Right...exactly. Only exposing the child to those that are home-schooled and their parents is essentially the same thing. Of course you'll have like-minded children and adults all 'getting along' and making nice. They're all intellectually superior. I'm not trying to be condescending but the elitist attitude that one can educate their own children while still maintaining some form of social diversity is a sham. Both my wife and I have more than several degrees between us and neither of us would/could attempt to take the place of the social interaction they would miss (with non-home-schooled children)....even if I could, I would fear that my particular upbringing would interfere and 'cloud' my child's mind to MY particular ambitions; rather than my own child's dreams. You may think that's weak but look inward and tell me you're not doing the same.....molding your child's mind the way YOU want it to be. The beautiful (and dangerous) thing about a child's mind is that it's free from interpretation of social ills yet strives to become part of society. I'm sure you're an intelligent person but I still stick to my original statement: it's a dangerous game.
Not everyone's web experience is a total loss because they don't interact with Google in some way, shape or form. Much like the notion that if I don't use Linux on my PC I might as well give up all hope.
I agree, however most AV software companies are very quick to respond once a virus is identified. If you keep your definitions up to date frequently, it potentially can only affect 100 users rather than a million. I might be overshooting it a bit here but statistically you're safer.
I re-read my response to you (twice) and you make a valid point. I would agree that if the tools were available to me to censor out certain content in my own home, I would indeed use them. I thought about your response and thought to myself if I even currently use any utilities like that; and indeed I do....I have DirecTV and I locked out MTV because I don't want to see/hear their programming content 8 hours a day (I have 2 teenage kids so you can imagine). So, apparently I responded purely in the heat of the moment to a situation in which I currently use tools to contradict my own statement and I apologize. I still stick to my statement about the original content of the movies, however. I, personally, would not like to watch ANY movie that's been hindered; even going down to Toy Story or The Lion King because I'm sure SOMEONE can find something objectionable in those movies as well. But again, just opinion. Thank you for your feedback and I do respect your opinion.
It's also their choice to not buy the movies rather than voice an opinion to produce a movie player that restricts the rights of all; still their choice.
And I see this is the opinion of your own daughter whom you've 'home-schooled'. Most parents will see their own kids as well mannered, educated, well behaved and socially productive members of society at an age of 16, 18 and 20 whereas you'd rather believe this is true at 7, 11 or 15. That is a fallacy. Just because the person teaching them has some form of morality does not mean it's the right one socially. The fact that you ONLY expose your child to adults is a dangerous game. Right now you have control; what happens when you don't? College, spring break, marriage....all the things that you can't control. How confident will you be then? I already know your answer, however consider this: your daughter, expecting adult behavior and having to deal with the 'real world' now finds out that she's 'intellectually superior' to a guy she meets that she's interested in. Nice. Good social interaction. I submit that social interaction with only adults is bad and socialization with other children is good; simple as that. You have good intentions but your premise is flawed. By the way.....I've raised 2 and yes, they have messed up and were not perfect but I'm proud nonetheless.
I'm sure Charles Manson believed in home-school as well. Besides, with your apparent (limited) beliefs your future children will be left behind anyway.
Like you said...it's reactive. Generally speaking, that's a bad thing. Anytime a person or organization becomes reactionary, bad things usually result.
And you don't think that watching teenagers getting hopped up on milk laced with drugs for ten minutes is 'a bad thing'? Whoa...did you just prove the hypocrisy or what.
We're not talking talking about Tom Hanks' rights or the studio's rights for that matter. We're talking about physically (and technologically) changing the movie presentation from its intended viewing experience. This does NOT include a fast forward button on your remote control or editing your software on a third party software program...the machine takes over and does the rest. There's a BIG difference.
I don't entirely disagree with you, however 'art' has always been subjective at best. As an adult with children, you should realize that a film directed by Garry Marshall is most likely not as contoversial as one directed by Stanley Kubrick.....hell, most of the content they direct is evidence of that. The point is: if I, as Stan, direct a movie in which the POINT of the movie is sex/violence (A Clockwork Orange), should it be allowed to be censored by automatic technology after it was released? Would I want my name attached to it after that? Did it have the same impact as intended? Jeez....you wouldn't see 80% of the film. The same concept applies to 'Overboard'; granted, it's not the same caliber but you still object to portions of the movie. Also, as an adult, why would I show portions of a movie I believe to be objectionable to my children? If you want to shelter them to that extreme...while still enjoying movies..don't entice them with the movie to begin with.
Oh bullshit...that's not what he said. If your wife covers her eyes at a movie she paid to see with an 'R' rating, then why pay to go see it? Same as at home...why buy the DVD if you're not going to watch certain portions of it? Sounds to me like he was right and you should both get the tree branches out of your ass.
I might be wrong, but I don't think they supplied Ford, Chrysler or GM. Other than that, ISO 9001:2000 would have been good enough for the military but I digress...that should be pulled too.
I don't know....I think that making DeFoe's face partially visible with a well designed (granted, corny) mask was pretty good. I believe that it achieved the effect of someone actually human becoming a super villain; much like spider man becoming a super hero....yet we never see spidey's true appearance while in costume. A good balance, I think.
I feel 'ya brother! I've had my current XP machine for a little over 2 years now and I have to admit it's treated me well. I've experienced more hardware problems (disk drives and video cards) than software ones and to tell you the truth, the only times I've ever had to re-boot the system was because of software installations or upgrades (other than that the machine was on 24-7). Perfect record. Then, the inevitable; I had to 'recover' the system (in other words, re-format the hard drive because system recovery would not function) because of SOME unknown 'anomaly' that was freezing up my system every 30 minutes or so. Re-start; same thing. No viruses, no Trojans, no worms....nothing. After recovering what important data I could onto CD (and be damned...I missed some....crap!) I performed the 'recovery'. Feeling a little insecure about a patch I might have missed or a new virus that hit me first before my AV software caught it the first thing I did was 'update' the system through Windows update. It would SEEM painless enough but I'm on a dial-up connection so it took all of 2 days to get just the critical updates. Man, what a way to spend your weekend. Sheesh.
Here we go...someone fucking up a simple idea with current government idealisms and allowisisms. Start from scratch. Taxes like these would do well; REGARDLESS of the income source(s). Net is net and gross is gross....regardless. In any scenario there's still a money trail to profit or loss, which is the ulitimate goal; regardless of intent. The whole point is to make this easier, not screw it up with current guidelines and laws that define sidelines or profitiablity as prescribed by the 'law'. The first step is to define the problem, then define the root cause and provide long term corrective action.....regardless of current investment interests by corporate (government).
If you REALLY have to make the decision between rent and school than you shouldn't be having children to begin with; only to have others making the decision for you for tax reasons. I shouldn't have to ENCOURAGE people to get an education rather than having children based on an economic fact. I shouldn't also have to subsidize those children through my tax dollars because of some universities' idealism of 'a diverse community' and be penalized because I make 'too much money' for my son to get a student loan. I shouldn't have to talk to a 'loan counselor' about paying back a tuition grant because I was mistaken for a 'minority' during the application process. Bottom line: one HAS to choose between rent and school....which will it be?
Here go my mod points, but that is utter crap. Everyone bitches about the poor and the rich when it's actually the backbone of the economy to turn to the middle class. What will you say when the 'lower' class becomes the 'middle' class? The tax brackets are designed to rape the middle class because that's where they know the TRUE federal income is. They won't get it from the poor (they don't have it) and they won't get it from the rich (they won't give it up). The majority of most middle-Americans are happy to get a $550 tax break per YEAR by Congress. Do you really think that $550 matters (for tax reasons) to someone who's poor; OR rich? Why do you think there's a 'marriage penalty tax relief" clause recently? The only ones it really matters to is the middle. Whoopity doo. When I can hope to increase my income through as many avenues (legally) as the rich seem to increase theirs I'll start to believe we're at least on an even playing level; which will never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Right...exactly. Only exposing the child to those that are home-schooled and their parents is essentially the same thing. Of course you'll have like-minded children and adults all 'getting along' and making nice. They're all intellectually superior. I'm not trying to be condescending but the elitist attitude that one can educate their own children while still maintaining some form of social diversity is a sham. Both my wife and I have more than several degrees between us and neither of us would/could attempt to take the place of the social interaction they would miss (with non-home-schooled children)....even if I could, I would fear that my particular upbringing would interfere and 'cloud' my child's mind to MY particular ambitions; rather than my own child's dreams. You may think that's weak but look inward and tell me you're not doing the same.....molding your child's mind the way YOU want it to be. The beautiful (and dangerous) thing about a child's mind is that it's free from interpretation of social ills yet strives to become part of society. I'm sure you're an intelligent person but I still stick to my original statement: it's a dangerous game.
"....non-shittily"; now THAT was funny! I pronounced it out 3x's and I'm still laughing!
No...feed the poor with serving up the pony; preferrably with a good teriyaki marande.
No, he's saying that Google is NOT Christ, although Christ may have been a pony...acchhhh, who knows.
Not everyone's web experience is a total loss because they don't interact with Google in some way, shape or form. Much like the notion that if I don't use Linux on my PC I might as well give up all hope.
I agree, however most AV software companies are very quick to respond once a virus is identified. If you keep your definitions up to date frequently, it potentially can only affect 100 users rather than a million. I might be overshooting it a bit here but statistically you're safer.
I re-read my response to you (twice) and you make a valid point. I would agree that if the tools were available to me to censor out certain content in my own home, I would indeed use them. I thought about your response and thought to myself if I even currently use any utilities like that; and indeed I do....I have DirecTV and I locked out MTV because I don't want to see/hear their programming content 8 hours a day (I have 2 teenage kids so you can imagine). So, apparently I responded purely in the heat of the moment to a situation in which I currently use tools to contradict my own statement and I apologize. I still stick to my statement about the original content of the movies, however. I, personally, would not like to watch ANY movie that's been hindered; even going down to Toy Story or The Lion King because I'm sure SOMEONE can find something objectionable in those movies as well. But again, just opinion. Thank you for your feedback and I do respect your opinion.
It's also their choice to not buy the movies rather than voice an opinion to produce a movie player that restricts the rights of all; still their choice.
And I see this is the opinion of your own daughter whom you've 'home-schooled'. Most parents will see their own kids as well mannered, educated, well behaved and socially productive members of society at an age of 16, 18 and 20 whereas you'd rather believe this is true at 7, 11 or 15. That is a fallacy. Just because the person teaching them has some form of morality does not mean it's the right one socially. The fact that you ONLY expose your child to adults is a dangerous game. Right now you have control; what happens when you don't? College, spring break, marriage....all the things that you can't control. How confident will you be then? I already know your answer, however consider this: your daughter, expecting adult behavior and having to deal with the 'real world' now finds out that she's 'intellectually superior' to a guy she meets that she's interested in. Nice. Good social interaction. I submit that social interaction with only adults is bad and socialization with other children is good; simple as that. You have good intentions but your premise is flawed. By the way.....I've raised 2 and yes, they have messed up and were not perfect but I'm proud nonetheless.
OMG....am I hearing 'for the children' yet again?
I'm sure Charles Manson believed in home-school as well. Besides, with your apparent (limited) beliefs your future children will be left behind anyway.
Like you said...it's reactive. Generally speaking, that's a bad thing. Anytime a person or organization becomes reactionary, bad things usually result.
And you don't think that watching teenagers getting hopped up on milk laced with drugs for ten minutes is 'a bad thing'? Whoa...did you just prove the hypocrisy or what.
Yes, but you still have the option to (and view) the pages you tear out.
We're not talking talking about Tom Hanks' rights or the studio's rights for that matter. We're talking about physically (and technologically) changing the movie presentation from its intended viewing experience. This does NOT include a fast forward button on your remote control or editing your software on a third party software program...the machine takes over and does the rest. There's a BIG difference.
I don't entirely disagree with you, however 'art' has always been subjective at best. As an adult with children, you should realize that a film directed by Garry Marshall is most likely not as contoversial as one directed by Stanley Kubrick.....hell, most of the content they direct is evidence of that. The point is: if I, as Stan, direct a movie in which the POINT of the movie is sex/violence (A Clockwork Orange), should it be allowed to be censored by automatic technology after it was released? Would I want my name attached to it after that? Did it have the same impact as intended? Jeez....you wouldn't see 80% of the film. The same concept applies to 'Overboard'; granted, it's not the same caliber but you still object to portions of the movie. Also, as an adult, why would I show portions of a movie I believe to be objectionable to my children? If you want to shelter them to that extreme...while still enjoying movies..don't entice them with the movie to begin with.
Just a note....fast forwarding or skipping on a home player is NOT the same as censorship; like this player does.
Oh bullshit...that's not what he said. If your wife covers her eyes at a movie she paid to see with an 'R' rating, then why pay to go see it? Same as at home...why buy the DVD if you're not going to watch certain portions of it? Sounds to me like he was right and you should both get the tree branches out of your ass.
I might be wrong, but I don't think they supplied Ford, Chrysler or GM. Other than that, ISO 9001:2000 would have been good enough for the military but I digress...that should be pulled too.
I don't know....I think that making DeFoe's face partially visible with a well designed (granted, corny) mask was pretty good. I believe that it achieved the effect of someone actually human becoming a super villain; much like spider man becoming a super hero....yet we never see spidey's true appearance while in costume. A good balance, I think.
I feel 'ya brother! I've had my current XP machine for a little over 2 years now and I have to admit it's treated me well. I've experienced more hardware problems (disk drives and video cards) than software ones and to tell you the truth, the only times I've ever had to re-boot the system was because of software installations or upgrades (other than that the machine was on 24-7). Perfect record. Then, the inevitable; I had to 'recover' the system (in other words, re-format the hard drive because system recovery would not function) because of SOME unknown 'anomaly' that was freezing up my system every 30 minutes or so. Re-start; same thing. No viruses, no Trojans, no worms....nothing. After recovering what important data I could onto CD (and be damned...I missed some....crap!) I performed the 'recovery'. Feeling a little insecure about a patch I might have missed or a new virus that hit me first before my AV software caught it the first thing I did was 'update' the system through Windows update. It would SEEM painless enough but I'm on a dial-up connection so it took all of 2 days to get just the critical updates. Man, what a way to spend your weekend. Sheesh.
Here we go...someone fucking up a simple idea with current government idealisms and allowisisms. Start from scratch. Taxes like these would do well; REGARDLESS of the income source(s). Net is net and gross is gross....regardless. In any scenario there's still a money trail to profit or loss, which is the ulitimate goal; regardless of intent. The whole point is to make this easier, not screw it up with current guidelines and laws that define sidelines or profitiablity as prescribed by the 'law'. The first step is to define the problem, then define the root cause and provide long term corrective action.....regardless of current investment interests by corporate (government).
So I guess we should make the tax laws even more difficult just to inconvenience Bill Gates?
If you REALLY have to make the decision between rent and school than you shouldn't be having children to begin with; only to have others making the decision for you for tax reasons. I shouldn't have to ENCOURAGE people to get an education rather than having children based on an economic fact. I shouldn't also have to subsidize those children through my tax dollars because of some universities' idealism of 'a diverse community' and be penalized because I make 'too much money' for my son to get a student loan. I shouldn't have to talk to a 'loan counselor' about paying back a tuition grant because I was mistaken for a 'minority' during the application process. Bottom line: one HAS to choose between rent and school....which will it be?
Here go my mod points, but that is utter crap. Everyone bitches about the poor and the rich when it's actually the backbone of the economy to turn to the middle class. What will you say when the 'lower' class becomes the 'middle' class? The tax brackets are designed to rape the middle class because that's where they know the TRUE federal income is. They won't get it from the poor (they don't have it) and they won't get it from the rich (they won't give it up). The majority of most middle-Americans are happy to get a $550 tax break per YEAR by Congress. Do you really think that $550 matters (for tax reasons) to someone who's poor; OR rich? Why do you think there's a 'marriage penalty tax relief" clause recently? The only ones it really matters to is the middle. Whoopity doo. When I can hope to increase my income through as many avenues (legally) as the rich seem to increase theirs I'll start to believe we're at least on an even playing level; which will never happen.