At what cost? Does asking for an exception put you on some kind of child porn watch list? Given Australia's record on such things, it wouldn't surprise me.
Government supplying tools for parental censorship = not bad.
Except when parents can go out and buy filtering software already. All this does is push private companies out of the market.
PARENTS decide on things like nannies, playschools, babysitters, and boarding schools. This law is analogous to the government making those decisions instead.
They will never learn the idea of "enough profit" or "too much."
That's because there's no such thing. They are a publicly traded company; they are required to maximize stock value to shareholders.
Instead of trying to convince the industries to abandon a business strategy that has so far been very successful, perhaps it would be more worthwhile to educate consumers on how these companies are ripping them off.
After all, they're the ones who keep buying this crap and perpetuating the system.
"I know I'd think twice about working for a company who fires their employees on whims. I'd also do poor work if I had to continuously worry that today might be my last day."
Well, you could do that, and look forward to many "last days".
Or you could quit whining about "the system" and do good work. That way you wouldn't have to be looking over your shoulder every day.
Thank you! Thank you!!! I'm so tired of people who believe that the more government regulation there is, the closer the economy comes to some kind of workers' utopia. People don't understand that the balance of power CAN, in fact, tilt too far in favor of workers, and France is a prime example of what happens.
There's a good reason why France has 10+ percent unemployment, and it's not because there isn't work to be done. Employers just won't risk hiring people because of business-hostile labor laws.
And think of the people that do have jobs; they're being forced to pick up the slack!
Either you simply don't understand our electoral process, or you're just bitter because you didn't get the result you wanted. If the same thing happened wherever you live, perhaps the outcome would have been different. I won't waste time claiming that the system is perfect, but what happened in 2000 was entirely in accordance with the imperfect system we have.
If you're looking for the affront to our electoral process, allow me to direct you to the camp that tried to unconstitutionally change a state's election laws, via lawsuit and not the legislative process, DURING the election.
You would be correct, if any of those things you said happened actually did....except the voter fraud; there was plenty of that to go around for both parties. The rest is opinion and speculation.
The Linux user isn't Dell's target market. They do just fine selling Windows XP machines. It seems that the Linux users (not necessarily you) want Dell to sell to Linux users much more so than the other way around.
In other words, Linux has more to gain from a Dell/Linux co-operation than Dell. Given that, Linux needs to 'sell' its 'product' to Dell, not the other way around.
And that's perfectly valid. I agree that diversity has its strengths, but it also has its weaknesses too.
There seem to be two competing factions among Linux users. One wants to keep Linux diverse, flexible, and (admit it) fragmented. The other wants to see Linux gain market share (especially at the expense of Microsoft) and see consolidation and standardization as the means to accomplish it.
You sound like the former. Michael Dell is backing the latter.
This, RIGHT HERE, is the problem. An industry powerhouse like Michael Dell tells the Linux community what he wants, and how does the Linux community respond? By insisting that he's wrong and telling him what he actually wants.
It's called listening, folks. Maybe if the Linux community started listening to what users are SAYING they want, instead of dictating it to them, Linux would see wider adoption.
I can't claim to have been "all over the world" but I have been to South America (Brazil, specifically) recently and let me tell you there is no comparison.
There's a lot that Brazil has more of than America; unemployment and abject poverty to name a few. Sure they have ethanol pumps at gas stations, but if you're going to make quality-of-life comparisons, you'd best know a little of what you're talking about.
Yes, this bill is total asshattery (and will likely be struk down almost immediately). But flushing America down the toilet?? Your fashionably exaggerated pessimism amuses me.
"That's the thing about censorship. Done wrong, the people get up and arms and want the material. Done right, the people never even know the material exists."
That argument, though, lends credibility to every wild and absurd conspiracy theory out there.
You're asking 4 to 12 year olds to "create the tools of learning"? Are you suggesting we teach kindergarteners the joys of compiling the linux kernel?
Your idea would be good for high school aged students, and maybe even some bright jr. high kids. But I think your expectations of the cognitive abilities of elementary students are a bit ungrounded.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the US has one of those :)
And for good reason: socialism exists in direct conflict with individual liberty.
Because you can always say "no".
At what cost? Does asking for an exception put you on some kind of child porn watch list? Given Australia's record on such things, it wouldn't surprise me.
Government supplying tools for parental censorship = not bad.
Except when parents can go out and buy filtering software already. All this does is push private companies out of the market.
Capiche?
Talk about not getting it...
PARENTS decide on things like nannies, playschools, babysitters, and boarding schools. This law is analogous to the government making those decisions instead.
President Clinton, one of the best presidents we've ever had
Thanks for the laugh; you started my day off right.
How will you ever get over such a grievous insult?
They will never learn the idea of "enough profit" or "too much."
That's because there's no such thing. They are a publicly traded company; they are required to maximize stock value to shareholders.
Instead of trying to convince the industries to abandon a business strategy that has so far been very successful, perhaps it would be more worthwhile to educate consumers on how these companies are ripping them off.
After all, they're the ones who keep buying this crap and perpetuating the system.
"I know I'd think twice about working for a company who fires their employees on whims. I'd also do poor work if I had to continuously worry that today might be my last day."
Well, you could do that, and look forward to many "last days".
Or you could quit whining about "the system" and do good work. That way you wouldn't have to be looking over your shoulder every day.
Thank you! Thank you!!! I'm so tired of people who believe that the more government regulation there is, the closer the economy comes to some kind of workers' utopia. People don't understand that the balance of power CAN, in fact, tilt too far in favor of workers, and France is a prime example of what happens.
There's a good reason why France has 10+ percent unemployment, and it's not because there isn't work to be done. Employers just won't risk hiring people because of business-hostile labor laws.
And think of the people that do have jobs; they're being forced to pick up the slack!
Either you simply don't understand our electoral process, or you're just bitter because you didn't get the result you wanted. If the same thing happened wherever you live, perhaps the outcome would have been different. I won't waste time claiming that the system is perfect, but what happened in 2000 was entirely in accordance with the imperfect system we have.
If you're looking for the affront to our electoral process, allow me to direct you to the camp that tried to unconstitutionally change a state's election laws, via lawsuit and not the legislative process, DURING the election.
You're still stuck on that myth, eh? I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
"Put Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes NOW."
Care to elaborate? Or are you in the "impeach Bush because I don't like him" crowd?
Guns? OK
Simulated Guns? OK
Simulating using a gun to shoot someone in the face and watch their head explode in gory detail? Well, that's what this bill is aimed at, not guns.
Not saying I think it's a good bill, but you're delibreately mischaracterizing it to make some denigrating portrayal of Tennesseeans.
You would be correct, if any of those things you said happened actually did. ...except the voter fraud; there was plenty of that to go around for both parties. The rest is opinion and speculation.
"Bush admits to illegal wiretaps..."
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I'm no Bush lover, but "illegal" doesn't mean "anything with which I disagree".
Illegal election.
Illegal war.
Illegal wiretapping.
Chances are all these things you call illegal were carried out to the letter of the law, but I doubt that would make any difference to you.
There's a simpler explanation.
Linux has far more at stake in getting a Dell/Linux deal than does Dell.
The Linux user isn't Dell's target market. They do just fine selling Windows XP machines. It seems that the Linux users (not necessarily you) want Dell to sell to Linux users much more so than the other way around.
In other words, Linux has more to gain from a Dell/Linux co-operation than Dell. Given that, Linux needs to 'sell' its 'product' to Dell, not the other way around.
"Dell sure enough is not the user here."
If the Linux community is trying to 'sell' Dell on Linux, he most certainly is the client.
Once you realize that, the rest of your points are moot.
And that's perfectly valid. I agree that diversity has its strengths, but it also has its weaknesses too.
There seem to be two competing factions among Linux users. One wants to keep Linux diverse, flexible, and (admit it) fragmented. The other wants to see Linux gain market share (especially at the expense of Microsoft) and see consolidation and standardization as the means to accomplish it.
You sound like the former. Michael Dell is backing the latter.
This, RIGHT HERE, is the problem. An industry powerhouse like Michael Dell tells the Linux community what he wants, and how does the Linux community respond? By insisting that he's wrong and telling him what he actually wants.
It's called listening, folks. Maybe if the Linux community started listening to what users are SAYING they want, instead of dictating it to them, Linux would see wider adoption.
And who's going to pay for all of that? Not you, I suppose.
On a subway, nothing says "Rob me!" like those white earphones.
I can't claim to have been "all over the world" but I have been to South America (Brazil, specifically) recently and let me tell you there is no comparison.
There's a lot that Brazil has more of than America; unemployment and abject poverty to name a few. Sure they have ethanol pumps at gas stations, but if you're going to make quality-of-life comparisons, you'd best know a little of what you're talking about.
Yes, this bill is total asshattery (and will likely be struk down almost immediately). But flushing America down the toilet?? Your fashionably exaggerated pessimism amuses me.
"That's the thing about censorship. Done wrong, the people get up and arms and want the material. Done right, the people never even know the material exists."
That argument, though, lends credibility to every wild and absurd conspiracy theory out there.
You're asking 4 to 12 year olds to "create the tools of learning"? Are you suggesting we teach kindergarteners the joys of compiling the linux kernel?
Your idea would be good for high school aged students, and maybe even some bright jr. high kids. But I think your expectations of the cognitive abilities of elementary students are a bit ungrounded.