What is the point of these sick videos? Does someone get sexual pleasure of watching them or what is the point? I won't accept sick behavior like that.
And as such, you have the choice of unplugging from the internet or taking responsibility yourself to ensure that your children don't see something you don't want them to see. You don't have to accept it, but nothing gives you the right to censor others who want to see it.
Not you nor anyone else has the right to police everyone else's belifs or desires. Faces of Death (which, BTW I found awefully laughable when I saw it as a teen) has a market, just like pr0n, stock market news, etc. If you object to something thats out there, avert your eyes or bury your head in the sand.
If you don't want your children being exposed to stuff like this, then get an ISP that blocks sites or use SurfPatrol or some other cyber-nanny. Rest assured, not everyone's going to use such technology and eventually your children will be exposed (like when they go visit Johnny's house).
Re:Do you want your children see someone get shot?
on
Kazaa CEO vs. Hilary Rosen
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Please tell me this - do you want YOUR children see a video where someone gets shot in the head?
No, I wouldn't want my kids to see this. But you know what? Technology isn't the enemy. Nor is it anyone's responsibility to police my kids, nor is it anyone else's responsibility to raise my kids. Its my responsibility to shield my sons from seeing objectionable programming, teach them values, respect and morals.
My two year old is more polite than the other children in our neighborhood. He says thank you, please, may I have (insert item here), etc. You know why? Because my wife and I take the time to teach him. He's not shacked up in some daycare with minimum wage trolls who don't interact with him - he's at home, with my wife and she's teaching him how to be a respectful child... At least until he enters the public education system with children raised by lazy parents like you.
If you feel that society as a whole should be responsible for raising your children, then I feel sorry not only for your kids but society as a whole.
Parents are a lot less involved with their kids now than they were when I was growing up. As a result, children are a lot less respectful of adults and others in general. Its your kind of parenting and beliefs that governemnt needs to do your childrearing for you that leads to the degradation of society.
I agree with you 100%. If anything, the government needs to step in and police people who think that its someone else's job to raise their kids, teach their kids values, teach their kids manners, and keep their kids from growing up to be thugs.
Personally, I think people with the mentality that we need more government to 'protect' us need to be sterilized - to ensure that they can't pollute the genepool with their complacant beliefs and attitudes.
The sad thing is, some spineless weasel somewhere in some backwoods local government IT department will see this, immediately think "oh fuck, I need to cover our asses" and then buy some freaking licenses with our tax dollars -- wasting it on a worthless piece of paper and reinforcing SCOs belief that their new Extortion Business Model (tm) v1.0 is working.
Then SCO can point other small municipalities to this first moron as a shining example of how to remain 'legal' (in their eyes) and use it to extort money from them. And so on...
According to SCO, if you're able to read a language, speak a language, comprehend a language (yes, there are differences betwixt speaking and comprehending), write a language or otherwise communicate, you owe them $75.
WTF?
I say/. starts a pool on how long it takes SCO to come up with another avenue to try to con people into buying a license for their 'code'.
For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something.
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA.. But, as someone who is vehement about free speech myself I can tell you that I don't consider SPAM as free speech. It's not free speech if you have no way to avoid it. Sure, if I don't like what someone's saying on TV, I can change the channel. I don't have the option of 'changing the channel' on a spammer.
I agree, everyone should have the right to speak their mind, no matter how unpopular or controversial. However, no one has the right to force anyone else to read, listen to, or otherwise hold captive an audience - and thats exactly what spammers are doing.
And don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do. Just like if someone's making harassing phonecalls to me, I can call the police and press charges. There needs to be a similar mechanism for SPAM, preferrably something involving rope, stakes, honey and a mound of Texas fireants.
..and I'll say it again: I've not run across a CD yet that Exact Audio Copy has not been able to copy. It copies the track to.WAV, then uses your copy of the LAME encoder to convert it to.MP3.
What makes the deal even better: It's free.
I rip my CDs to CDR and pack away the originals using it all the time.
When we had our Sprint PCS (Nokia?) "Dual Band" phone, we also had an old Analog cellphone (carrier and brand I can't recall). The wife and I took a roadtrip and plugged both into the car outlets (cig & accessory). Every time we saw a tower on the horizon, we'd check both phones. The Sprint phone got a signal maybe 80% of the time whereas the older analog got a signal more like 90% of the time.
Both plans reported that they had coverage on the highway we were driving on.
.. Sprint PCS did better than T-Mobile. We had nothing but problems with our Sprint phone and I had absolutely no issues with my VoiceStream (now T-Mobile) phone.
I'd like to see another report, however, that takes cellular coverage issues as well as billing and customer support. I wouldn't be surprised to find Sprint at the bottom of that list.
I think capping the damages at 3x the cost of the song is adequate and I would support that. Figure out what 1 song on the $15 CD costs and triple it and ask for that amount of money. If they actually already own the CD in question then tough shit, fair use. Oh right, because they're sharing it on the Intarweb instead of among a smaller group of friends via CD-R's that's more eeeeevil so we need to charge them tens of thousands of dollars per song. Bullshiat. If they can PROVE that people have downloaded the song from you 10,000 times then fine, you're a mass distributor, but for all they know only 2 people downloaded the track.
Yes, but there you go trying to be logical again! There's no point of being logical when we're talking about the RIAA's pockets.
..there are no innocent people. They could give a flying flip who gets crushed under the wheels of their 'machine'.
Also, from the article:
"Theft is theft, but in this country we don't cut off your arm or fingers for stealing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who was a rock roadie in the 1960s.
And yet, all Coleman wants is to see a copy of the subpoenas & any measures the RIAA is taking to ensure that 'innocent people' aren't getting snagged.
How about doing something useful, Senator? How about imposing a cap on the amount of damages the RIAA can levy against its victims? You're not at all concerned that they're claiming damages upto $15,000 per song? Is 'Oops! I did it again' really fscking worth $15,000 to anyone?
This is just another example of a gubment windbag trying to grab some press for being the 'good guy' while not actually doing shit for his constituents.
"....Winter is colder because the earth's axis is tilted. Winter occurs for the hemisphere which is tilted away from the sun (the northern hemisphere in January, the southern in July). "
While the earth as a whole is closer to the sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun.
" I have heard two conflicting reasons explaining why winter is cooler.
(1) Because of the slight pivot of Earth's on its axis, the sun is farther away during winter because part of the planet is pointing away from the sun, hence, less energy reaches that surface.
(2) The sun is actually CLOSER to the surface during winter but light hits the planet at an obtuse angle which "skims" the surface. Direct rays are not hitting the surface which brings about cooler temperatures.
Which explanation is correct?
The Answer The second. Winter is colder because the earth's axis is tilted. Winter occurs for the hemisphere which is tilted away from the sun (the northern hemisphere in January, the southern in July). This has two main effects on the winter hemisphere. First, the sun is above the horizon for fewer hours each day, so that hemisphere receives less heat from the sun. Also, sunlight strikes the ground at a shallower angle so that less energy per unit area is intercepted by the winter hemisphere. It is true that the earth is closest to the sun in January. However, the distance from the earth to the sun varies by only about 2% over a year. This causes a change of only 4% in the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth so this effect is not significant compared to the other two. "
Slashdot Mirror
Heh.
Actually, the name came from boredom and the need for a handle back in the 80s.
MImeKillEr = Mike
I do detest mimes and clowns though. Whether or not I'd kill one I can't say.
Well, I for one think organized religion is sick. Should it be illegal?
I mean, using your logic it should be - because I think its sick and all.
What is the point of these sick videos? Does someone get sexual pleasure of watching them or what is the point? I won't accept sick behavior like that.
And as such, you have the choice of unplugging from the internet or taking responsibility yourself to ensure that your children don't see something you don't want them to see. You don't have to accept it, but nothing gives you the right to censor others who want to see it.
Not you nor anyone else has the right to police everyone else's belifs or desires. Faces of Death (which, BTW I found awefully laughable when I saw it as a teen) has a market, just like pr0n, stock market news, etc. If you object to something thats out there, avert your eyes or bury your head in the sand.
If you don't want your children being exposed to stuff like this, then get an ISP that blocks sites or use SurfPatrol or some other cyber-nanny. Rest assured, not everyone's going to use such technology and eventually your children will be exposed (like when they go visit Johnny's house).
Please tell me this - do you want YOUR children see a video where someone gets shot in the head?
No, I wouldn't want my kids to see this. But you know what? Technology isn't the enemy. Nor is it anyone's responsibility to police my kids, nor is it anyone else's responsibility to raise my kids. Its my responsibility to shield my sons from seeing objectionable programming, teach them values, respect and morals.
My two year old is more polite than the other children in our neighborhood. He says thank you, please, may I have (insert item here), etc. You know why? Because my wife and I take the time to teach him. He's not shacked up in some daycare with minimum wage trolls who don't interact with him - he's at home, with my wife and she's teaching him how to be a respectful child... At least until he enters the public education system with children raised by lazy parents like you.
If you feel that society as a whole should be responsible for raising your children, then I feel sorry not only for your kids but society as a whole.
Parents are a lot less involved with their kids now than they were when I was growing up. As a result, children are a lot less respectful of adults and others in general. Its your kind of parenting and beliefs that governemnt needs to do your childrearing for you that leads to the degradation of society.
I agree with you 100%. If anything, the government needs to step in and police people who think that its someone else's job to raise their kids, teach their kids values, teach their kids manners, and keep their kids from growing up to be thugs.
Personally, I think people with the mentality that we need more government to 'protect' us need to be sterilized - to ensure that they can't pollute the genepool with their complacant beliefs and attitudes.
The sad thing is, some spineless weasel somewhere in some backwoods local government IT department will see this, immediately think "oh fuck, I need to cover our asses" and then buy some freaking licenses with our tax dollars -- wasting it on a worthless piece of paper and reinforcing SCOs belief that their new Extortion Business Model (tm) v1.0 is working.
Then SCO can point other small municipalities to this first moron as a shining example of how to remain 'legal' (in their eyes) and use it to extort money from them. And so on...
According to SCO, if you're able to read a language, speak a language, comprehend a language (yes, there are differences betwixt speaking and comprehending), write a language or otherwise communicate, you owe them $75.
/. starts a pool on how long it takes SCO to come up with another avenue to try to con people into buying a license for their 'code'.
WTF?
I say
Re-read what I said.
I never said X form of communication "isn't speech"
I said free speech.
For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something.
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA.. But, as someone who is vehement about free speech myself I can tell you that I don't consider SPAM as free speech. It's not free speech if you have no way to avoid it. Sure, if I don't like what someone's saying on TV, I can change the channel. I don't have the option of 'changing the channel' on a spammer.
I agree, everyone should have the right to speak their mind, no matter how unpopular or controversial. However, no one has the right to force anyone else to read, listen to, or otherwise hold captive an audience - and thats exactly what spammers are doing.
And don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do. Just like if someone's making harassing phonecalls to me, I can call the police and press charges. There needs to be a similar mechanism for SPAM, preferrably something involving rope, stakes, honey and a mound of Texas fireants.
..and I'll say it again: I've not run across a CD yet that Exact Audio Copy has not been able to copy. It copies the track to .WAV, then uses your copy of the LAME encoder to convert it to .MP3.
What makes the deal even better: It's free.
I rip my CDs to CDR and pack away the originals using it all the time.
It was a Chrysler, but I believe the Pontiac Phoenix was the Pontiac version of the Chevy Nova.
Thanks for the grammer lesson, troll.
I take it you like to correct people when they say "SSN Number" as well.
How sad. You at least understood what I was conveying, right?
Get a life.
Now people won't have to strain their necks to see your pin number while shoulder surfing.
[sarcasm]
I can hardly wait!
[/sarcasm]
When we had our Sprint PCS (Nokia?) "Dual Band" phone, we also had an old Analog cellphone (carrier and brand I can't recall). The wife and I took a roadtrip and plugged both into the car outlets (cig & accessory). Every time we saw a tower on the horizon, we'd check both phones. The Sprint phone got a signal maybe 80% of the time whereas the older analog got a signal more like 90% of the time.
Both plans reported that they had coverage on the highway we were driving on.
.. Sprint PCS did better than T-Mobile. We had nothing but problems with our Sprint phone and I had absolutely no issues with my VoiceStream (now T-Mobile) phone.
I'd like to see another report, however, that takes cellular coverage issues as well as billing and customer support. I wouldn't be surprised to find Sprint at the bottom of that list.
No, I didn't turn it into a personal attack, I was simply replying to your trollish response.
So, go fuck yourself.
STFU and sit back down, troll.
I think capping the damages at 3x the cost of the song is adequate and I would support that. Figure out what 1 song on the $15 CD costs and triple it and ask for that amount of money. If they actually already own the CD in question then tough shit, fair use. Oh right, because they're sharing it on the Intarweb instead of among a smaller group of friends via CD-R's that's more eeeeevil so we need to charge them tens of thousands of dollars per song. Bullshiat. If they can PROVE that people have downloaded the song from you 10,000 times then fine, you're a mass distributor, but for all they know only 2 people downloaded the track.
Yes, but there you go trying to be logical again! There's no point of being logical when we're talking about the RIAA's pockets.
Sorry - bad example.
I should've used a song by everyone's favorite media whore - Madonna.
My bad, won't happen again.
..there are no innocent people. They could give a flying flip who gets crushed under the wheels of their 'machine'.
Also, from the article:
"Theft is theft, but in this country we don't cut off your arm or fingers for stealing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who was a rock roadie in the 1960s.
And yet, all Coleman wants is to see a copy of the subpoenas & any measures the RIAA is taking to ensure that 'innocent people' aren't getting snagged.
How about doing something useful, Senator? How about imposing a cap on the amount of damages the RIAA can levy against its victims? You're not at all concerned that they're claiming damages upto $15,000 per song? Is 'Oops! I did it again' really fscking worth $15,000 to anyone?
This is just another example of a gubment windbag trying to grab some press for being the 'good guy' while not actually doing shit for his constituents.
Not to mention, TWC's standard response when there's any issues with their boxes is 'unplug it for 5 minutes'.
This goes across the board - the craptastic SciAtl boxes as well as any of their cable modems.
TWC Austin has had these for months. Where've you been?
Dunno. Ask Nasa. See the link in my original quote.
Re-read that last post...
"....Winter is colder because the earth's axis is tilted. Winter occurs for the hemisphere which is tilted away from the sun (the northern hemisphere in January, the southern in July). "
While the earth as a whole is closer to the sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun.
Moron.
Nope.
r s/980221a.html:
From http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answe
"
I have heard two conflicting reasons explaining why winter is cooler.
(1) Because of the slight pivot of Earth's on its axis, the sun is farther away during winter because part of the planet is pointing away from the sun, hence, less energy reaches that surface.
(2) The sun is actually CLOSER to the surface during winter but light hits the planet at an obtuse angle which "skims" the surface. Direct rays are not hitting the surface which brings about cooler temperatures.
Which explanation is correct?
The Answer
The second. Winter is colder because the earth's axis is tilted. Winter occurs for the hemisphere which is tilted away from the sun (the northern hemisphere in January, the southern in July). This has two main effects on the winter hemisphere. First, the sun is above the horizon for fewer hours each day, so that hemisphere receives less heat from the sun. Also, sunlight strikes the ground at a shallower angle so that less energy per unit area is intercepted by the winter hemisphere. It is true that the earth is closest to the sun in January. However, the distance from the earth to the sun varies by only about 2% over a year. This causes a change of only 4% in the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth so this effect is not significant compared to the other two.
"
Emphasis mine.