The internet is a very difficult place to police your children.
First of all, it's basically impossible to prevent a child from getting anyplace. Sure, Net-Nanny and other-types of software are sold, but these don't really do their job all that well.
Second, the internet is also a neccessary component of schoolkids' lives. It's a wealth of valuable information on practically any topic concievable.
Third, the internet is one big massive thing. There's no way to let kids play on the playground and not the highway next to it. It's like the cars are driving through centerfield every once in a while - to avoid hitting one after a long enough time takes a lot of luck. Most of the time it's not parents being reckless, it's other people - driving on the playground while the kids are trying to play ball.
The problem isn't with kids downloading porn. If Joey, the 11-year old websurfer, happens to run across pictures of naked people, we can be reasonably sure that he's not doing it on purpose.
I think that we should leave this job up to a search engine like google that wants to start classifying pages like google does and then applying the same type of page-rank algorithm. I imagine that lots of porn links to lots of other porn - the best way to stop people who *want parental control* from accessing porn is to get it where it gets most of it's business - the link circles.
I know you're not a big fan of animal research, but I figured I'd try to enlighten you a bit.
Many of the research conditions required by advanced neuropsychology require very direct control over the type of injury that a patient has. Because we're only "starting" to know a great deal about areas of the brain (both human, simian, and avian), we must control very carefully the types of injuries that our test subjects have.
Studies such as these cost tens of thousands of dollars to perform - not because the technology is costly (which it is) - but because test subjects are required with such precision. Think about how hard it would be to get test subjects with one particular condition flown in from all around the globe, and that's only after you've gone out to interview them or have spent the money to find out about them. Then, you've got to make sure they've got exactly the type of injury that will help progress your research - a blunder could ruin the experiment.
There are lots of different things that control "now try moving the robotic arm without moving your real one". Thousands of pathways that could be injured in the intermediary. When scientists conduct animal tests, they are doing it for the benefit of the humans they help to aid - and often, it involves very specific lesions that must be carefully examined post-mortem: such a sacrifice we cannot expect humans to provide.
Trust me when I say this: no one likes harming aminals, even for test purposes. There's no joy when we realize that some of the pigeons I work with might have to die some day, to be able to validate the research we conduct. It's not pretty to note these things, but it's neccessary to continue furthering our understanding of the brain and of vision.
Any questions specifically about avian visual psychology (that's what I research), will be gladly accepted.:)
PS: Very, very few of our test subjects are ever harmed, and yes, they've all got names instead of numbers.;)
First off, I highly recommend Firebird. When switching between the two OSes, the interface will stay the same, which is a big plus.It's free. Thunderbird is their mail client, which handles a whole bunch of different options and tasks. Free as well. www.mozilla.org.
Second: Sygate Personal Firewall, downloadable from Download.com, is a huge boost in security and a *very* configurable firewall for Windows machines. It's free. AVG virus scanner is free and well-updated.
Winamp/XMMS - if you plan on any multimedia, it's a big neccessity. Both free.
GAIM instant messenger. Same deal with Firebird. Free.
If you plan on letting the Computer double as an entertainment center, spring for a cheap TV card. TVTime is excellent free TV Software that's extremely easy to set up and provides amazing picture quality (www.tvtime.net), and FreeVO lets your machine double as a TiVo type recorder (beware, takes a lot of setup and headaches).
All published science is "Open Source". You publish your methods, your statistical tests - you're even required by most Journals to submit your data to anyone who asks.
Everything you use is referenced. The only thing that's closed is your thought process - and that's supposed to be described thoroughly in your Introduction and Discussion.
So as long as we're talking about Published Science, I have no idea what you're all talking about.
Actually, DRM is double-speak for "You can't do what you want with what you legally own that isn't legal", or it's sister-saying, "You can't do what you want with things you don't own".
Since you don't own certain rights to what you're listening to, they have every right to restrict it. There's a really good reply to this in the capitalist system we live in: Don't buy their stuff.
No, I'm serious. It's one of those interesting facets of capitalism that people often overlook: if something is desired by the people, people will make it and sell it. Likewise, things that aren't desired by the people simply won't sell.
Why do you use Linux? Why do you read Slashdot? Why do browse with Firebird? Is it because you don't support the other products on the market, or because yours have certain features that they don't?
A great example of this is the recent block on cigarette smoking in bars around the Boston Metro Area. They've passed the legislation because of workers and consumers rights - people shouldn't be exposed to a cancer causing agent. A friend of mine brought up a great point - this entire idea is absurd, if people wanted smoke-free bars, they'd exist and be doing well *without* legislation that prevents other bars from having cigarette smoke. This is the danger - Microsoft and other companies forcing this unwanted legislation down your throat. You can either a) sit in the bar and not smoke, b) quit smoking, or c) go to a bar that allows it. The same analogy stands up when dealing with Computers and Operating systems - keep using Windows if you like, stop using computers altogether, or switch to something that's more viable for your needs.
Oh, and about the lossless music - don't bother. It's completely not economical to distribute WAV files or SHNs across the internet. If you can really hear the difference between a WAV and a good mp3, you've got quite the ear.:)
If someone would build in a tracking system (not by user, before you go nuts, by songs and discs), the system could automatically recommend free samples of upcoming artists who chose to participate in such a promotion.
For instance, I listen to a relatively unknown band named Porcupine Tree, who sound a little bit Prog and a little bit Hard Rock, with some great harmonies and things mixed in. If a service were to suggest them to you after you downloaded the right amount of music in the right composition and then give you a free sample, Porcupine Tree's fan base might have just increased by one. Then, you might download some more of their music (which you pay for), browse around their website, or maybe you hate the stuff and never listen again. But you've listened once, and that's what matters.
This is the type of music distribution that P2P needs. Incentives and Exposure for the artists. A working P2P model would incorporate the consumer's neophobia into give-aways and freebies designed to help out the music service (people will be downloading more music) and up-and-coming bands.
Humans don't use 15% of their brains. Why is this such a common myth?
Consider this: Neurons in your brain develop stable synapses only through recurring use. The other 85% of your brain simply wouldn't be there if it wasn't used. Furthermore, Neurologists have mapped very specific functions to large areas of cortex. What parts of your brain aren't you using?
People say: "Yeah, but you're not using all of your brain all of the time." What would you say to someone who said "You're only using 10% of your body because you don't use 100% of it all the time?" You'd say they were an idiot, and you'd be right.
You using 100% of your brain. I fail to see why this is such a difficult issue for people to grasp.
In an environment such as many RPGs create, "Thieves" are a class of characters. While I certainly don't support Grief-killing or otherwise, I think any legal team would have a hard time proving that the Thief class was not intended to steal, and therefore should violate any sort of law.
Furthermore, since most EULAs include statements which claim the ownership of the content to be the company, players stealing from players is not stealing in the sense that property is physical changing ownership, because the company still owns it either way.
"... if you are a law enforcement officer active in a jurisdiction which recognizes this copyright..."
Oh come on/b: "You may not open this obviously illegal packet of drugs if you are a law enforcement officer, being that this wax seal protects copyrighted work inside and serves as a protection mechanism."
Just because *you* have no regard for the content these people have on their computers doesn't mean they don't have it. Friends and Colleauges of mine have been infected with these virii that have years of data on systems - just because you think that they should be more computer savvy is a real shitty argument.
I mean, what if every time you got sick because you didn't wash your hands, the Medical solution was to amputate your arm so that you couldn't propogate infection? Don't be such an asshole.
The parent post is a perfect example of people who refuse to understand why the internet is such an exciting and appropriate way to deliver all sorts of academic/research content.
A perfect example is the science journal - extremely expensive for the end-user, limitations of print length, the expensive nature of printing color graphics and charts which convey far more and relevant information on the topic, and the inability to demonstrate realtime video of experimental procedures, which all serve to enhance the viewer's experience.
Sure, the internet is still primarily *language* - as will be most human communication - but there are other essentials that the poster overlooks.
Just type in any URL you don't think corresponds to an address, like www.googoogoogle.com. All the contact info will be on the bogus page that pops up.
The copyright notice is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation in modern law.
There's no requirement for the creator an a work (public or private) to put a copyright notice on his work - instead, original creations are considered copyrighted material until proven/made otherwise.
Of course take-2 is in the wrong, but how wrong are they? They've highly publicized this man's creations, which weren't originally signed, it appears. In other words, they're no different from the originals, and while he isn't getting credit in the game, he isn't getting credit on the street either.
They should take each sentence in the paper and run a google-ish type query and flag it if it comes up with more than a few hits.
Why?
Students plagarize these days, a *lot*, because they think it's impossible to get caught. A google-type query on each sentence would make it much more difficult to just copy someone else's work vertabim.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet is a very difficult place to police your children.
First of all, it's basically impossible to prevent a child from getting anyplace. Sure, Net-Nanny and other-types of software are sold, but these don't really do their job all that well.
Second, the internet is also a neccessary component of schoolkids' lives. It's a wealth of valuable information on practically any topic concievable.
Third, the internet is one big massive thing. There's no way to let kids play on the playground and not the highway next to it. It's like the cars are driving through centerfield every once in a while - to avoid hitting one after a long enough time takes a lot of luck. Most of the time it's not parents being reckless, it's other people - driving on the playground while the kids are trying to play ball.
The problem isn't with kids downloading porn. If Joey, the 11-year old websurfer, happens to run across pictures of naked people, we can be reasonably sure that he's not doing it on purpose.
I think that we should leave this job up to a search engine like google that wants to start classifying pages like google does and then applying the same type of page-rank algorithm. I imagine that lots of porn links to lots of other porn - the best way to stop people who *want parental control* from accessing porn is to get it where it gets most of it's business - the link circles.
Hebrew is the National Language of Israel.
There are religious nuts, and secular schoolchildren who use this product. Stop being such an ass.
I know you're not a big fan of animal research, but I figured I'd try to enlighten you a bit.
:)
;)
Many of the research conditions required by advanced neuropsychology require very direct control over the type of injury that a patient has. Because we're only "starting" to know a great deal about areas of the brain (both human, simian, and avian), we must control very carefully the types of injuries that our test subjects have.
Studies such as these cost tens of thousands of dollars to perform - not because the technology is costly (which it is) - but because test subjects are required with such precision. Think about how hard it would be to get test subjects with one particular condition flown in from all around the globe, and that's only after you've gone out to interview them or have spent the money to find out about them. Then, you've got to make sure they've got exactly the type of injury that will help progress your research - a blunder could ruin the experiment.
There are lots of different things that control "now try moving the robotic arm without moving your real one". Thousands of pathways that could be injured in the intermediary. When scientists conduct animal tests, they are doing it for the benefit of the humans they help to aid - and often, it involves very specific lesions that must be carefully examined post-mortem: such a sacrifice we cannot expect humans to provide.
Trust me when I say this: no one likes harming aminals, even for test purposes. There's no joy when we realize that some of the pigeons I work with might have to die some day, to be able to validate the research we conduct. It's not pretty to note these things, but it's neccessary to continue furthering our understanding of the brain and of vision.
Any questions specifically about avian visual psychology (that's what I research), will be gladly accepted.
PS: Very, very few of our test subjects are ever harmed, and yes, they've all got names instead of numbers.
First off, I highly recommend Firebird. When switching between the two OSes, the interface will stay the same, which is a big plus.It's free. Thunderbird is their mail client, which handles a whole bunch of different options and tasks. Free as well. www.mozilla.org.
Second: Sygate Personal Firewall, downloadable from Download.com, is a huge boost in security and a *very* configurable firewall for Windows machines. It's free. AVG virus scanner is free and well-updated.
Winamp/XMMS - if you plan on any multimedia, it's a big neccessity. Both free.
GAIM instant messenger. Same deal with Firebird. Free.
If you plan on letting the Computer double as an entertainment center, spring for a cheap TV card. TVTime is excellent free TV Software that's extremely easy to set up and provides amazing picture quality (www.tvtime.net), and FreeVO lets your machine double as a TiVo type recorder (beware, takes a lot of setup and headaches).
It's funny that you so blantantly exemplify the availability heuristic when making an "educated" comment about psychology. :)
All published science is "Open Source". You publish your methods, your statistical tests - you're even required by most Journals to submit your data to anyone who asks.
Everything you use is referenced. The only thing that's closed is your thought process - and that's supposed to be described thoroughly in your Introduction and Discussion.
So as long as we're talking about Published Science, I have no idea what you're all talking about.
Actually, DRM is double-speak for "You can't do what you want with what you legally own that isn't legal", or it's sister-saying, "You can't do what you want with things you don't own".
:)
Since you don't own certain rights to what you're listening to, they have every right to restrict it. There's a really good reply to this in the capitalist system we live in: Don't buy their stuff.
No, I'm serious. It's one of those interesting facets of capitalism that people often overlook: if something is desired by the people, people will make it and sell it. Likewise, things that aren't desired by the people simply won't sell.
Why do you use Linux? Why do you read Slashdot? Why do browse with Firebird? Is it because you don't support the other products on the market, or because yours have certain features that they don't?
A great example of this is the recent block on cigarette smoking in bars around the Boston Metro Area. They've passed the legislation because of workers and consumers rights - people shouldn't be exposed to a cancer causing agent. A friend of mine brought up a great point - this entire idea is absurd, if people wanted smoke-free bars, they'd exist and be doing well *without* legislation that prevents other bars from having cigarette smoke. This is the danger - Microsoft and other companies forcing this unwanted legislation down your throat. You can either a) sit in the bar and not smoke, b) quit smoking, or c) go to a bar that allows it. The same analogy stands up when dealing with Computers and Operating systems - keep using Windows if you like, stop using computers altogether, or switch to something that's more viable for your needs.
Oh, and about the lossless music - don't bother. It's completely not economical to distribute WAV files or SHNs across the internet. If you can really hear the difference between a WAV and a good mp3, you've got quite the ear.
Disagree.
If someone would build in a tracking system (not by user, before you go nuts, by songs and discs), the system could automatically recommend free samples of upcoming artists who chose to participate in such a promotion.
For instance, I listen to a relatively unknown band named Porcupine Tree, who sound a little bit Prog and a little bit Hard Rock, with some great harmonies and things mixed in. If a service were to suggest them to you after you downloaded the right amount of music in the right composition and then give you a free sample, Porcupine Tree's fan base might have just increased by one. Then, you might download some more of their music (which you pay for), browse around their website, or maybe you hate the stuff and never listen again. But you've listened once, and that's what matters.
This is the type of music distribution that P2P needs. Incentives and Exposure for the artists. A working P2P model would incorporate the consumer's neophobia into give-aways and freebies designed to help out the music service (people will be downloading more music) and up-and-coming bands.
Humans don't use 15% of their brains. Why is this such a common myth?
Consider this: Neurons in your brain develop stable synapses only through recurring use. The other 85% of your brain simply wouldn't be there if it wasn't used. Furthermore, Neurologists have mapped very specific functions to large areas of cortex. What parts of your brain aren't you using?
People say: "Yeah, but you're not using all of your brain all of the time." What would you say to someone who said "You're only using 10% of your body because you don't use 100% of it all the time?" You'd say they were an idiot, and you'd be right.
You using 100% of your brain. I fail to see why this is such a difficult issue for people to grasp.
> Lots of people go to school for 7 years!
> Yeah, they're called *doctors*.
In an environment such as many RPGs create, "Thieves" are a class of characters. While I certainly don't support Grief-killing or otherwise, I think any legal team would have a hard time proving that the Thief class was not intended to steal, and therefore should violate any sort of law.
Furthermore, since most EULAs include statements which claim the ownership of the content to be the company, players stealing from players is not stealing in the sense that property is physical changing ownership, because the company still owns it either way.
"... if you are a law enforcement officer active in a jurisdiction which recognizes this copyright..."
Oh come on/b:
"You may not open this obviously illegal packet of drugs if you are a law enforcement officer, being that this wax seal protects copyrighted work inside and serves as a protection mechanism."
Rosen ought to sound about as "smrat" as Bush in a spelling-bee.
Yes, the typo was intended. Stop nitpikcing.
Just because *you* have no regard for the content these people have on their computers doesn't mean they don't have it. Friends and Colleauges of mine have been infected with these virii that have years of data on systems - just because you think that they should be more computer savvy is a real shitty argument.
I mean, what if every time you got sick because you didn't wash your hands, the Medical solution was to amputate your arm so that you couldn't propogate infection? Don't be such an asshole.
The parent post is a perfect example of people who refuse to understand why the internet is such an exciting and appropriate way to deliver all sorts of academic/research content.
A perfect example is the science journal - extremely expensive for the end-user, limitations of print length, the expensive nature of printing color graphics and charts which convey far more and relevant information on the topic, and the inability to demonstrate realtime video of experimental procedures, which all serve to enhance the viewer's experience.
Sure, the internet is still primarily *language* - as will be most human communication - but there are other essentials that the poster overlooks.
Wait a long time for it's release.
Just type in any URL you don't think corresponds to an address, like www.googoogoogle.com. All the contact info will be on the bogus page that pops up.
"So if you wanted that new Atmosphere track, you would be able to download it from a user in the Netherlands but not Wisconsin."
Everybody and his mother would be routing through a proxy server.
I actually went to highschool with his son. He's married and things.
What about that last quote, where they said that because they weren't a legal organization, they weren't bound by the limits of search?
I'd be dubious of giving anything to anyone who said they didn't have to honor the law.
How about: "Stupid", "Ignorant", or "Idiotic", all which convey measures of intelligence and not sexual orientation?
The copyright notice is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation in modern law.
There's no requirement for the creator an a work (public or private) to put a copyright notice on his work - instead, original creations are considered copyrighted material until proven/made otherwise.
Of course take-2 is in the wrong, but how wrong are they? They've highly publicized this man's creations, which weren't originally signed, it appears. In other words, they're no different from the originals, and while he isn't getting credit in the game, he isn't getting credit on the street either.
They should take each sentence in the paper and run a google-ish type query and flag it if it comes up with more than a few hits.
Why?
Students plagarize these days, a *lot*, because they think it's impossible to get caught. A google-type query on each sentence would make it much more difficult to just copy someone else's work vertabim.
For everyone to pick their favorite spam email sender and sign up his posted email address?
puppydog@mutley.uklinux.net
It almost sounds like:
"Lock your X-foils in attack position"...