This actually could prove to be a boon to business in Washtenaw County. When business thrives, tax coffers fill, thereby helping to defray such installation and operational costs. It's a beneficial cycle, at least in theory.
I'd like to add that by offloading otherwise dialed-in users to wireless access, modem lines would be freed up for outlying users. That would have been helpful to me when I was dialing in years ago... And dialing in... and dialing in... and finally getting connected (for three minutes, then EOF lol).
Also, consider the social implications (I make this remark only HALF jokingly): more people will leave the house/apartment/dorm, taking their surfing outdoors and maybe--just MAYBE--interacting in meatspace again.
I can see it now:
KingGama: What are you wearing? PrincessIda: I'm at the next table, you geek, look for yourself. KingGama: Oh. KingGama: Which one are you? PrincessIda: The one typing with one hand and waving with the other KingGama: Is that your boyfriend with you? PrincessIda: Yeah KingGama: Oh KingGama: Ok CU I gtg byeee... (chat closed)
I wonder what impact this might have on arbornet.org, a long-time Ann Arbor BBS. Like maybe lots of BBS's, they've been through having to pay for lots of modems, then getting lean and relying moreso on telnetting over home/ISP accounts. I wonder if the county's wireless plan bodes well or ill for venerable old m-net (arbornet)...
Disadvantage? A computer in a library used to access Myspace?
Honestly, these computers should be used for something a bit more productive than wasting time on myspace.com anyway.
ARGH!
The attitude expressed in your statement is really simplistic to the point of banality. Who is to say myspace isn't a productive use of resources? I would have said the same thing about classmates.com, until I discovered my old college roommate there a few weeks ago.
Just because YOU don't use that resource doesn't mean it isn't useful or helpful to someone else.
Personally, if I were in charge of a library's IT, I would white list sites like Wikipedia and *.edu and a bunch of good academic research sites. I would block out Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, etc. Libraries are for reading and learning, not checking email and making posts on myspace.
Well, jackass, *I* WAS in charge of IT in a library. Sure, we had rules in place as to what made for proper use of equipment, but we didn't block content at all. As for kids, it was only when the feds started writing restrictive laws re.: filtering that we began to limit kiddie use, and only then by saying they could only use the net with their parents' supervision.
As far as "good" academic search sites... HAH! Wikipedia is convenient, but as far as academic research goes, it fails on several marks. I wouldn't block it, though, just because it doesn't appeal to my high-fallutin' academic ways. Blocking out Gmail, yahoo, etc., would place a fundamental cluster-fuck on communications for a GREAT many people, INCLUDING those doing legit research. You may not LIKE people communicating on library computers, but research is, well, based on communication.
It's annoying when you want to do some real research on a library computer and some asshole in front of you is chatting on web messenger or checking their email.
It's probably just as annoying to need to get a quick email out to a research collaborator when some "asshole" is sitting there posting to Slashdot, too. I wouldn;t block Slashdot, though. And I wouldn't prevent an asshole like you from doing what-the-hell-ever he or she wanted to do, so long as they didn't break any laws.
Really, people with your views need to walk a mile in the shoes of the average library user. And the average user is NOT you or me. It is the poor student, the poor worker, the elderly person, etc., who don't have the resources available to them privately. Take a chill pill, buddy, and let sleeping dogs lie.
The company is discriminating equally, against everyone. They'll fix it as soon as a manager has to start filling in for students quitting for the Summer, etc. ASsuming the manager doesn't quit, as well.
Any company that would pull a stunt like this deserves whatever it gets. Or, in this case, whatever it doesn't get, which in this case means employees.
First, accessability is not, as you so blithely put it, a "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme."
Can a blind person install and configure windows, iis, SQL server, exchange, and active directory?
That Windows (or Mac or Unix or RedHat or Solaris any OS) may or may not be accessible does not demand that the Open Source community be complicit in such exclusion.
It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace.
What's this b.s. about drawing lines? When I interact with a blind person, or a deaf person, a person missing a limb, or a person who cannot speak to me, I don't see any lines, just a person. I percieve obstacles, of course, but I overcome them to reach the person before me--it simply requires a little effort from the able-bodied community, which I represent. This is no noble effort on my part, but basic human nature.
But back to The Line. How is this arbitrary line drawn? Who is too crippled for help? What handicaps preserve enough of their victims' socioeconomic viability to justify the effort? The world is replete with what we, jingoistically, call, 'disabilities' and at some point, taking your position, we'd be left with a huge slice of society with one thing in common: not disability, but a unifying sense of isolation, having been abandoned in 'greater' society's headlong, mad rush into the orgasmic Flash experience of purchasing cat toys online.
At what point is a person not worthy of a little effort and consideration? Do you draw the line when it gets just a little too tedious to expend an iota more effort towards communicating with fellow humans? Explain to us what in the Open Source model demands that accessability goals be left to a special project, and not to more general initiatives of the OSS community? Why can't an experimental improvement in version x.y.z of a project include steps towards better access for all?
If somebody wants to put forth the effort then great but honestly why don't we concentrate on getting the documentation so that a reasonably intelligent non disabled person can use it first. Then we can worry about the blind.
Yes, let's make sure to document, in easily accessible electronic files.
And, what do you mean to say, that blind people are not "reasonably intelligent?" Or, that they are just to be blithely dismissed ("Then we can worry about the [insert token minority here]"). Or do you just mean to imply that most disabled people are generally abject dimwits? Help me out here, because, I'd like to know, and you're sounding sociopathic and a bit dismissive.
In the mean time if a blind person wants to run linux please have them contact their local LUG, I am pretty sure somebody would step up to the plate.
Ah, yes, the legendary local LUG. How far do you drive to yours? Is it on the bus line? Because not many blind people go driving about to far-flung geekmeets (trees and buildings tend to present obstacles to this), and if it's not reasonably near public transportation, then just getting into the damned town is only half the battle.
(Accessability is a huge weak spot in OSS, IMHO, and it exists beyond mere user interfaces. It is a cultural prejudice which has followed us into the digital age, and even geeks aren't immune).
Your assumption is that, well, it's just so easy to get information on open source software. "Just [blank]," or, to be more explicit, "Just overcome the numerous obstacles that make being disabled such a challenge, and prevent you from accessing 'free' software."
Another option might be to buy a pre-installed linux machine, lots of companies sell them.
Though tempted, I simply am not going to touch this one. If, by now, one misses the point, I can say little more.
I love Google Earth. I find myself in a situation where I think I may have discovered an impact site, albeit in a very open and obvious place. I have been following up on it through various universities here in Michigan (where I am, and the mystery spot is), and yes, it seems lots of people are getting into Google Earth and discovering such things (based on responses I have gotten back).
I think Verizon protesteth too much. After all, they and other line owners/operators get a free lunch in the form of utility right-of-way zoning and adjustments.
Additionally, this would artificially cap any competitive market forces behind the more efficient use/leverage of said, existing utility priviledges.
Gimme gimme gimme. When are some companies going to realize that you don't win the race simply by getting on the horse? It's a race right up to the finish, and getting to the finish on the horse and with the skills you've already got is what makes or breaks successful product and service development/delivery in a market-driven economy.
You are correct, even though people are flaming you. 'Tragedy' IS a word too freely used, as is 'hero.'
You correctly note that they were aware of the risks, they took the risks, and lost. It's not technically 'tragic' or 'tragedy,' but that doesn't at all dismiss the deeply sad, unfortunate nature of the accident, despite the binary view some are ascribing to your comments.
The accident itself is just one in a larger series of events which might collectively be considered 'tragic." As someone noted in comments, there is usually a tragic flaw--such as hubris--giving rise to the tragic events, collectively known in literature as 'tragedy.' In this case, the tragedy is the larger story of humans defying nature and assuming nature had been conquered. This is hubris, on the part of American administration officials, members of Congress, engineers, management officials, and contractors, etc., across decades, culminating in the Challenger disaster.
The 'Challenger Tragedy' is what you could call the story leading from the end of Apollo to the loss of Challenger, and its immediate aftermath, such as the hearings, etc.
Likewise, the 'Columbia Tragedy' would have a similar narrative background, with its own tragic flaw: management deciding to eschew on-orbit imaging because there was "nothing we can do," if damage was found, anyhow."
Both are sad, dramatic events, but not tragedy. I take a contrary view to what yet another commenter wrote, that it was offensive for you to compare real loss of life to fictional loss of life. To be more accurate, people calling the loss of either shuttle a tragedy are themselves using literary terminology to oversimplify a complex series of decisions and actions into a cable news soundbite, and this oversimplification ("The astronauts' deaths were tragic") cheapens, in my view, the loss of seven Americans engaged in the noble pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
And with that, I shall adorn myself with aerogel pants and await the flaming...
Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills.
I almost fought the urge to be cynical, but....
Don't count on them using such a program, then. If Congress ever actually resolved anything, they'd have to close up shop for the duration, go home, and find a real job.
Actually, I read a book a few years ago talking about various future technologies, centering on the OTEC. The basic concept was to locate these stations in areas of the seas considered "dead zones," generating energy to split water for a hydrogen-based economy. Since the water displaced in the OTEC process is rich in deep-sea nutrients, this upper-level dead zone in the sea could be farmed, consequently providing nutrition for developing nations. It was an entertaining read.
I think the book was called the Millenial Project. I think it may have some relationship to the Living Universe Foundation (http://www.luf.org/), as their site covers the same subjects.
I finally sacked up and cancelled my AOL account several months ago, after about ten years. It almost seemed to take ten years to finalize the cancellation with that call. Everytime I thought the deed was done, the woman with the vaguely foreign accent would present me with one more consolation prize to keep me on. And, every time she gave me the "Well, I can do such and such for you" spiel, I repeated the mantra: "Actually, I just want to cancel my service."
I found it helped to have the mantra ready beforehand, so it would roll off the tongue with ease. It paid off because I had to say it so many times, if I'd had to think about it, I might have just given in, if only to end the torture.
I was lucky, I think. My AOL account was cancelled, and they stopped billing me. But one thing is for sure--the lengths they went to convince me to reconsider a decision I had already considered at length made me very unlikely to ever, EVER return to AOL. In fact, mark that down as an impossibility.
I agree. 'Adult content' is a loaded phrase to begin with, too. Additionally, just because a police report reads 'adult content' or 'pornography,' one cannot and probably should not assume it accurately describes the material. A police report describes what is reported to the police. Only a court of proper jurisdiction can make the final decision as to what side of the gray line it lay upon.
I followed up and read a few news reports on this case, which said the kids accessed 'pornography,' rather than 'adult content.' However, these are news reports, and not all reporters are sensitive to the huge distinction that can exist between 'adult content' and pornography. One man's 'pornography' can be another man's 'tasteless crap.' I mean, a shoe catalog could be pornographic to a foot fetishist, but does a library remove shoe sales inserts in the Sunday papers because of this?
Of course, I should probably fully disclose the fact that I used to be the sole PC geek/administrator for a public library. We went through the great filter fights of the late '90s, which was my great education in all this stuff.
We eventually wrote a policy (well, I wrote it, and the trustees agreed to adopt it), which avoided the need for filters: anyone under 18 had to have a parent or guardian sitting with them when they used the Internet. It meant a significant shift in the number of youths using the Internet stations, but it also drove home the notion of active parenting. You might (or might not) be surprised how many parents chafe at being REQUIRED to parent their children in a public place.
After I left the library (I quit after the standard changes in management style upon the previous director's retirement), they decided to install filters. Under my tenure, I argued strenuously against them, not only because of what they DO block (protected speech), but because there was always the chance of really objectionable stuff getting through. I feared a child would stumble on a porn site a filter missed, and that it would be blamed on the staff and result in a lawsuit. But since I no longer work there, I don't give a rat's ass anymore--I educated the patrons and the administration. What they chose to do with that knowledge is their kettle of fish, now.
It says "adult content." It doesn't say it was pornographic. As to what defines 'adult content,' that depends on the viewer, or the censor. Some would consider a bare African breast in National Geographic "adult content." Others would argue that it is not. Some people are titillated by such images, and others see it for what it is.
The issue most often overlooked in a discussion of this sort of thing is that there is material considered appropriate for adults, not children, but it is not illegal. It is protected speech. It might not be appropriate for viewing in a library, but even THEN, what is considered appropriate varies with the person asked for a review.
Gray's Anatomy? National Geographic? Heather Has Two Mommies? The Art of Sensual Massage? Penthouse? Canterbury Tales? One could legitimately argue for or against any of these being "adult content." It isn't an easy answer. And just because the police heard that 'adult content' was viewed, we do not know if it was any, all, or none of the above. All we know is one person is accused of accessing pornography, and three minors viewed the nebulous "adult content." For all we know, a parent got his or her panties in a twist over their kid checking out Sports Illustrated swimsuit models online. You know, the type of parent who drops their damned kid off at the library as free childcare, and complains that no one watched over their little angel while they were busy not being a parent.
Slashdot Mirror
This actually could prove to be a boon to business in Washtenaw County. When business thrives, tax coffers fill, thereby helping to defray such installation and operational costs. It's a beneficial cycle, at least in theory.
Amen, brother!
I'd like to add that by offloading otherwise dialed-in users to wireless access, modem lines would be freed up for outlying users. That would have been helpful to me when I was dialing in years ago... And dialing in... and dialing in... and finally getting connected (for three minutes, then EOF lol).
Also, consider the social implications (I make this remark only HALF jokingly): more people will leave the house/apartment/dorm, taking their surfing outdoors and maybe--just MAYBE--interacting in meatspace again.
I can see it now:
KingGama: What are you wearing?
PrincessIda: I'm at the next table, you geek, look for yourself.
KingGama: Oh.
KingGama: Which one are you?
PrincessIda: The one typing with one hand and waving with the other
KingGama: Is that your boyfriend with you?
PrincessIda: Yeah
KingGama: Oh
KingGama: Ok CU I gtg byeee...
(chat closed)
I wonder what impact this might have on arbornet.org, a long-time Ann Arbor BBS. Like maybe lots of BBS's, they've been through having to pay for lots of modems, then getting lean and relying moreso on telnetting over home/ISP accounts. I wonder if the county's wireless plan bodes well or ill for venerable old m-net (arbornet)...
1984 is when the authorities catch a clue.
Or, as Benny hill once said in a sketch, "My dog likes to chase cars, but if he ever caught one, he wouldn't know what to do with the damn thing!"
Right now, the powers that be are dogs chasing cars, but they are close to figuing out what they'll do when they catch one.
Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
And yet you thought to tell us about it.
Thanks, and bully for you.
ARGH!
The attitude expressed in your statement is really simplistic to the point of banality. Who is to say myspace isn't a productive use of resources? I would have said the same thing about classmates.com, until I discovered my old college roommate there a few weeks ago.
Just because YOU don't use that resource doesn't mean it isn't useful or helpful to someone else.
Well, jackass, *I* WAS in charge of IT in a library. Sure, we had rules in place as to what made for proper use of equipment, but we didn't block content at all. As for kids, it was only when the feds started writing restrictive laws re.: filtering that we began to limit kiddie use, and only then by saying they could only use the net with their parents' supervision.
As far as "good" academic search sites... HAH! Wikipedia is convenient, but as far as academic research goes, it fails on several marks. I wouldn't block it, though, just because it doesn't appeal to my high-fallutin' academic ways. Blocking out Gmail, yahoo, etc., would place a fundamental cluster-fuck on communications for a GREAT many people, INCLUDING those doing legit research. You may not LIKE people communicating on library computers, but research is, well, based on communication.
It's probably just as annoying to need to get a quick email out to a research collaborator when some "asshole" is sitting there posting to Slashdot, too. I wouldn;t block Slashdot, though. And I wouldn't prevent an asshole like you from doing what-the-hell-ever he or she wanted to do, so long as they didn't break any laws.
Really, people with your views need to walk a mile in the shoes of the average library user. And the average user is NOT you or me. It is the poor student, the poor worker, the elderly person, etc., who don't have the resources available to them privately. Take a chill pill, buddy, and let sleeping dogs lie.
Ok, so I still have to RTFA, but this is, if true, pure bullshit.
The Constitution says we are free to peaceably assemble. It doesn't put restrictions on it.
Adults SHOULD NOT have to ask for permission to access protected speech.
I thought the adults were in charge in DC. That's what BushCo told us back in the day...
That's a story with bite!
The company is discriminating equally, against everyone. They'll fix it as soon as a manager has to start filling in for students quitting for the Summer, etc. ASsuming the manager doesn't quit, as well.
Any company that would pull a stunt like this deserves whatever it gets. Or, in this case, whatever it doesn't get, which in this case means employees.
...That there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Thanks you, Whackie Right and TV Newsers, for going all out to drive hits to myspace.com.
Can you badmouth my blog, now?
Retards.
First, accessability is not, as you so blithely put it, a "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme."
Can a blind person install and configure windows, iis, SQL server, exchange, and active directory?
That Windows (or Mac or Unix or RedHat or Solaris any OS) may or may not be accessible does not demand that the Open Source community be complicit in such exclusion.
It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace.
What's this b.s. about drawing lines? When I interact with a blind person, or a deaf person, a person missing a limb, or a person who cannot speak to me, I don't see any lines, just a person. I percieve obstacles, of course, but I overcome them to reach the person before me--it simply requires a little effort from the able-bodied community, which I represent. This is no noble effort on my part, but basic human nature.
But back to The Line. How is this arbitrary line drawn? Who is too crippled for help? What handicaps preserve enough of their victims' socioeconomic viability to justify the effort? The world is replete with what we, jingoistically, call, 'disabilities' and at some point, taking your position, we'd be left with a huge slice of society with one thing in common: not disability, but a unifying sense of isolation, having been abandoned in 'greater' society's headlong, mad rush into the orgasmic Flash experience of purchasing cat toys online.
At what point is a person not worthy of a little effort and consideration? Do you draw the line when it gets just a little too tedious to expend an iota more effort towards communicating with fellow humans? Explain to us what in the Open Source model demands that accessability goals be left to a special project, and not to more general initiatives of the OSS community? Why can't an experimental improvement in version x.y.z of a project include steps towards better access for all?
If somebody wants to put forth the effort then great but honestly why don't we concentrate on getting the documentation so that a reasonably intelligent non disabled person can use it first. Then we can worry about the blind.
Yes, let's make sure to document, in easily accessible electronic files.
And, what do you mean to say, that blind people are not "reasonably intelligent?" Or, that they are just to be blithely dismissed ("Then we can worry about the [insert token minority here]"). Or do you just mean to imply that most disabled people are generally abject dimwits? Help me out here, because, I'd like to know, and you're sounding sociopathic and a bit dismissive.
In the mean time if a blind person wants to run linux please have them contact their local LUG, I am pretty sure somebody would step up to the plate.
Ah, yes, the legendary local LUG. How far do you drive to yours? Is it on the bus line? Because not many blind people go driving about to far-flung geekmeets (trees and buildings tend to present obstacles to this), and if it's not reasonably near public transportation, then just getting into the damned town is only half the battle.
(Accessability is a huge weak spot in OSS, IMHO, and it exists beyond mere user interfaces. It is a cultural prejudice which has followed us into the digital age, and even geeks aren't immune).
Your assumption is that, well, it's just so easy to get information on open source software. "Just [blank]," or, to be more explicit, "Just overcome the numerous obstacles that make being disabled such a challenge, and prevent you from accessing 'free' software."
Another option might be to buy a pre-installed linux machine, lots of companies sell them.
Though tempted, I simply am not going to touch this one. If, by now, one misses the point, I can say little more.
I love Google Earth. I find myself in a situation where I think I may have discovered an impact site, albeit in a very open and obvious place. I have been following up on it through various universities here in Michigan (where I am, and the mystery spot is), and yes, it seems lots of people are getting into Google Earth and discovering such things (based on responses I have gotten back).
I believe his letter back to the IRS said something like "From my savings account you nosy SOB."
I like your gramps' attitude and response! "Nuts!" to the IRS and their nosiness!
I think Verizon protesteth too much. After all, they and other line owners/operators get a free lunch in the form of utility right-of-way zoning and adjustments.
Additionally, this would artificially cap any competitive market forces behind the more efficient use/leverage of said, existing utility priviledges.
Gimme gimme gimme. When are some companies going to realize that you don't win the race simply by getting on the horse? It's a race right up to the finish, and getting to the finish on the horse and with the skills you've already got is what makes or breaks successful product and service development/delivery in a market-driven economy.
It ain't her boob, but the star-shaped stud she has in it that will get ya.
You are correct, even though people are flaming you. 'Tragedy' IS a word too freely used, as is 'hero.'
You correctly note that they were aware of the risks, they took the risks, and lost. It's not technically 'tragic' or 'tragedy,' but that doesn't at all dismiss the deeply sad, unfortunate nature of the accident, despite the binary view some are ascribing to your comments.
The accident itself is just one in a larger series of events which might collectively be considered 'tragic." As someone noted in comments, there is usually a tragic flaw--such as hubris--giving rise to the tragic events, collectively known in literature as 'tragedy.' In this case, the tragedy is the larger story of humans defying nature and assuming nature had been conquered. This is hubris, on the part of American administration officials, members of Congress, engineers, management officials, and contractors, etc., across decades, culminating in the Challenger disaster.
The 'Challenger Tragedy' is what you could call the story leading from the end of Apollo to the loss of Challenger, and its immediate aftermath, such as the hearings, etc.
Likewise, the 'Columbia Tragedy' would have a similar narrative background, with its own tragic flaw: management deciding to eschew on-orbit imaging because there was "nothing we can do," if damage was found, anyhow."
Both are sad, dramatic events, but not tragedy. I take a contrary view to what yet another commenter wrote, that it was offensive for you to compare real loss of life to fictional loss of life. To be more accurate, people calling the loss of either shuttle a tragedy are themselves using literary terminology to oversimplify a complex series of decisions and actions into a cable news soundbite, and this oversimplification ("The astronauts' deaths were tragic") cheapens, in my view, the loss of seven Americans engaged in the noble pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
And with that, I shall adorn myself with aerogel pants and await the flaming...
Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills.
I almost fought the urge to be cynical, but....
Don't count on them using such a program, then. If Congress ever actually resolved anything, they'd have to close up shop for the duration, go home, and find a real job.
[/cynicism]
Actually, I read a book a few years ago talking about various future technologies, centering on the OTEC. The basic concept was to locate these stations in areas of the seas considered "dead zones," generating energy to split water for a hydrogen-based economy. Since the water displaced in the OTEC process is rich in deep-sea nutrients, this upper-level dead zone in the sea could be farmed, consequently providing nutrition for developing nations. It was an entertaining read.
I think the book was called the Millenial Project. I think it may have some relationship to the Living Universe Foundation (http://www.luf.org/), as their site covers the same subjects.
Alien 1: "We've decoded the script, and expect the results in a few seconds."
Alien 2: "Excellent... I wonder what insight this will give us on the universe!?"
Alien 1: "Awwww SHIT!"
Alien 2: "What!? What's wrong?!"
Alien 1: "We were too late. We only decoded it in time to catch the credits..."
I finally sacked up and cancelled my AOL account several months ago, after about ten years. It almost seemed to take ten years to finalize the cancellation with that call. Everytime I thought the deed was done, the woman with the vaguely foreign accent would present me with one more consolation prize to keep me on. And, every time she gave me the "Well, I can do such and such for you" spiel, I repeated the mantra: "Actually, I just want to cancel my service."
I found it helped to have the mantra ready beforehand, so it would roll off the tongue with ease. It paid off because I had to say it so many times, if I'd had to think about it, I might have just given in, if only to end the torture.
I was lucky, I think. My AOL account was cancelled, and they stopped billing me. But one thing is for sure--the lengths they went to convince me to reconsider a decision I had already considered at length made me very unlikely to ever, EVER return to AOL. In fact, mark that down as an impossibility.
It's really not the SIZE of the pr0n file, it's what you do with it.
Unless they replace the management structure, then yes.
Next stop, bionic eyes!
I agree. 'Adult content' is a loaded phrase to begin with, too. Additionally, just because a police report reads 'adult content' or 'pornography,' one cannot and probably should not assume it accurately describes the material. A police report describes what is reported to the police. Only a court of proper jurisdiction can make the final decision as to what side of the gray line it lay upon.
I followed up and read a few news reports on this case, which said the kids accessed 'pornography,' rather than 'adult content.' However, these are news reports, and not all reporters are sensitive to the huge distinction that can exist between 'adult content' and pornography. One man's 'pornography' can be another man's 'tasteless crap.' I mean, a shoe catalog could be pornographic to a foot fetishist, but does a library remove shoe sales inserts in the Sunday papers because of this?
Of course, I should probably fully disclose the fact that I used to be the sole PC geek/administrator for a public library. We went through the great filter fights of the late '90s, which was my great education in all this stuff.
We eventually wrote a policy (well, I wrote it, and the trustees agreed to adopt it), which avoided the need for filters: anyone under 18 had to have a parent or guardian sitting with them when they used the Internet. It meant a significant shift in the number of youths using the Internet stations, but it also drove home the notion of active parenting. You might (or might not) be surprised how many parents chafe at being REQUIRED to parent their children in a public place.
After I left the library (I quit after the standard changes in management style upon the previous director's retirement), they decided to install filters. Under my tenure, I argued strenuously against them, not only because of what they DO block (protected speech), but because there was always the chance of really objectionable stuff getting through. I feared a child would stumble on a porn site a filter missed, and that it would be blamed on the staff and result in a lawsuit. But since I no longer work there, I don't give a rat's ass anymore--I educated the patrons and the administration. What they chose to do with that knowledge is their kettle of fish, now.
It says "adult content." It doesn't say it was pornographic. As to what defines 'adult content,' that depends on the viewer, or the censor. Some would consider a bare African breast in National Geographic "adult content." Others would argue that it is not. Some people are titillated by such images, and others see it for what it is.
The issue most often overlooked in a discussion of this sort of thing is that there is material considered appropriate for adults, not children, but it is not illegal. It is protected speech. It might not be appropriate for viewing in a library, but even THEN, what is considered appropriate varies with the person asked for a review.
Gray's Anatomy? National Geographic? Heather Has Two Mommies? The Art of Sensual Massage? Penthouse? Canterbury Tales? One could legitimately argue for or against any of these being "adult content." It isn't an easy answer. And just because the police heard that 'adult content' was viewed, we do not know if it was any, all, or none of the above. All we know is one person is accused of accessing pornography, and three minors viewed the nebulous "adult content." For all we know, a parent got his or her panties in a twist over their kid checking out Sports Illustrated swimsuit models online. You know, the type of parent who drops their damned kid off at the library as free childcare, and complains that no one watched over their little angel while they were busy not being a parent.