filtering punishes the poor for being poor.
I'll bet you're in favor of bringing back debtors prisons, too.
It's not just that the federal fundsare really small (they are), but even without the filtering requirements, when you add up the cost of applying for the funds, they are really hardly worth the effort. Add to that the fact that libraries DO NOT GET THE FUNDS DIRECTLY. I capitalize that not to denigrate anyone, but to highlight the fact. USF funds go directly to service providers, who in turn DISCOUNT the cost to the library of the service provided. At my library, we have essentially blown off the USF because the reward for the effort is, at best, minimal, and, at worst, a loss to the library in terms of staff time and pay spent pushing paper.
"Although I don't like censorship per se, I do think that the CIPA was a good idea."
So, let me see... you don't mind being forcibly limited BY THE GOVERNMENT (I assume you are American) to materials of a child's reading level?
"Frankly, I believe that this is just another part of the move to sexualize the children of America."
Which,of course, is related to the conspiracy which keeps the living JFK hidden away in Hanger 18 where he is being rehabilitated by the aliens in the sick bay of their UFO...
I get so sick of this crap. There is no vast conspiracy to sexualize children, as you allude to. Sexual messages are, by and large, intended for adult audiences. Children whose parents are unable or unwilling to shield them from or otherwise educate them about those messages are indirect recipients when exposed to our 'adult world'.
"Anyone who listens to Dr. Laura [drlaura.com] will be very familiar with this."
Let us not forget that Dr. Laura HERSELF has contributed to the sexualization of children by posing for beaver shots in the 70s. What? She didn't mean for kids to see her beaver? Too bad--the pics ended up on the 'net, and she should therefore be arrested for taking part in the sexualization of children.
Actually, anyone who listens to "Doctor" Laura is obviously a masochist and should seek treatment. The woman is CERTAINLY not a responsible journalist by any means, just an entertainer who happens to make money by attracting listeners who either, 1.: need to be severely browbeaten and degraded for calling in for her 'advice', or, 2.: get off on listening to her abusively haranguing people (usually redneck saps) on the air.
By the way, she is NOT a psychologist. She has a lapsed certification (post-grad) in Marriage and Family Counseling, which is not readily apparant in her Goebbels-like approach to radio therapy. Her doctorate is in Physiobiology, which means that her advice on anything other than the study of rat muscles is to be taken with a truckload of salt.
"Do libraries carry adult books and videos? If they don't, then why should they provide access to pornography?"
I really, really, get tired of this old chesnut of an argument. It is simplistic in the extreme, and is used by reactionaries to disguise the fact that they cannot otherwise justify blocking protected speech without making the John Birch Society look like a group of wild-eyed Socialists.
"Have fun when your 12 year old daughter is screwing every guy in sight..."
Anyone whose child is acting in such a way has no one to blame but themselves. Let's not blame society for an individual's poor parenting skills.
"Even if you don't agree with points of view, you must realize this: NOT ALL CENSORSHIP IS BAD."
Would you be saying this is your post had been 'censored'? Turn that over in your mind for a moment. Anything else is simply explanation on my part.
I am sorry if my critique has a harsh tone, but anyone who values and honors the spirit of the Constitution of the United States should think long and hard before abandoning his/her individual freedoms in favor of superficial promises of security.
"This is not about defending porn. It's about defending a citizen's right to control his/her own access to information, some of which may be porn. It disturbs me to see how many people -- willfully or, worse, not -- miss the distinction and refuse to think at the right level of abstraction."
Slashdot Mirror
Now al he has to do is hookup a rear-facing web cam and he can get rid of the overhead mirror, allowing room for the overhead ejection seat lever.
How cool would it be if he did it with OSX-compatible hardware!?!
Why not a cache server for linked sites?
With each release of Windows since Win95, I have had need to use the Windows help function. Each time I first used this function, it proved to be of little or no help, primarily wasting my time in demonstrating itself to be so.
Despite the arcane nature of the Linux man files, they are always there for me to read, and don't lead me through a silly and time-wasting checklist ("Did this help you...?" nonsense). I used to hate the man files for their arcane readability, but have found them, over time, to be far more explanatory and reliable than any Windows help I have tried.This is not surprising, though, as the Windows help files try to help you without explaining what is really going on.
However, I can tell you are fairly fond of Windows, and see any criticism of Windows as baseless, so I won't press the point further.
However, I see now why some people complain about the moderation on Slashdot: how a ham-handed response like "And how is that different than most Linux based software?" manages to get modded up to 3 while far more enlightened and/or thought-provoking messages (not necessarily my own, as I have made some intentionally silly remarks) get entirely missed, well, it boggles the mind.
It will take 5,000 D-cells. Rechargable, of course, via stationary battlefield exercise bike.
Funny. XP keeps popping up an ad pushing .net.
No manual shipped. Online guide sucks dick. Good GUI design shouldn't require a manual to get it to run well. Sorry, but XP is all about preserving an income, and not about providing a decent OS.
Who is this 'Joe Average' and why are we always thinking we have to play to his level? If we applied this way of thinking to everything, cars would run down embedded tracks in the road, preventing collisions yet also preventing you from leaving the pavement for picnics, road trips, etc.
If we applied it to telephony, we'd still be cranking up the dial for Gertrude at the central switchboard and asking her to connect us to long distance... Then asking Mary at long distance to connect us to Albuquerque... Then... You get the picture.
Nowadays, we LEARN TO DRIVE and we LEARN TO DIAL A PHONE NUMBER. Joe Average just has to keep up.
I have successfully held out on XP here at work. In fact, we have but ONE pc running it, and only that because it was a laptop that came preinstalled with it. Personally, XP feels like a crazy gene-splicing experiment using DNA from Windows and the Fisher Price Little People. I have yet to discover any significant improvement in the OS. It is a memory hog--and for no reason other than the fact that is now needs RAM to present this gaudy, new Colorform-type GUI. Additionally, I find extra steps where there used to be none, specifically catering to the self-inflicted mental retardation of this 'Joe Average' person. Screw Joe Average. Joe Average is the guy in school who was a screw-up and a class clown and never learned anything, and whose antics kept YOU from learning anything, either. If Joe Average wants to use a computer, make him turn off the pro-wrestling and crack open a 'Learn Visually' book on the subject.
CASE CLOSED.
While I have spent my fair share of time getting my knickers in a twist over all this copy protection BS, I confess I don't fear for the future, for a few reasons.
First, technology is reducing the stranglehold that record companies have over production and distribution, and not due to Napster. If I were an artist contracted to one of the big companies, I'd cool my heels collecting $$ from them until my contract expired, then spend the $$ on my own means of production and distribution (home studio and website). Once enough artists realize they have this power, it will begin to crack the RIAA's foundation. In fact, due to technology, artists will have much greater flexibility in how their works are distributed, and won't be beholden to CD-pressing facories.
Second, too many companies are making too much money on MP3 players, and this is a wildfire that no amount of industry money can put out.
Third, the combination of the two create a self-defeating cycle for RIAA. The more they try to control the artists and distribution, the less inclined current artists will be to play along, and new artists will be to join in. The tighter their self-imposed restrictions, the smaller their paying audience will be. So, eventually, you will see more independent artists, both big names retreating from the RIAA debacle, and new ones, recording in garages and distributing from home via DSL, cable, and wireless without need of burning a single CD. New independence from corporate control will foster a new and invigorated creative environment, and the removal of the corporate firewall between artist and audience will allow for far better feedback between the two, thus driving creative expression further. Hell, artists will be able to host concerts from home, even getting around the mammoth performance hall nightmare, yet still reaching as many, or more, people.
I see it as roughly analogous to highly-distributed computing, in that a centralized server (RIAA and the Big Record Companies) is less important because of the extensive use of distributed systems (garage bands newly-energized by the freeing influence of technology). Eventually, the only ones playing the RIAA game will be those who just don't get it.
Microsoft is now looking at becoming a hardware company, acc. to what I read, so that they can ensure their monopoly, er, I mean, ensure copy-protection of data.
It seems to me that, seeing the dwindling returns from the Windows OS ( since people are nearing the point of wising up to the game, and sticking with older versions that 'work' as opposed to newer ones that open new security holes), M$ is looking toward a renewable income source, whereby the only WindowsOS comes with new M$ PCs.
This would assure more control of the revenue stream for M$, assuming the public are lemming-enough to keep following their lead. However, with Apple gaining a sliver of market share recently, I don't see an easy road ahead for M$, unless they succeed (a sure bet, btw) in circumventing antitrust/monopoly punishment.
File not found. So am I to assume he delayed it because his site was slashdotted? ;-)
Are there any plans to augment Google's server farm with distributed computing, along the lines of SETI@Home? Would this be a benefit or a boondoggle?
After reading a lot of off-the-cuff rants, I thought I would cruise over to Microtel's site (www.buymicrotel.com) to find the info I desired: why are they doing this?
Well, this is the first I read any news at all about Microtel. For those of you who need or want to know, they are a shop whose mission is: "To be the leader in delivering fully-integrated infrastructure solutions, professional services, and support through cutting-edge customization capabilities."
Other corporation info says that they are in the customization business, and they use Linux (Mandrake 8.1, it says elsewhere on the site). Their list of customization 'levels' includes "optimization of the Linux kernel"
Looks to me like Walmart just agreed to sell something they weren't already selling, and making money is ok with them, regardless of who/where it comes from. I hope these bits of info help others to get a wider perspective on the Walmart/Microtel phenomenon.
Why do we have to beam Kirk and Friends down to the planet to shoot things, when we can just stay shipside on the other side o' the planet and teleport phaser blasts into the Komm's and Yang's asses for a laugh?!?
I'm only asking...
Color me silly, but don't people paying for broadband do so with the understanding that they can handle massive amounts of data in less time? This may be streaming video or audio, or even P2P. Ergo, aren't they (Cable monopolies, er, I mean, 'companies') cutting themselves off at the knees by setting caps? Also, P2P doesn't necessarily equate to stealing. What about people working cooperatively on multimedia (musicians, animators, etc) via broadband?
;-)
It is my hope that the cable companies doing this go out of business. After all, why would ANYONE pay for broadband if they were going to be limited to the capacity of narrowband??? This is why I love my DSL. As far as cable companies are concerned, I say SCREW THEM ALL!
"Wrong, we are not the government, because WE are not in the majority."
'Of the People, by the People, for the People' is still strong. As long as citizens choose from a slate of interested citizens to serve in public office, or come to the fore themselves as candidates, we, as a body, wil be the ones who appoint those who steer the ship of State. Majority rule certainly sucks eggs at times, but tyranny is fended off by the fact that minority rights are protected, at least on paper.
If people opt out of the system and choose not to vote or stand for office, they reap what they sow.
Truth be told, minority rights sometimes TRUMP majority rule, as in the 2000 presidential [s]election. The track that led to that debacle was liberally greased by the embarrasing number of Americans who believe that not voting is their way of 'participating' in the process.
So, in a sense, we do get the government we deserve. Sitting out in an election is an abdication of liberty that I, for one, cannot comprehend, but when enough people take that route, a candidate or referendum that otherwise might have general popular support will fail. On the other hand, unpopular candidates or referendums, which face an electorate little interested in taking part in voting them down, will succeed. So, if we have a bloated, self-serving government with no geeks in it, who have we to blame but ourselves?
"Government policy decisions are rarely based on "what works best," because it is the public's money they are spending."
Blah blah blah bash the government blah blah blah... Guess what folks? ***WE*** are the government. 'What works best' rarely wins out, usually because a bloc of opposing party hacks want to stuff pork into an appropriations bill, and good ideas get watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.
So stop blaming some remote gummint--as Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy, and it is us."
Is Nader trying to redeem himself, having served as a Florida spoiler in Nov. 2000? If he got the Feds to kick the M$ habit, he might just do that.
Of course, this might force many people to avoid GPL'd software, just because Nader's name is associated with the request to OMB.
Ok... I am NOT a programmer. I would like to be, but most of the suggested approaches I have read here are really missing the point of the post, (Duhhhh... at least I think so...). It doesn't help me at all to continually parrot "BAWWWK! Learn code, learn code! BAWWWK!" I have read code til I was stooped over like a man thrice my age, and I still am unclear on the concept.
Additionally, it is just as useless to me to suggest that I just write programs until I get it right. Anyone ever heard the old adage about an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters eventually producing the works of Shakespeare? Well, as in that example, simply barfing code onto a page until it lurches to life as a marginally-functional program means a long time between initial keystroke and thrilling to the sight of "Hello, world!" on your monitor.
Personally (and bear in mind that I am a theatre major-turned-network administrator--i.e.: right-brain artsy-fartsy type learning to use his left lobe) I need something more in order to absorb the complexities associated with arcane code. What this post is getting at, I think, is more of a content-with-context approach.
As an initial approach, I am sure many people would benefit from simple representations of complex processes as a foundation for learning. This doesn't simply mean learning to flowchart, but some sort of symbolic representation which indicates both the flow of the program and the environment within which it must run.
For example, the first truly 'original' program I wrote, in order to self-teach myself shell scripting, was a simple script which started with a variable set to zero, and which would add one to that variable, display it onscreen as "This program has now run X times", then save the resulting variable to a separate file. On subsequent executions of the script, it would read the variable from the outside file, process it as decribed above, and spit out the result onscreen and as the new value of the outside file.
Now, this may sound like a moronic little program, but until I figured out how the STATIC CODE interacted with the VARIABLE OUTPUT (maintained in a file outside the script) I was as stumped as John Bobbit after Lorena wigged-out on him. For me, it was just as important to understand the system of input and output and file storage and retrieval as it was to learn how to script.
Most programming books I see take too dry an approach to lining up all the code, with very little in the way of analogy (in my moron script, it was important to learn how the script 'hands off' the output to a file where it is 'stored' until the script needs to 'pull it out' again. I know this makes me sound like an abject moron, but I have yet to find an instructional tool that brings the concept of programming as close to home as analogy.
Ok... Time to get back to work, trying to get Slashcode working here at work... Anyone have a spare magic wand I can wave over my computer??
My favorite alluded-to M$ whine was: "It [M$] also says that it is a more reliable partner than smaller, less well-established open source distributors."
Which, to me, is tantamount to saying, "why go anywhere else for your gratification needs, when we've been feeding your crack cocaine addiction steadilly all this time (and without our repeated bitch-slappin', pimp-beatings of you leaving marks, either!). Oh, and, by the way, here is this week's security patch #y to repair security patch #x we issued yesterday."
Let me make this clear: porn did not win a victory here. The victory was won for information that would otherwise be blocked by mechanisms that don't know the difference between a tit and a tat. THe argument from a library standpoint has never been in favor of porn, and always in favor of access to protected speech. The argument from the extreme nutty right has always been in favor of draconian thought policing and always against intellectual freedom.
"And since when is using MY tax dollars to give someone free internet access a ``right,'' anyway?"
D'oh! Guess what? You aren't the only person paying taxes! Isn't that an amazing discovery?!? Not only that, but other people paying taxes might actually want their taxes to pay for access to as much information as possible.
Isn't that just a fucking amazing thing? Next they'll be putting both peanut butter AND jelly in sandwiches. Sheesh.
"I don't want my tax dollars should be used to help someone who doesn't have their own access to the internet to view this stuff."
First of all, you are buying into the fallacious argument that money is being spent specifically to dole out porn, which is not the case. Secondly, your attitude is one of "if the poor can't afford it, then too bad." Public libraries are often the ONLY access people have to affordable information. The use of indiscriminate filtering punishes the poor for being poor.
I'll bet you're in favor of bringing back debtors prisons, too.
It's not just that the federal fundsare really small (they are), but even without the filtering requirements, when you add up the cost of applying for the funds, they are really hardly worth the effort. Add to that the fact that libraries DO NOT GET THE FUNDS DIRECTLY. I capitalize that not to denigrate anyone, but to highlight the fact. USF funds go directly to service providers, who in turn DISCOUNT the cost to the library of the service provided. At my library, we have essentially blown off the USF because the reward for the effort is, at best, minimal, and, at worst, a loss to the library in terms of staff time and pay spent pushing paper.
"Although I don't like censorship per se, I do think that the CIPA was a good idea."
So, let me see... you don't mind being forcibly limited BY THE GOVERNMENT (I assume you are American) to materials of a child's reading level?
"Frankly, I believe that this is just another part of the move to sexualize the children of America."
Which,of course, is related to the conspiracy which keeps the living JFK hidden away in Hanger 18 where he is being rehabilitated by the aliens in the sick bay of their UFO...
I get so sick of this crap. There is no vast conspiracy to sexualize children, as you allude to. Sexual messages are, by and large, intended for adult audiences. Children whose parents are unable or unwilling to shield them from or otherwise educate them about those messages are indirect recipients when exposed to our 'adult world'.
"Anyone who listens to Dr. Laura [drlaura.com] will be very familiar with this."
Let us not forget that Dr. Laura HERSELF has contributed to the sexualization of children by posing for beaver shots in the 70s. What? She didn't mean for kids to see her beaver? Too bad--the pics ended up on the 'net, and she should therefore be arrested for taking part in the sexualization of children.
Actually, anyone who listens to "Doctor" Laura is obviously a masochist and should seek treatment. The woman is CERTAINLY not a responsible journalist by any means, just an entertainer who happens to make money by attracting listeners who either, 1.: need to be severely browbeaten and degraded for calling in for her 'advice', or, 2.: get off on listening to her abusively haranguing people (usually redneck saps) on the air.
By the way, she is NOT a psychologist. She has a lapsed certification (post-grad) in Marriage and Family Counseling, which is not readily apparant in her Goebbels-like approach to radio therapy. Her doctorate is in Physiobiology, which means that her advice on anything other than the study of rat muscles is to be taken with a truckload of salt.
"Do libraries carry adult books and videos? If they don't, then why should they provide access to pornography?"
I really, really, get tired of this old chesnut of an argument. It is simplistic in the extreme, and is used by reactionaries to disguise the fact that they cannot otherwise justify blocking protected speech without making the John Birch Society look like a group of wild-eyed Socialists.
"Have fun when your 12 year old daughter is screwing every guy in sight..."
Anyone whose child is acting in such a way has no one to blame but themselves. Let's not blame society for an individual's poor parenting skills.
"Even if you don't agree with points of view, you must realize this: NOT ALL CENSORSHIP IS BAD."
Would you be saying this is your post had been 'censored'? Turn that over in your mind for a moment. Anything else is simply explanation on my part.
I am sorry if my critique has a harsh tone, but anyone who values and honors the spirit of the Constitution of the United States should think long and hard before abandoning his/her individual freedoms in favor of superficial promises of security.
"This is not about defending porn. It's about defending a citizen's right to control his/her own access to information, some of which may be porn. It disturbs me to see how many people -- willfully or, worse, not -- miss the distinction and refuse to think at the right level of abstraction."
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!