Southern Chester county, down near the Maryland and Delaware borders. Allentown and Philly aren't too awfully far away.
We both have the same absurdly high tax problems. I really think the solution is to directly bill the parents. You'd get competition between schools (those that will provide the best education for the most reasonable price) and those that are using the system see how much it costs. It affects them directly. I think people would suddenly think more carefully about how their money is being spent if they were the only ones footing the bill.
Possibly. Short of shifting the burden entirely to those with kids, another thing that might help is school vouchers. This would allow parents who send kids to private schools (because the public schools are so horrible) to make at least partial use of the taxes they pay. This also has the effect of decoupling the school budget from the taxes. However, I'm pretty sure the public school system would collapse within a few years, and that might leave some of the poorer parents unable to send their kids to school. Like it or not, the poorer families are frequently the ones with more children. Another option would be to only publicly fund eduction for children who come from families with an income below some arbitrary level. This would make the parents who could afford it directly responsible for the investment in education while not leaving the poorer children without any choices. Done correctly, it would also probably reduce the per household tax burden. At the very list, it would make it very clear what the cost per child was. I think if people knew exactly what that cost was, some eyebrows would be going up and some investigations would take place. I cringe at what they would find.
Why should owing a large or nice house have anything to do with how much you put into the education system?
Agreed. This is just another part of a flawed system. I suspect the intention is that if you have a bigger house, you have more money and therefore should have a larger share of the tax burden. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. You might inherit a house that's really nice, but if that's your sole possession, you aren't wealthy. If everyone is to be taxed, it would be better to have those taxes spread fairly. Any ideas what the fairest method would be? Assume for the moment that not having children doesn't allow you to escape.
Sorry for responding so late, but since the thread has turned into an interesting conversation....
I find that odd, because movie trailers even for R rated movies are pretty watered down.
The stuff that I find personally objectionable are generally for rated R movies that I wouldn't want to see. In general, I guess you could say that the trailer did its job of making sure I knew it wasn't a movie that I was interested in.;) Regarding the children, though, it's usually imagery from a horror movie. While it doesn't really bother me, it can cause nightmares for the kids. I personally don't care if they show the advertisements, but please not during the middle of children's programming. I don't really want a rating system on commercials, just for somebody who does the scheduling to avoid heavy medication prior to making decisions on what commercials go where.
You can screen what your kids watch before they watch it. More effort on you, but I assume you knew having kids would be a daunting task.
I actually have no problem with this, and most of the time I screen the content anyway. Just because something is rated G or PG doesn't mean I want the kids watching it. I don't let my youngest watch "Teletubbies" because I find the program an insult to the intelligence of kids everywhere. In general, I'd be perfectly happy to have separate children's channels (which we do, in fact, have) that I pay for separately (which we can't do). In the absence of this, the rating system helps. I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with a rating system whose cost was borne entirely by its users?
Its another thorn, not the main one. I would love TV, movies, music and video games to push the edge more and more... but this is not possible because of the ratings systems in place.
One thing you may find interesting -- At least the for movie business, the ratings system was self-imposed by the MPAA. However, you would probably be unsurprised to find that it was a more or less direct response to the threat of outright censorship.
We actually get to vote on whether or not to increase the school budget.
Ah, we don't have this luxury. However, proposed big increases are generally put to a referendum. The last one that I mentioned (on increasing the local earned income tax) was shot down. But the officials in charge did everything they could to push it through. They sent confusing information to the public that tried to disguise it as a tax break (they offered to reduce the property taxes by a maximum of $311 annually per household if we voted for the higher EIT (which based on demographics would have increased the tax by an average of nearly $600 annually per household). They also planned the vote during an off-year election for the primaries, when hardly anybody would show up, and I think the polls were only open during working hours. I was so angry about it that I took off work to vote and called up all my neighbors asking them to do the same. Needless to say, the thing lost by a landslide. In fact, state-wide, I heard it only passed in two townships (Pennsylvania).
We also get to vote to close certain schools which are literally less than half full. But even that gets shot down, for some vague "keep neighborhood schools!" rallying cry.
That's totally illogical, and I'd be pretty upset about it too. The only reason to keep a school that's less than half full open is if attendance is expected to swing up strongly in the next few years (as it's more expensive to build a new school than to keep the old one open for a few years). If they did that around here, I think there'd be a war. As it is, they built new schools recently. For some reason, there's an opinion that children will somehow be better
I think you see how the phrase "as adults" would lead me to believe otherwise.
OK, conceded.
It is my right to have access to art, ideas and entertainment which is free of censorship though. Parents typically believe that these things should be censored to protect their kids.
I don't consider providing ratings and a method to filter them to be censorship. Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement.
So where may I purchase Manhunt 2?
On this one I might be able to provide a bit of help. It's not quite out yet, but Amazon.com is taking preorders for $39.99. Release date for the PSP is September 1. Release date for the PS2 and Wii is October 1. Enjoy!;)
I can hardly think of any commercial I find remotely offensive, even for kids. Please provide an example.
Erm, the advertisement against pirating at the beginning of movies?;) Just kidding. The only TV the kids have watched recently is from videos, but the next time I see one, I'll let you know. Usually they are advertisements for movies.
The only way to do so though involves it costing everyone, either money spent with laws to enforce the chip is included, people rating, coming up with a rating system.
If you can find a way to get this done without making laws or ended up with only one model of TV that provides the option, please let me know.
I'm paying for other people's choice to have kids everyday, and quite frankly I'm tired of it. A full two thirds of my property tax is to educate OTHER peoples kids; money that I could really use to make some much needed repairs around my house.
Ah, so here's the real thorn. And you know what? I support you on this feeling. The public schools around here are so horrible that we don't even use them. We're shelling out extra bucks to send the kids to private school, and yet we're still paying the property taxes to support what I consider a failed system. Worse yet, we have this local earned income tax that partly goes to the education system. Somehow, private school still manages to cost less than public school. So I share your frustration, if for slightly different reasons.
Worse, this majority with kids keep voting to increase school budgets, saying "we know taxes will go up but we think its worth it."
Actually, this isn't true, at least not around where I live. Most of the homeowners here have children, and we have consistently voted against property tax increases (at least when given the option). We just recently voted down (with a vengeance) a proposal to increase the local earned income tax to add to the school budget. I personally have never met _anybody_ that thinks the school budget (let alone property taxes) needs to go up. And yet the board of supervisors keeps raising the taxes. We even voted one of the worst offenders of tax increases off the board, but the taxes keep going up. Several off us (all with children) are starting to look at other counties (and states) to move to because of the ridiculous tax burden. The truth is that it isn't the children that are making your taxes go up. It's the politicians, and they are using the children as an excuse. If we didn't have a public school system, the politicians would just find another way to separate you from your money.
Dude, settle down. I think your knee just slammed into your lower jaw
Let me fix this for you.
The "our" word referred to those of us who are parents. You should not have considered yourself to be included in that group.
Its not your god given right to watch or even own a TV. It was YOUR choice to have a child, YOU pay the expense of raising it. I personally don't give a damn if there's another generation after me.
Nor is it _your_ right to own a TV. That has nothing to do with it. I have absolutely no problem with bearing the expense -- I'm even willing to pay the price for the V-chip as an add-on option. If you look at one of my other posts, you'll see that. I don't expect those who have no use for the V-chip to bear the cost of it.
Its very easy to see how v-chip + ratings system is censorship; look no further than the recent Manhunt 2 debacle. Rated AO, suddenly cannot be purchasd by ANYONE.
And adults don't fall into the ANYONE category?
I'm not sure that sheltering kids is a great idea though, and i think it distorts reality for them and leaves them unable to handle pretty much anything.
As one who has publicly confessed that they don't care about any following generations, I'm not sure you would be even remotely qualified to comment on what methods of raising kids are or are not appropriate. Regardless of what you may think, children who have the whole world thrown at them at once may have a very difficult time coping with it. In my opinion, introducing the realities of the world gradually (not withholding them altogether) is a better approach, and definitely isn't the same thing as being completely sheltered from the world until the time you leave home. I have witnessed the effects of "oversheltering", and they aren't good. I have no plans to make the same mistake.
I grew up learning the old "sticks and stones" saying. Now we have college girls crying over a stupid joke.
Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with restricting media content. This is a completely separate problem in our society that is related to how parents (and schools) treat problems _after_ they happen. When I was in school, there was a bully who kept calling me names. I ignored him until he started pushing me around (physically). After hearing the situation, my Dad told me I'd have to fight back. So, when he started bothering me the next day in Gym class, I pounded him to the floor. He stopped bothering me, and all the school did was give me (and him) a lecture. A similar thing happened to my son. He defended himself, and was threatened with expulsion for it. Apparently, today's society wanted me to call a lawyer and sue the other kid's parents instead of dealing with the issue directly. I feel just as annoyed as you by this sort of emasculation of society.
You think commercials are offensive??
I didn't say I found all commercials offensive, although there are a few that I find to be so. I find that _some_ of them have content not suitable for all ages. The biggest problem is that some of those come on during programming for children, which is something I'll never understand. The children generally aren't interested in the products they are selling, and parents who are watching may be irritated enough by the out-of-place content that they would avoid the product just out of spite.
The v-chip is fine, but I don't see why EVERYONE should pay because you want to over shelter your kids. You do what you want in your home, leave me (and my income) out of it.
As I already said, I don't think everyone should pay for it. It just needs to be available as an option for those of us that want i
OK, I exaggerated and simplified a bit, but in principle, that is general idea
Your example is how I would handle it if the situation arises, but the explanation doesn't generally stop the nightmares. In my mind, it's better to steer the child away from it until they are more mentally prepared to handle it.
True, but it is mandating (I think) that every adult has to pay for it, presumably in everything from computers to phones, which is still an issue. What's wrong with overseeing the development to make it available as an option to those who want it?
For television content, I suspect the cost is negligible. However, I would have no problem if it were just an available option that we have to pay a little extra for if we want it.
There's also the question of how they intend to implement a rating system for the Internet.
I wonder this myself, which is why I didn't really mention it. Probably the best way is to have one of the companies that provides URL filtering start providing a rating system for web sites that people can subscribe to if they want it. This one definitely needs to be an opt-in, though. I would imagine that maintaining a rating system for the internet wouldn't have a trivial cost associated with it, even with a large subscriber base.
It is our obligation, as adults, not to prevent the reality from reaching the senses of minors, but to provide adequate explanations and guidance. Those technical censoring measures are the result of the intention to avoid adult responsibilities, to "sweep the problem under the rug", so to say.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is our responsibility as adults to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance. A five-year-old is not likely to understand any possible explanation for a violent rape scene that he/she saw on TV. I'm really astounded that people think of the V-chip as censorship. Could somebody explain exactly how a screening tool that can be turned on or off by the owner is censorship? The V-chip is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for good and for bad. Good parents will carefully monitor what their children are watching (either to keep them away from inappropriate content or to explain questionable content). Bad parents will rely solely on the V-chip (a huge mistake) to allow them to shirk their responsibility. I have two children. I use the parental lock-down features on my cable box, but I also monitor what they are watching. The parental lock-down is nice because it cuts down on inappropriate content that may show up while I'm running through channels in the presence of my children. It also makes sure my eight-year-old isn't going to change channels to something that's not suitable for him (or his little sister) while I'm in the bathroom. But I'm also fully aware that it is not a substitute for responsible parenting. Some channels don't include rating informations for all shows (The Science Fiction channel and HDNet are two notable offenders), and the most questionable content comes from the commercials rather than the programming itself. Therefore, I make sure I'm there to explain behavior that is and is not appropriate. I like the V-chip as a tool, and nothing more. These laws aren't about mandating that people _use_ the V-chip. They are about making sure that it's available for those who _want_ to use it.
Why? The candidate already proved the ability to run a successful multimillion dollar business without embezzling the employer. (So the business was illegal. So what.)
First off, most of the time I won't get to the point of finding out all the details of the felony conviction. Second, if I got these details, I would assume that the candidate had been making a whole lot more at the illegal business than I would be prepared to pay, and in my mind embezzlement seems a whole lot more likely. The bottom line is that, if I knew the details, I couldn't trust the ethics or the judgment of the candidate. Perhaps after getting to know him/her my opinion would change, but you don't generally have that luxury when you're trying to hire someone.
Are you suggesting that they let her film until the police arrived without approaching her?
Yes. Read the article. Her first confrontation was with the police.
The most rellevant question to ask is did she stop filming before they approached her?
Again, if the article is correct, yes. The article says the clip was only 20 seconds. The police arrived several minutes later, and the way it is worded leaves no room for an initial confrontation with staff at the theater. Could the article have its facts wrong? Sure. But if not, then she had to have stopped filming prior to being confronted.
Question: How is Regal in a position to KNOW whether this act is a willful violation of copyright (for that matter, that's already been admitted). Do they have a right to see what's on her camcorder? Is that a policy you really want to set? So how do they KNOW she only get 20 seconds? And how do they KNOW that she didn't intend to record longer than that 20 seconds that she was recording before they caught her?
Dude, don't be so tough. The article states that the clip was 20 seconds. Given that it took the police "minutes" to show up, it's fairly certain she wasn't still recording when they arrived, so it's reasonable to assume she didn't intend to record the whole thing. The camcorder has been confiscated. You can bet that the police have examined every bit of footage on it, and that since Regal Cinemas is pressing charges there has been communication between them and the police. I am sure at this point that the police have confirmed to them that it is only a 20 second clip. The fact that the girl admitted what she did and her general reaction and lack of any prior record ought to be more than enough to tell Regal Cinemas that this isn't the fish they want to fry. It's just stupid to press on with the case, and it's just another excuse to drive customers into setting up home theaters.
The theater wasn't the "content owner." And the theatre owner doesn't understand the concept of "de minimus" - the law doesn't deal in trifles. They're just being dickheads [trolltalk.com].
Personally, if I were the girls parents, I'd make sure everybody, and I really mean everybody, in the surrounding area knew the facts about the case and that the girl wasn't trying to pirate the movie. Regal Cinemas is in a position to know whether this act really constituted a willful violation of copyright. They are also in a perfect position to ask for the charges to be dropped. If they choose not to, they deserve to lose every customer they have. Laws can be a good thing, but when a law itself causes people to abandon human decency, it needs to be changed or repealed.
You're right. I stopped reading after the first part of the sentence. Sorry about that. However, I still think they will have problems. People don't generally submit letters of recommendation along with their application. But, I suppose it can be done. Regardless, if I were the hiring manager, they would have to be a _lot_ better than any other candidates for me to consider them.
Do you have some deep insight into just how this would work that has so far eluded other network professionals, or were you just talking without thinking? If you know how to do this please share the technical details.
I think an AC already mentioned a solution -- DNS spoofing. Correct me if I'm greatly oversimplifying the problem, but aside from setting the gateway and DNS addresses, it's rare for somebody's personal computer to connect to other entities on the internet directly via IP address. A lookup is generally performed on the host and domain names to get the IP address. If the PC is configured to use the magic $20 box as the DNS and the magic box is configured to the IPv6 DNS, the box is perfectly capable of allocating an IPv4 address that maps to the actual IPv6 address for the target entity, and then passing the IPv4 address back to the Win98 machine. Subsequent attempts to access the IPv4 address will result in a lookup and translation done by the magic box. This is kind of like the reverse of NAT, but with a whole lot more IP addresses to deal with. The only trick is making sure that the DNS cache on your Win98 computer expires before the mapping entries in that $20 box. For those that choose to hang on to the old computers, it's probably not much of an issue. I'm sure that the number of different entities that they connect to on the internet are limited. If there is a problem, well, that's just yet another reason to reboot. And of course the magic box can come with some tiny little program on CD that sets HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Internet Settings\DnsCacheTimeout to a low enough value to prevent such problems.
Perhaps now that FTTN is starting to make headway, things will change...?
Actually, I think FTTP will be better. Verizon is currently deploying that like mad, but they are unfortunately one of the 800-pound gorillas participating in the questionable activity you mentioned earlier.
No, but it will. I've worked at four different places that refused to purchase anything but Cisco equipment as a matter of company policy. And, even people switched away en masse, how large is Cisco's installed base?
Cisco has a huge install base, but if companies start deploying public-facing IPv6-enabled servers and they can't meet the demand of their customers, they are likely to start looking for alternatives very quickly. In this case, I think Cisco will not get any incentive to improve their routers until their customer base is threatened.
I'm sure there are more creative ideas than this, but I think the world would generally approve of this means of waste disposal.
I think perhaps having the canned meat pumped through both orifices simultaneously would be interesting. Imagine the statement following the autopsy: "This man was filled with Spam(r) from his esophagus to his rectum. I would have to attribute that as the cause of death."
Just because they had a conscience once they were busted shouldn't allow them to get off with slaps on the wrists and promises by the judge to write future recommendation letters if they have problems gaining employment with a conviction.
If it helps, keep in mind that their conviction of these crimes will follow them around pretty much for the rest of their lives. Most employment applications require the applicant to be forthcoming on felony convictions. For good jobs, many applications indicating a felony conviction find their way very quickly to the circular file. Life will be very hard for them. Maybe better than prison, but still very hard.
Lets not forget to mention, this mandatory switch to ipv6 will finally kill of all of those pesky users who find their old hardware and Win98 perfectly adequate to their needs and have not rushed to buy everytime Bill released a new O.S.
No it won't. It'll just open up a great (albeit temporary) market for cheap consumer-grade boxes that support IPv6 on the Internet side and allows IPv4 (using NAT or something like it) on the LAN side. Those users who are too cheap to upgrade their PCs are would happily spend a mere $20 or so to keep running the old clunkers.
In short, for those that missed it -- due to larger routing tables and more necessary overhead, IPv6 is going to slow the entire Internet down by anywhere 3.4% to as much as 10% due to 64-bit routing information and Cisco routers not using fast-path with IPV6.
The questions are:
Do you think that faster CPUs, larger and faster memory configurations, and faster network connections will compensate for the additional overhead?
Do you think that Cisco's lack of motivation to produce a product that efficiently handles IPv6 ought to matter at all?
So yeah I'll lump in the fact the government has just taken control of the "airwaves" and sells it to the highest bidder as eminent domain.
Sorry, but you just can't lump electromagnetic frequencies in with eminent domain. Eminent domain is the forced sale of an asset that already belongs to someone. In most cases, we are talking about real estate. The government forces somebody who has paid for and cared for a piece of property to sell that property against their will at a price that is not always fair. The electromagnetic spectrum is very different. You can't have two people in the same area with high power transmitters on the same frequency. To prevent fighting and feuding, somebody has to take control. I don't see any way around that. Also, it's not like we have already paid for a chunk of the spectrum and the government is forcing us to sell it back to them. Now, if you want to complain about the _methods_ the government uses to distribute chunks of the spectrum, I think you have a legitimate argument. But please don't lump it in with eminent domain.
Depending on conditions, wind power might be a cheaper overall choice than solar panels.
The problem with wind power is that it's much more noticeable to your neighbors than solar. I live sort of at the top of a hill on 1.25 acres, and it's fairly windy. Theoretically, I could put of a few windmills and probably meet most (if not all) of my electricity needs, but my neighbors would definitely be complaining. The advantage of solar is that if you have good southern exposure and efficient panels, you can produce most of your electricity without your neighbors really even knowing that you are doing so. Windmills are a much better option when an entire neighborhood decides to use them to collectively. I think in the future we may see more of this -- new neighborhoods will be planned with open space on the high ground to install windmill farms.
Someone on the outside was paying the $125 consultant for the data, so the consultant set up that little scenario so his buddies on the outside could get their hands on the data....
I don't really consider that a tinfoil hat suggestion. It's entirely plausible, and in fact the investigators would be remiss if they didn't look carefully into that possibility and also include anybody else in the chain of command who was aware of the procedures that were in place.
Guy takes a poke at computer nerds by suggesting that computer nerds only get ugly women. And your comeback is, in essence, "Dude no way, I totally saw a cute girl once when I was 16!"
Not exactly. The guy said nailing BBS chicks was nothing to brag about. I was just responding that it _could_ be something to brag about, depending on the girl. What I _really_ don't understand is why my comment got modded up so high. It was supposed to be worth a chuckle, and instead people are dropping "Insightful" and "Interesting" mods on it. That's scary. At least somebody had sense enough to mod it -1 Overrated after it reached a 5.
Slashdot Mirror
Southern Chester county, down near the Maryland and Delaware borders. Allentown and Philly aren't too awfully far away.
Possibly. Short of shifting the burden entirely to those with kids, another thing that might help is school vouchers. This would allow parents who send kids to private schools (because the public schools are so horrible) to make at least partial use of the taxes they pay. This also has the effect of decoupling the school budget from the taxes. However, I'm pretty sure the public school system would collapse within a few years, and that might leave some of the poorer parents unable to send their kids to school. Like it or not, the poorer families are frequently the ones with more children. Another option would be to only publicly fund eduction for children who come from families with an income below some arbitrary level. This would make the parents who could afford it directly responsible for the investment in education while not leaving the poorer children without any choices. Done correctly, it would also probably reduce the per household tax burden. At the very list, it would make it very clear what the cost per child was. I think if people knew exactly what that cost was, some eyebrows would be going up and some investigations would take place. I cringe at what they would find.
Agreed. This is just another part of a flawed system. I suspect the intention is that if you have a bigger house, you have more money and therefore should have a larger share of the tax burden. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. You might inherit a house that's really nice, but if that's your sole possession, you aren't wealthy. If everyone is to be taxed, it would be better to have those taxes spread fairly. Any ideas what the fairest method would be? Assume for the moment that not having children doesn't allow you to escape.
The stuff that I find personally objectionable are generally for rated R movies that I wouldn't want to see. In general, I guess you could say that the trailer did its job of making sure I knew it wasn't a movie that I was interested in. ;) Regarding the children, though, it's usually imagery from a horror movie. While it doesn't really bother me, it can cause nightmares for the kids. I personally don't care if they show the advertisements, but please not during the middle of children's programming. I don't really want a rating system on commercials, just for somebody who does the scheduling to avoid heavy medication prior to making decisions on what commercials go where.
I actually have no problem with this, and most of the time I screen the content anyway. Just because something is rated G or PG doesn't mean I want the kids watching it. I don't let my youngest watch "Teletubbies" because I find the program an insult to the intelligence of kids everywhere. In general, I'd be perfectly happy to have separate children's channels (which we do, in fact, have) that I pay for separately (which we can't do). In the absence of this, the rating system helps. I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with a rating system whose cost was borne entirely by its users?
One thing you may find interesting -- At least the for movie business, the ratings system was self-imposed by the MPAA. However, you would probably be unsurprised to find that it was a more or less direct response to the threat of outright censorship.
Ah, we don't have this luxury. However, proposed big increases are generally put to a referendum. The last one that I mentioned (on increasing the local earned income tax) was shot down. But the officials in charge did everything they could to push it through. They sent confusing information to the public that tried to disguise it as a tax break (they offered to reduce the property taxes by a maximum of $311 annually per household if we voted for the higher EIT (which based on demographics would have increased the tax by an average of nearly $600 annually per household). They also planned the vote during an off-year election for the primaries, when hardly anybody would show up, and I think the polls were only open during working hours. I was so angry about it that I took off work to vote and called up all my neighbors asking them to do the same. Needless to say, the thing lost by a landslide. In fact, state-wide, I heard it only passed in two townships (Pennsylvania).
That's totally illogical, and I'd be pretty upset about it too. The only reason to keep a school that's less than half full open is if attendance is expected to swing up strongly in the next few years (as it's more expensive to build a new school than to keep the old one open for a few years). If they did that around here, I think there'd be a war. As it is, they built new schools recently. For some reason, there's an opinion that children will somehow be better
OK, conceded.
I don't consider providing ratings and a method to filter them to be censorship. Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement.
On this one I might be able to provide a bit of help. It's not quite out yet, but Amazon.com is taking preorders for $39.99. Release date for the PSP is September 1. Release date for the PS2 and Wii is October 1. Enjoy!
Erm, the advertisement against pirating at the beginning of movies?
If you can find a way to get this done without making laws or ended up with only one model of TV that provides the option, please let me know.
Ah, so here's the real thorn. And you know what? I support you on this feeling. The public schools around here are so horrible that we don't even use them. We're shelling out extra bucks to send the kids to private school, and yet we're still paying the property taxes to support what I consider a failed system. Worse yet, we have this local earned income tax that partly goes to the education system. Somehow, private school still manages to cost less than public school. So I share your frustration, if for slightly different reasons.
Actually, this isn't true, at least not around where I live. Most of the homeowners here have children, and we have consistently voted against property tax increases (at least when given the option). We just recently voted down (with a vengeance) a proposal to increase the local earned income tax to add to the school budget. I personally have never met _anybody_ that thinks the school budget (let alone property taxes) needs to go up. And yet the board of supervisors keeps raising the taxes. We even voted one of the worst offenders of tax increases off the board, but the taxes keep going up. Several off us (all with children) are starting to look at other counties (and states) to move to because of the ridiculous tax burden. The truth is that it isn't the children that are making your taxes go up. It's the politicians, and they are using the children as an excuse. If we didn't have a public school system, the politicians would just find another way to separate you from your money.
The "our" word referred to those of us who are parents. You should not have considered yourself to be included in that group.
Nor is it _your_ right to own a TV. That has nothing to do with it. I have absolutely no problem with bearing the expense -- I'm even willing to pay the price for the V-chip as an add-on option. If you look at one of my other posts, you'll see that. I don't expect those who have no use for the V-chip to bear the cost of it.
And adults don't fall into the ANYONE category?
As one who has publicly confessed that they don't care about any following generations, I'm not sure you would be even remotely qualified to comment on what methods of raising kids are or are not appropriate. Regardless of what you may think, children who have the whole world thrown at them at once may have a very difficult time coping with it. In my opinion, introducing the realities of the world gradually (not withholding them altogether) is a better approach, and definitely isn't the same thing as being completely sheltered from the world until the time you leave home. I have witnessed the effects of "oversheltering", and they aren't good. I have no plans to make the same mistake.
Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with restricting media content. This is a completely separate problem in our society that is related to how parents (and schools) treat problems _after_ they happen. When I was in school, there was a bully who kept calling me names. I ignored him until he started pushing me around (physically). After hearing the situation, my Dad told me I'd have to fight back. So, when he started bothering me the next day in Gym class, I pounded him to the floor. He stopped bothering me, and all the school did was give me (and him) a lecture. A similar thing happened to my son. He defended himself, and was threatened with expulsion for it. Apparently, today's society wanted me to call a lawyer and sue the other kid's parents instead of dealing with the issue directly. I feel just as annoyed as you by this sort of emasculation of society.
I didn't say I found all commercials offensive, although there are a few that I find to be so. I find that _some_ of them have content not suitable for all ages. The biggest problem is that some of those come on during programming for children, which is something I'll never understand. The children generally aren't interested in the products they are selling, and parents who are watching may be irritated enough by the out-of-place content that they would avoid the product just out of spite.
As I already said, I don't think everyone should pay for it. It just needs to be available as an option for those of us that want i
Your example is how I would handle it if the situation arises, but the explanation doesn't generally stop the nightmares. In my mind, it's better to steer the child away from it until they are more mentally prepared to handle it.
For television content, I suspect the cost is negligible. However, I would have no problem if it were just an available option that we have to pay a little extra for if we want it.
I wonder this myself, which is why I didn't really mention it. Probably the best way is to have one of the companies that provides URL filtering start providing a rating system for web sites that people can subscribe to if they want it. This one definitely needs to be an opt-in, though. I would imagine that maintaining a rating system for the internet wouldn't have a trivial cost associated with it, even with a large subscriber base.
Sorry, but I disagree. It is our responsibility as adults to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance. A five-year-old is not likely to understand any possible explanation for a violent rape scene that he/she saw on TV. I'm really astounded that people think of the V-chip as censorship. Could somebody explain exactly how a screening tool that can be turned on or off by the owner is censorship? The V-chip is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for good and for bad. Good parents will carefully monitor what their children are watching (either to keep them away from inappropriate content or to explain questionable content). Bad parents will rely solely on the V-chip (a huge mistake) to allow them to shirk their responsibility. I have two children. I use the parental lock-down features on my cable box, but I also monitor what they are watching. The parental lock-down is nice because it cuts down on inappropriate content that may show up while I'm running through channels in the presence of my children. It also makes sure my eight-year-old isn't going to change channels to something that's not suitable for him (or his little sister) while I'm in the bathroom. But I'm also fully aware that it is not a substitute for responsible parenting. Some channels don't include rating informations for all shows (The Science Fiction channel and HDNet are two notable offenders), and the most questionable content comes from the commercials rather than the programming itself. Therefore, I make sure I'm there to explain behavior that is and is not appropriate. I like the V-chip as a tool, and nothing more. These laws aren't about mandating that people _use_ the V-chip. They are about making sure that it's available for those who _want_ to use it.
First off, most of the time I won't get to the point of finding out all the details of the felony conviction. Second, if I got these details, I would assume that the candidate had been making a whole lot more at the illegal business than I would be prepared to pay, and in my mind embezzlement seems a whole lot more likely. The bottom line is that, if I knew the details, I couldn't trust the ethics or the judgment of the candidate. Perhaps after getting to know him/her my opinion would change, but you don't generally have that luxury when you're trying to hire someone.
Yes. Read the article. Her first confrontation was with the police.
Again, if the article is correct, yes. The article says the clip was only 20 seconds. The police arrived several minutes later, and the way it is worded leaves no room for an initial confrontation with staff at the theater. Could the article have its facts wrong? Sure. But if not, then she had to have stopped filming prior to being confronted.
Dude, don't be so tough. The article states that the clip was 20 seconds. Given that it took the police "minutes" to show up, it's fairly certain she wasn't still recording when they arrived, so it's reasonable to assume she didn't intend to record the whole thing. The camcorder has been confiscated. You can bet that the police have examined every bit of footage on it, and that since Regal Cinemas is pressing charges there has been communication between them and the police. I am sure at this point that the police have confirmed to them that it is only a 20 second clip. The fact that the girl admitted what she did and her general reaction and lack of any prior record ought to be more than enough to tell Regal Cinemas that this isn't the fish they want to fry. It's just stupid to press on with the case, and it's just another excuse to drive customers into setting up home theaters.
Personally, if I were the girls parents, I'd make sure everybody, and I really mean everybody, in the surrounding area knew the facts about the case and that the girl wasn't trying to pirate the movie. Regal Cinemas is in a position to know whether this act really constituted a willful violation of copyright. They are also in a perfect position to ask for the charges to be dropped. If they choose not to, they deserve to lose every customer they have. Laws can be a good thing, but when a law itself causes people to abandon human decency, it needs to be changed or repealed.
You're right. I stopped reading after the first part of the sentence. Sorry about that. However, I still think they will have problems. People don't generally submit letters of recommendation along with their application. But, I suppose it can be done. Regardless, if I were the hiring manager, they would have to be a _lot_ better than any other candidates for me to consider them.
I think an AC already mentioned a solution -- DNS spoofing. Correct me if I'm greatly oversimplifying the problem, but aside from setting the gateway and DNS addresses, it's rare for somebody's personal computer to connect to other entities on the internet directly via IP address. A lookup is generally performed on the host and domain names to get the IP address. If the PC is configured to use the magic $20 box as the DNS and the magic box is configured to the IPv6 DNS, the box is perfectly capable of allocating an IPv4 address that maps to the actual IPv6 address for the target entity, and then passing the IPv4 address back to the Win98 machine. Subsequent attempts to access the IPv4 address will result in a lookup and translation done by the magic box. This is kind of like the reverse of NAT, but with a whole lot more IP addresses to deal with. The only trick is making sure that the DNS cache on your Win98 computer expires before the mapping entries in that $20 box. For those that choose to hang on to the old computers, it's probably not much of an issue. I'm sure that the number of different entities that they connect to on the internet are limited. If there is a problem, well, that's just yet another reason to reboot. And of course the magic box can come with some tiny little program on CD that sets HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr
Actually, I think FTTP will be better. Verizon is currently deploying that like mad, but they are unfortunately one of the 800-pound gorillas participating in the questionable activity you mentioned earlier.
Cisco has a huge install base, but if companies start deploying public-facing IPv6-enabled servers and they can't meet the demand of their customers, they are likely to start looking for alternatives very quickly. In this case, I think Cisco will not get any incentive to improve their routers until their customer base is threatened.
I think perhaps having the canned meat pumped through both orifices simultaneously would be interesting. Imagine the statement following the autopsy: "This man was filled with Spam(r) from his esophagus to his rectum. I would have to attribute that as the cause of death."
If it helps, keep in mind that their conviction of these crimes will follow them around pretty much for the rest of their lives. Most employment applications require the applicant to be forthcoming on felony convictions. For good jobs, many applications indicating a felony conviction find their way very quickly to the circular file. Life will be very hard for them. Maybe better than prison, but still very hard.
No it won't. It'll just open up a great (albeit temporary) market for cheap consumer-grade boxes that support IPv6 on the Internet side and allows IPv4 (using NAT or something like it) on the LAN side. Those users who are too cheap to upgrade their PCs are would happily spend a mere $20 or so to keep running the old clunkers.
The questions are:
In what way did you consider the cutover schedule absurd? Too aggressive or too slow?
Sorry, but you just can't lump electromagnetic frequencies in with eminent domain. Eminent domain is the forced sale of an asset that already belongs to someone. In most cases, we are talking about real estate. The government forces somebody who has paid for and cared for a piece of property to sell that property against their will at a price that is not always fair. The electromagnetic spectrum is very different. You can't have two people in the same area with high power transmitters on the same frequency. To prevent fighting and feuding, somebody has to take control. I don't see any way around that. Also, it's not like we have already paid for a chunk of the spectrum and the government is forcing us to sell it back to them. Now, if you want to complain about the _methods_ the government uses to distribute chunks of the spectrum, I think you have a legitimate argument. But please don't lump it in with eminent domain.
And I suppose we should ignore the fact that you've failed to provide any actual information to correct the points that you feel are wrong.
The problem with wind power is that it's much more noticeable to your neighbors than solar. I live sort of at the top of a hill on 1.25 acres, and it's fairly windy. Theoretically, I could put of a few windmills and probably meet most (if not all) of my electricity needs, but my neighbors would definitely be complaining. The advantage of solar is that if you have good southern exposure and efficient panels, you can produce most of your electricity without your neighbors really even knowing that you are doing so. Windmills are a much better option when an entire neighborhood decides to use them to collectively. I think in the future we may see more of this -- new neighborhoods will be planned with open space on the high ground to install windmill farms.
I don't really consider that a tinfoil hat suggestion. It's entirely plausible, and in fact the investigators would be remiss if they didn't look carefully into that possibility and also include anybody else in the chain of command who was aware of the procedures that were in place.
Is flaccid state better?
Not exactly. The guy said nailing BBS chicks was nothing to brag about. I was just responding that it _could_ be something to brag about, depending on the girl. What I _really_ don't understand is why my comment got modded up so high. It was supposed to be worth a chuckle, and instead people are dropping "Insightful" and "Interesting" mods on it. That's scary. At least somebody had sense enough to mod it -1 Overrated after it reached a 5.