As a blind 17-year-old he doesn't pose any special challenge for incarceration, at least no more than a blind 18-year-old or blind 25-year-old would. He'll probably get tried as an adult and sentenced as an adult, and the prison system will deal with him the same as it does any other handicapped inmate. (In other words, chew him up and spit him out.)
Software is the new Hardware, so I don't think patents should be done away with as we move into this realm. But the duration needs an update to reflect the modern-day pace of innovation. I'd say that 17 months would be about right.
No they don't. There may still be some cross-pollination between them, by way of packages they both use, but Darwin/OSX and FreeBSD forked a long time ago.
Good researchers are aware of the subject-trying-to-play-games phenomenon and conduct the survey in ways to minimize it. People are less likely to make shit up in a face-to-face interview, for example.
OK, so what if it were found that there was a 1-in-1,000,000 chance of a minor being approached with sex talk on Slashdot? What measures would you be willing to accept to prevent that? Age and identity verification of all members? Banned keywords? Moderator approval of all postings?
I think it would be interesting to do a study using the same methodology for offline activities. For example, what percentage of 10- to 17-year-olds received "requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted"... at school? It's been a while since I was in high school, but I remember it happening to me... and I was a dweeb. So I bet it'd be pretty high.
The biggest problem with this survey is that it conflates two very different things: teen-to-teen interaction, and adult-to-teen interaction. Even though they qualify the teen-to-teen stuff they include by saying it has to be "unwanted", there's a fundamental difference between being hit on by that ugly kid in your Lit class, and being hit on by an adult sexual predator.
Sure, Windows 1.0 sucked, in so very many ways. I can give you plenty more. But that's not the point. Windows 1.0 had a GUI (and damn little else). Saying it wasn't "graphical" is head-up-the-ass nonsense.
P.S. The price of EGA cards and color monitors (which I managed to afford from my summer job as a college student in '86) and the other shortcomings of the mid-80s PC hardware architecture would hardly be the fault of the OS.
Huh? By what definition of "graphical"? Windows 1.0 wasn't pretty or quite as icon-happy as later versions, but it most certainly had a graphical user interface, complete with a bitmapped pixel-addressible display, an arrow-shaped mouse pointer, tiled windows with little control widgets in the corners, and icons along the bottom of the screen showing you what programs were running (a bit like OS X's dock). Perhaps you have it confused with OS/2 1.0?
I do have to say that I'm amused at the idea of a GUI-less Windows, considering that Windows began as nothing but a GUI, which ran on top of DOS. After all the effort Microsoft went through to make the GUI mandatory and supposedly integral to the OS itself, now they're talking about uncoupling it. MS-DOS 8.0 anyone?
How much of Warren Buffett's "name recognition" has him confused with Warren Beatty or Jimmy Buffett? Is he really all that well known by voters who don't read The Wall Street Urinal?
And I don't know about you, but I've had at least six choices for Congress as far back as I can remember.
As a matter of fact, I do know about me:)... and most of the time I get one choice for Congress. My party sometimes recruits a sacrificial lamb, while the other party either nominates the incumbent if he's healthy, or calls someone up from the minors (i.e. state legislature) if he's not. In November, I get to vote for their candidate, or against him. There's a "Soviet Russia" joke in here someplace.
It could be worse, though... at least I live in a "swing" state where my vote for president has the potential to count.
I disagree with calling the phase after the parties have selected their candidates "the main campaign". If anything, I'd say the phase in which the field of major-party candidates is winnowed from a couple dozen down to two is "the main campaign". That's the phase where it's determined whether we're going to have a choice of, say, Romney and Edwards, or McCain and Clinton, or Huckabee and Richardson, or Giuliani and Obama, or Brownback and Kucinich. That makes a huge> difference, and I think the actual choice of candidates by the two major parties does more to determine the outcome of the election than anything that happens afterward.
You don't need a body for a murder trial and conviction. Think about it: that would mean that successfully getting rid of the body would be a Get Out Of Jail Free card. All they need is 1) enough evidence of a crime to persuade a grand jury that it's worth trying, and 2) enough evidence that he did it to persuade the regular jury that he's guilty. It doesn't have to be a logically sound proof, just a convincing one.
White's lawyers didn't claim that the Twinkies made him do it. They claimed that the Twinkies were proof that White (ordinarily a healthy eater) had gone off the tracks.
Bloomberg's not getting into this race. Unlike Nader, who's motivated by a kind of principled idealism that places the outcome as a secondary consideration, Bloomberg's interest in running for president is calculated, to win. If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him. So he'll sit it out.
A 7-year-old child should have some expectation of privacy from her parents. For example, if she closes the door to her room behind her, they should knock and ask to come in.
However:
A 7-year-old's parents should have the ability to override that privacy. In the above example, she shouldn't have a lock on her door that they can't open. They're ultimately responsible for the well-being of that child, and the ability to look at what she's been doing with her computer in the event that they feel it necessary is how they exercise it.
The OP sounds like a cool older sibling, but he's not in a position to make that decision of whether to lock out Mom and Dad (let alone how). They're his sister's guardians, not him, and unless he's prepared to challenge their parental competency in court and assume full responsibility for little sister, he should support them in doing their job.
I was pointing out that your scenario was just a naive and simple-minded as expecting people to stop looking for it. Sorry if that went over your head.
Slashdot Mirror
As a blind 17-year-old he doesn't pose any special challenge for incarceration, at least no more than a blind 18-year-old or blind 25-year-old would. He'll probably get tried as an adult and sentenced as an adult, and the prison system will deal with him the same as it does any other handicapped inmate. (In other words, chew him up and spit him out.)
Software is the new Hardware, so I don't think patents should be done away with as we move into this realm. But the duration needs an update to reflect the modern-day pace of innovation. I'd say that 17 months would be about right.
I'm pretty sure that electronic voting involves technology.
But it's the smoke that usually kills them. Ask any firefighter.
Good researchers are aware of the subject-trying-to-play-games phenomenon and conduct the survey in ways to minimize it. People are less likely to make shit up in a face-to-face interview, for example.
Just removing IE from any Windows system is bound to improve its security. And of course removing explore.exe will improve its reliability.
OK, so what if it were found that there was a 1-in-1,000,000 chance of a minor being approached with sex talk on Slashdot? What measures would you be willing to accept to prevent that? Age and identity verification of all members? Banned keywords? Moderator approval of all postings?
I think it would be interesting to do a study using the same methodology for offline activities. For example, what percentage of 10- to 17-year-olds received "requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted"... at school? It's been a while since I was in high school, but I remember it happening to me... and I was a dweeb. So I bet it'd be pretty high.
The biggest problem with this survey is that it conflates two very different things: teen-to-teen interaction, and adult-to-teen interaction. Even though they qualify the teen-to-teen stuff they include by saying it has to be "unwanted", there's a fundamental difference between being hit on by that ugly kid in your Lit class, and being hit on by an adult sexual predator.
Sure, Windows 1.0 sucked, in so very many ways. I can give you plenty more. But that's not the point. Windows 1.0 had a GUI (and damn little else). Saying it wasn't "graphical" is head-up-the-ass nonsense.
P.S. The price of EGA cards and color monitors (which I managed to afford from my summer job as a college student in '86) and the other shortcomings of the mid-80s PC hardware architecture would hardly be the fault of the OS.
I do have to say that I'm amused at the idea of a GUI-less Windows, considering that Windows began as nothing but a GUI, which ran on top of DOS. After all the effort Microsoft went through to make the GUI mandatory and supposedly integral to the OS itself, now they're talking about uncoupling it. MS-DOS 8.0 anyone?
How much of Warren Buffett's "name recognition" has him confused with Warren Beatty or Jimmy Buffett? Is he really all that well known by voters who don't read The Wall Street Urinal?
Hobbits are cute.
And lovable.
And decent enough to safely carry the One Ring.
So.... Worst. Description. Ever.
It could be worse, though... at least I live in a "swing" state where my vote for president has the potential to count.
I disagree with calling the phase after the parties have selected their candidates "the main campaign". If anything, I'd say the phase in which the field of major-party candidates is winnowed from a couple dozen down to two is "the main campaign". That's the phase where it's determined whether we're going to have a choice of, say, Romney and Edwards, or McCain and Clinton, or Huckabee and Richardson, or Giuliani and Obama, or Brownback and Kucinich. That makes a huge> difference, and I think the actual choice of candidates by the two major parties does more to determine the outcome of the election than anything that happens afterward.
You don't need a body for a murder trial and conviction. Think about it: that would mean that successfully getting rid of the body would be a Get Out Of Jail Free card. All they need is 1) enough evidence of a crime to persuade a grand jury that it's worth trying, and 2) enough evidence that he did it to persuade the regular jury that he's guilty. It doesn't have to be a logically sound proof, just a convincing one.
Try reading the article you linked to.
White's lawyers didn't claim that the Twinkies made him do it. They claimed that the Twinkies were proof that White (ordinarily a healthy eater) had gone off the tracks.
Bloomberg's not getting into this race. Unlike Nader, who's motivated by a kind of principled idealism that places the outcome as a secondary consideration, Bloomberg's interest in running for president is calculated, to win. If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him. So he'll sit it out.
I'm too anti-social to be a threat to society.
A 7-year-old child should have some expectation of privacy from her parents. For example, if she closes the door to her room behind her, they should knock and ask to come in.
However:
A 7-year-old's parents should have the ability to override that privacy. In the above example, she shouldn't have a lock on her door that they can't open. They're ultimately responsible for the well-being of that child, and the ability to look at what she's been doing with her computer in the event that they feel it necessary is how they exercise it.
The OP sounds like a cool older sibling, but he's not in a position to make that decision of whether to lock out Mom and Dad (let alone how). They're his sister's guardians, not him, and unless he's prepared to challenge their parental competency in court and assume full responsibility for little sister, he should support them in doing their job.
The dark matter worn on the faces of early minstrel stars was certainly key to their star power.
Y Won't U Pay?
I admire your gullibility. This is a DVD vendor asking Google to filter out porn sites.
Why would they take the content off the .com address? You seem to be forgetting that porn sites want people to be able to access them.
I was pointing out that your scenario was just a naive and simple-minded as expecting people to stop looking for it. Sorry if that went over your head.