1) It is imposing to regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on the ISP and corporations producing/distributing the porn.
No, it's an imposition on the people who want access to the porn. You pass regulations to inconvenience *them* so that you can be a lazy asshole. Or just an asshole.
2) It is imposing to *not* regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on parents who then have to remove their children from many areas of society to keep them from harm.
Again wrong, because you've still got a number of choices before you. You could, for example, install a hosts file from Prigs 'R Us blocking all that 'objectionable' content, much as ad or spam sites are blocked. Or you could decide that the freedom of the internet isn't for you or your children and just not get online. Not everyone can handle freedom, and that observation isn't limited to just children.
And as far as parenting goes, that's *your* problem, not mine. They're your kids; stop trying to get everyone else to do your job for you.
You might even think it's healthy, but then you would be imposing your values on those who disagree with you.
What a crock of shit. Freedom as slavery? Goddamn, try reading a bit of Orwell before making such assinine arguments.
Their objective, if I may venture a guess, is to eradicate pornography, not merely to control it.
I think this is actually a side-effect, not the goal. There goal is to impose themselves on their neighbors, either by preventing said neighbor from doing something the neighbor wants to do, or by forcing the neighbor to do something they don't want to do. For most people the only true measure of power is using it to inconvenience others in large or small ways.
Internet porn is the hot topic for some. If they score here they manage to prove to themselves and others that they really are more important than the average prole, and that they're capable of making at least some small segment of the population miserable. That's real power, however watered down it might be. Petty and vicious to be sure, but still power.
But power is like any other drug, and eventually the high wears off. These same folks will then have to find a new 'cause' to champion, something that'll allow them to shit on yet another segment of the population. And if they win there they'll soon move on to cause #3, and #4, and so on.
Porn isn't the issue. The thrill of screwing with other people at the point of a government gun is the real motivation. These people do not go away, and are never more than temporarily satisfied.
The unfortunate thing is that the people (and controlling companies) decide how far the US government can go
I suspect "the people" lost control of the government some time ago, and arguments to the contrary just contribute to the 'bread and circuses' facade of modern politics.
I defy you to name one nationally significant Democrat who lives up to your standard of protecting liberty.
That's about as likely as finding one nationally signficant Republican who lives up to my standards of protecting liberty. Or of finding a Democrat and a Republican who actually differ from one another in any significant way post-election.
Oh, I get it. It isn't cool to bash Democrats. Carry on.
I think you mean "Demopublicans". Who can tell them apart anymore?
There is a large swath of people who believe their interpretation of the Bible trumps the law
We have a name for these folks: traitors.
The Constitution is the bible of American citizen; those whose value a religious text as law over the Constitution that affords them their freedoms always retain the right to move their sorry, pathetic, theocracy-loving asses to some other country more suited to their temperament. They DO NOT have the right to ignore the Constitution in favor of their bloody bible.
I don't buy the argument that once you can identify porn, all of a sudden it will be censored by the government in a way that prevents or even hinders adults from accessing it.
It won't be limited to just obvious porn. Proponents will argue that other kinds of "objectional" material are also pornographic and should be restricted to the.xxx domain. Soon you'll find nudes, art sites, fan fiction, and a host of other things being railroaded off the 'main road' of the internet by assholes pressing their own personal agenda.
I simply prefer that web sites, movies, video games be up-front and honest with what they contain and let us make the decisions for ourselves.
We already get to make the decisions for ourselves. The point is to not let others *make the decisions for us*. These fuckers need to shut up and mind their owned damned business for a change.
I live in a small community that isn't quite as consumerist as most parts of the US
Translation: "I'm a tie-dye wearing, pot-smoking, tree-hugging, socialism-loving, shower-avoiding hippy living on a commune somewhere in Eastern Oregon."
Don't people give a shit about anything other than themselves and how much crap they can acquire?
Translation: "We secretly lust after all the cool stuff the rest of you have, but since none of can hold down a real job we're reduced to complaining about the 'materialism' of the rest of you assholes, nursing our jealous rage under the facade of 'freedom' and 'loving the Earth'".
see how insane people get over money
Translation: "We would too, if we had any. But hell, we can't even make a profit off of our marijuana crops - in OREGON, for chrissakes!!!"
There's always a small group of folks who stand back and let the herd struggle with one another over baggage. We lean against the wall, amuse ourselves over the antics of our fellow human beings, and then go pick up our bags after the crowd thins out. Which takes what? All of five or ten minutes? In exchange for the free amusement?
but the user gets a false sense of security because ZoneAlarm "blocked" the stuff.
No firewall is of any real value if you *let* malware through your security and allow it to install on your computer, e.g., by using IE. Relying on ZoneAlarm alone (or any firewall alone) is just plain silly; you need to go a few extra steps, such as chucking IE and installing Ad-Aware/Spybot to catch the crap that you, the user, accidentally let onto your system.
Blasting ZoneAlarm because it doesn't do everything and isn't idiot-proof is silly.
Using the word 'whacko' immediately discredits your post.
I used it deliberately. Most so-called environmentalists wouldn't know actual science if it up and bit them in the ass. The vast majority are borg-like drones spouting a particular party line, convinced that they possess The Truth(TM) and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a tool of the Great Capitalist Devil.
You want proof, just take a look at the responses in this topic from "environmentalists". A great deal of hand-waving mixed with insults about the opponents intellect or moral character, sprinkled with a smattering of attempted guilt trips. But very little science. Facts, it seems, are something that "environmentalists" have problems with, especially if those nasty little facts contradict some pet belief of theirs.
The card-carrying environmentalist is no different, and no more rational, than the dyed-in-the-wool fundie. They've replaced one religion for another.
Someone who's actually concerned about emissions damaging the environment wouldn't be championing some half-assed hybrid monstrosity that produces MORE toxic chemicals when constructed and does very little to improve actual gas mileage. A hybrid which is more expensive, supported by tax subsidies, and doesn't appeal to anyone outside of a small core audience.
What a person might do, if that person were serious, would be to champion breeder reactors for power generation, and use hydrogen-powered cars as alternatives to gasoline-powered ones. Hydrogen is inefficient to produce, but it has zero emissions and there's enough fuel on Earth to power all the breeder reactors we'd ever need for the next several thousand years. Hydrogen inefficiency is irrelevent when the alternative is the complete elimination of automobile emissions AND coal/oil plant emissions, along with the concentration of waste products (fuel rods) into a transportable and containable form (unlike coal plants, which simply spew most of their waste products - including radioactives - right into the atmosphere).
But no. Instead we have environmentalists completely ignoring this option in favor of unworkable hybrids with a score of hidden costs. Great move, guys! I'm sure your Greenpeace merit badge will be along any day now!
Using the term 'big whoop' seriously questions your age and/or maturity.
Right. Bet you thought that was clever, eh?
In this case, your feelings/opinions are not based on fact.
I stated facts. The hybrid isn't very efficient, it's heavily subsidized, and despite your claims to the contrary it's extremely unpopular. They aren't exactly going like hotcakes, especially given the expense (and that's *after* the subsidies, which mask the true cost of the car). No part of this is opinion.
It does not mean anyone else shares your feelings/opinions nor does it make them any more vaild.
Facts make them more valid. I have them and you don't. It's that simple.
(cut useless anecdotal evidence)
Also, not everyone in the world is selfish. There are people who believe in doing what is right, not just what benefits only them.
Ah, the greenie fallback! If nothing else works claim the person you're arguing with is a moral reprobate!
I see you've made claim to The Truth(TM), right on schedule.
I'm just stating that we are arrogant enough to wipe out other lifeforms and take their land, because we've destroyed our own.
Those "other lifeforms", assuming they're even present, are at best bacteria. There's hardly any arrogance in the act of destroying bacteria. We do it every day, and deliberately, in order to make our own lives safer or easier. There's zip wrong with that. Why you insist that Mars bacteria is somehow more deserving of life than the bacteria growing in your crotch is beyond me.
The blurb about reviving Martian organisms is just to pretend we care for their survival, rather than just our own comfort.
You can go all weepy over the possible extermination of some microorganisms which may or may not exist, but I think most of us really won't give a shit if the payoff is another habitable planet.
Because human beings aren't the Borg. Some of us may not be interested in space, while others might. The former group can stay home and do whatever it is they wish to concentrate their energies on, while the latter can venture forth into the solar system and colonize it. Neither group has any business forcing the other to give up their goals.
do we have to f up another planet? can't we just stick to f'ing up earth?
Yeah, let's just huddle like spineless cowards on the planet of our birth, deathly afraid to touch anything for fear of that hideous monster - CHANGE!
The solar system is ours to do with as we please. The whiners are more than welcome to stay on Earth, while those who don't believe in an eternal, unchanging stasis can go forth and alter other worlds according to their desires.
A couple of thousand comets from the Oort Cloud would probably do the trick, providing both atmosphere and water. However, the small size of Mars and the fact that it's core has cooled down means that any terraforming effort is by definition a temporary thing. Although "temporary" here means something on the order of millions of years, so from our perspective "temporary" might as well be "forever".
The real question is why bother? Terraforming Mars might be a cool thing to do, but it'd be far less costly to settle Mars without terraforming it.
I agree, but the need for a sustainable energy infrastructure is clear, and the sooner we start the long journey, the sooner we'll get there.
If it isn't economically efficient then I have no interest whatsoever in seeing my tax dollars wasted on the effort. I'd much rather back a proven technology, like nuclear (especially breeder reactors).
Minivans get a free pass because they do everything that most SUV buyers are buying their SUVs for, or CLAIMING they're buying them for, they do some of them BETTER, they often do it CHEAPER, and with better fuel economy.
But this doesn't take into account the infamous "minivan Momma" phenomenon, whereupon anyone actually sitting in the drivers seat (including dads, despite the name) turns into a complete and utter asshole on the road. SUV drivers at least seem to have some cognizance of the fact that the vehicle they're driving is akin to an urban tank, and can actually crush lesser vehicles if they aren't careful with it; minivan drivers, on the other hand, seem to be eternally pissed off and out to prove something, usually by driving like reckless lunatics.
Slashdot Mirror
All you yapping around how commercial spacecraft are just around the corner (not this sightseeing stuff) really need to understand scales of economy.
Guess your job interview at Scaled Composites didn't go so well....
Max
1) It is imposing to regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on the ISP and corporations producing/distributing the porn.
No, it's an imposition on the people who want access to the porn. You pass regulations to inconvenience *them* so that you can be a lazy asshole. Or just an asshole.
2) It is imposing to *not* regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on parents who then have to remove their children from many areas of society to keep them from harm.
Again wrong, because you've still got a number of choices before you. You could, for example, install a hosts file from Prigs 'R Us blocking all that 'objectionable' content, much as ad or spam sites are blocked. Or you could decide that the freedom of the internet isn't for you or your children and just not get online. Not everyone can handle freedom, and that observation isn't limited to just children.
And as far as parenting goes, that's *your* problem, not mine. They're your kids; stop trying to get everyone else to do your job for you.
You might even think it's healthy, but then you would be imposing your values on those who disagree with you.
What a crock of shit. Freedom as slavery? Goddamn, try reading a bit of Orwell before making such assinine arguments.
Max
Their objective, if I may venture a guess, is to eradicate pornography, not merely to control it.
I think this is actually a side-effect, not the goal. There goal is to impose themselves on their neighbors, either by preventing said neighbor from doing something the neighbor wants to do, or by forcing the neighbor to do something they don't want to do. For most people the only true measure of power is using it to inconvenience others in large or small ways.
Internet porn is the hot topic for some. If they score here they manage to prove to themselves and others that they really are more important than the average prole, and that they're capable of making at least some small segment of the population miserable. That's real power, however watered down it might be. Petty and vicious to be sure, but still power.
But power is like any other drug, and eventually the high wears off. These same folks will then have to find a new 'cause' to champion, something that'll allow them to shit on yet another segment of the population. And if they win there they'll soon move on to cause #3, and #4, and so on.
Porn isn't the issue. The thrill of screwing with other people at the point of a government gun is the real motivation. These people do not go away, and are never more than temporarily satisfied.
Max
Oh boy, I'm already wishing to for 2008 to arrive...
For what, exactly? So you can elect a Democrat to office who'll do the exact same thing?
Max
The unfortunate thing is that the people (and controlling companies) decide how far the US government can go
I suspect "the people" lost control of the government some time ago, and arguments to the contrary just contribute to the 'bread and circuses' facade of modern politics.
Max
I defy you to name one nationally significant Democrat who lives up to your standard of protecting liberty.
That's about as likely as finding one nationally signficant Republican who lives up to my standards of protecting liberty. Or of finding a Democrat and a Republican who actually differ from one another in any significant way post-election.
Oh, I get it. It isn't cool to bash Democrats. Carry on.
I think you mean "Demopublicans". Who can tell them apart anymore?
Max
There is a large swath of people who believe their interpretation of the Bible trumps the law
We have a name for these folks: traitors.
The Constitution is the bible of American citizen; those whose value a religious text as law over the Constitution that affords them their freedoms always retain the right to move their sorry, pathetic, theocracy-loving asses to some other country more suited to their temperament. They DO NOT have the right to ignore the Constitution in favor of their bloody bible.
Max
Forcing porn site operators to operate on a .XXX TLD would be no different from forcing them to be rated X and thus not accessable to minors.
And if you think this would stop at easily-identifiable porn I've got some beach-front property in Iowa to sell you....
Max
I don't buy the argument that once you can identify porn, all of a sudden it will be censored by the government in a way that prevents or even hinders adults from accessing it.
.xxx domain. Soon you'll find nudes, art sites, fan fiction, and a host of other things being railroaded off the 'main road' of the internet by assholes pressing their own personal agenda.
It won't be limited to just obvious porn. Proponents will argue that other kinds of "objectional" material are also pornographic and should be restricted to the
I simply prefer that web sites, movies, video games be up-front and honest with what they contain and let us make the decisions for ourselves.
We already get to make the decisions for ourselves. The point is to not let others *make the decisions for us*. These fuckers need to shut up and mind their owned damned business for a change.
Max
I live in a small community that isn't quite as consumerist as most parts of the US
Translation: "I'm a tie-dye wearing, pot-smoking, tree-hugging, socialism-loving, shower-avoiding hippy living on a commune somewhere in Eastern Oregon."
Don't people give a shit about anything other than themselves and how much crap they can acquire?
Translation: "We secretly lust after all the cool stuff the rest of you have, but since none of can hold down a real job we're reduced to complaining about the 'materialism' of the rest of you assholes, nursing our jealous rage under the facade of 'freedom' and 'loving the Earth'".
see how insane people get over money
Translation: "We would too, if we had any. But hell, we can't even make a profit off of our marijuana crops - in OREGON, for chrissakes!!!"
Max
The crime is the attitude that perfectly functional computing hardware is suddenly "of no use", especially coming from a taxpayer funded institution.
And yet quite typical of government-run organizations.
Max
There's always a small group of folks who stand back and let the herd struggle with one another over baggage. We lean against the wall, amuse ourselves over the antics of our fellow human beings, and then go pick up our bags after the crowd thins out. Which takes what? All of five or ten minutes? In exchange for the free amusement?
Max
Or to the little fuckers head.
Max
but the user gets a false sense of security because ZoneAlarm "blocked" the stuff.
No firewall is of any real value if you *let* malware through your security and allow it to install on your computer, e.g., by using IE. Relying on ZoneAlarm alone (or any firewall alone) is just plain silly; you need to go a few extra steps, such as chucking IE and installing Ad-Aware/Spybot to catch the crap that you, the user, accidentally let onto your system.
Blasting ZoneAlarm because it doesn't do everything and isn't idiot-proof is silly.
Max
Opera can do this. You can delete all cookies AND all history information on exit. That's how I have it set up and it works exactly as advertised.
Max
Using the word 'whacko' immediately discredits your post.
I used it deliberately. Most so-called environmentalists wouldn't know actual science if it up and bit them in the ass. The vast majority are borg-like drones spouting a particular party line, convinced that they possess The Truth(TM) and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a tool of the Great Capitalist Devil.
You want proof, just take a look at the responses in this topic from "environmentalists". A great deal of hand-waving mixed with insults about the opponents intellect or moral character, sprinkled with a smattering of attempted guilt trips. But very little science. Facts, it seems, are something that "environmentalists" have problems with, especially if those nasty little facts contradict some pet belief of theirs.
The card-carrying environmentalist is no different, and no more rational, than the dyed-in-the-wool fundie. They've replaced one religion for another.
Someone who's actually concerned about emissions damaging the environment wouldn't be championing some half-assed hybrid monstrosity that produces MORE toxic chemicals when constructed and does very little to improve actual gas mileage. A hybrid which is more expensive, supported by tax subsidies, and doesn't appeal to anyone outside of a small core audience.
What a person might do, if that person were serious, would be to champion breeder reactors for power generation, and use hydrogen-powered cars as alternatives to gasoline-powered ones. Hydrogen is inefficient to produce, but it has zero emissions and there's enough fuel on Earth to power all the breeder reactors we'd ever need for the next several thousand years. Hydrogen inefficiency is irrelevent when the alternative is the complete elimination of automobile emissions AND coal/oil plant emissions, along with the concentration of waste products (fuel rods) into a transportable and containable form (unlike coal plants, which simply spew most of their waste products - including radioactives - right into the atmosphere).
But no. Instead we have environmentalists completely ignoring this option in favor of unworkable hybrids with a score of hidden costs. Great move, guys! I'm sure your Greenpeace merit badge will be along any day now!
Using the term 'big whoop' seriously questions your age and/or maturity.
Right. Bet you thought that was clever, eh?
In this case, your feelings/opinions are not based on fact.
I stated facts. The hybrid isn't very efficient, it's heavily subsidized, and despite your claims to the contrary it's extremely unpopular. They aren't exactly going like hotcakes, especially given the expense (and that's *after* the subsidies, which mask the true cost of the car). No part of this is opinion.
It does not mean anyone else shares your feelings/opinions nor does it make them any more vaild.
Facts make them more valid. I have them and you don't. It's that simple.
(cut useless anecdotal evidence)
Also, not everyone in the world is selfish. There are people who believe in doing what is right, not just what benefits only them.
Ah, the greenie fallback! If nothing else works claim the person you're arguing with is a moral reprobate!
I see you've made claim to The Truth(TM), right on schedule.
Max
I'm just stating that we are arrogant enough to wipe out other lifeforms and take their land, because we've destroyed our own.
Those "other lifeforms", assuming they're even present, are at best bacteria. There's hardly any arrogance in the act of destroying bacteria. We do it every day, and deliberately, in order to make our own lives safer or easier. There's zip wrong with that. Why you insist that Mars bacteria is somehow more deserving of life than the bacteria growing in your crotch is beyond me.
Max
The blurb about reviving Martian organisms is just to pretend we care for their survival, rather than just our own comfort.
You can go all weepy over the possible extermination of some microorganisms which may or may not exist, but I think most of us really won't give a shit if the payoff is another habitable planet.
Max
so why should we be trying to conquer others?
Because human beings aren't the Borg. Some of us may not be interested in space, while others might. The former group can stay home and do whatever it is they wish to concentrate their energies on, while the latter can venture forth into the solar system and colonize it. Neither group has any business forcing the other to give up their goals.
Max
do we have to f up another planet? can't we just stick to f'ing up earth?
Yeah, let's just huddle like spineless cowards on the planet of our birth, deathly afraid to touch anything for fear of that hideous monster - CHANGE!
The solar system is ours to do with as we please. The whiners are more than welcome to stay on Earth, while those who don't believe in an eternal, unchanging stasis can go forth and alter other worlds according to their desires.
Max
A couple of thousand comets from the Oort Cloud would probably do the trick, providing both atmosphere and water. However, the small size of Mars and the fact that it's core has cooled down means that any terraforming effort is by definition a temporary thing. Although "temporary" here means something on the order of millions of years, so from our perspective "temporary" might as well be "forever".
The real question is why bother? Terraforming Mars might be a cool thing to do, but it'd be far less costly to settle Mars without terraforming it.
Max
I agree, but the need for a sustainable energy infrastructure is clear, and the sooner we start the long journey, the sooner we'll get there.
If it isn't economically efficient then I have no interest whatsoever in seeing my tax dollars wasted on the effort. I'd much rather back a proven technology, like nuclear (especially breeder reactors).
Max
The arrogant assumption that the rest of the world is somehow backward.
That should be:
"The arrogant (but correct) assumption that the rest of the world is somehow backward, especially France."
No thanks necessary!
Max
I wish phone calls by a driver would be illegal if the driver does not pull over.
I wish we could shoot at these yahoos without penalty. That would certainly put a stop to their call-and-drive stupidity.
Max
Minivans get a free pass because they do everything that most SUV buyers are buying their SUVs for, or CLAIMING they're buying them for, they do some of them BETTER, they often do it CHEAPER, and with better fuel economy.
But this doesn't take into account the infamous "minivan Momma" phenomenon, whereupon anyone actually sitting in the drivers seat (including dads, despite the name) turns into a complete and utter asshole on the road. SUV drivers at least seem to have some cognizance of the fact that the vehicle they're driving is akin to an urban tank, and can actually crush lesser vehicles if they aren't careful with it; minivan drivers, on the other hand, seem to be eternally pissed off and out to prove something, usually by driving like reckless lunatics.
Max