Personally, I almost wish a black hole would sweep down from that big bad particle accelerator and wipe out earth, just so we could stop having to read these ignorant doomsayers (Fred Moody) predict the end of the world....how's that for recursive irony?:)
Re:Could you believe I used to be a republican?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
yeah, I knew feinstein, a democrat, was the co-author of the "link to drugs and go to prison" bill. I didn't switch my flag from the republican to the democrat side, by any means, that's like jumping out of the frying pan and into the 4e7 K core of any various blue giant star. Right now, my flag of political alignment belongs to no one party. Not anymore. I'll never vote along party lines. But, as americans, we don't get much of a choice in these virtual puppet elections, do we? Hmmm...
Could you believe I used to be a republican?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Well well well, here we are again. Weren't we all assembled under the waning flag of freedom not too long ago with the encryption export deal? Oh boy.
Two more genuis bills from our legislature. Will the joyride never end? One thing I take a little comfort in is that the second bill, the "link to drugs and go to prison", has not passed yet, it is only proposed. I guess we see how far the Congress is ready to push this. I don't have a lot of hope, but this does mean that there is time to write your congressperson. This is an idiotic idea. The free flow of information does not make people crack dealers or users; quite the contrary! It is precisely the lack and interuption of information and education that will ultimately hurt people with drugs, and anything! This kind of censorship mentality only leads to limited thought (limithought). Or, as someone else in 1949 put it so perfectly, crimestop. The inability to form even a thought on what the government considers illegal.
And one of the co-authors of both these bills? Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (r). Every time I see this guy I want to vomit more and more. And this guy wants to be president! From his webpage:
"...Always striving to protect the principles of limited government, tax restraint, and integrity in public service..."
Limited government aye? Maybe it's a new strategy, the indirect approach of curtailing government expansion by expanding the government! Wasn't a phrase invented for concepts like that...say, doublethink? I think it was that same wise man back in 1949 who came up with that....
Wow, yes, YOU TOO can send a message RIGHT TO THOSE FRISKY ALIENS for just $10.95!!! But wait, there's more! Oh, well, actually, there's not!
I don't know about making contact with any alien life forms, but if nothing else it appears man has created yet another money singularity right here on earth (black hole that is). What a piece of work is man!
As if there aren't enough things to waste money on out there.
Voyagers 1 and 2 are the probes that contain the gold records of which you speak. Right now they're both crusing through the vast expanse, probably having a grand time playing chuck berry over and over and over again...
Re:Am I alone? (spoilers)
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 1
I think the posters in this thread are missing a key point; OSC didn't write Ender's Game as a war sci-fi novel, it was much more character oriented story. OSC's point wasn't to tell a humanity vs. an alien race interstellar war story (if that were the case, the book would have ended right after Ender won the final battle), that was just the backdrop for the real story, which is the concept of Ender, a child, being isolated from everything except pain and struggle and the changes that take place within him, and to those around him (in a limited fashion). As for the Valentine and Peter subplot, why would that be BS? Because it's never happened before? By that reasoning almost every piece of literature should be BS. I think Mr. Card should be given some leeway to create the future as he sees it.
It's not a war story, just as War and Peace isn't a war story (that is to say, Tolstoy isn't just retelling a history of the invasion of Russia). Both novels deal with complex character issues and changes that occur over the backdrop of war. Tolstoy examines the effects upon society and individual by the Napoleonic invasion of Russia, and OSC examines the effects of the desperate attempts by a human government at war to produce a child progeny, that being Ender.
(And hold on, I am not by any means comparing the two novels as if they were equal. Sorry, War and Peace is several thousand planes above Ender's Game. I just wanted to show similarities).
If you want a good war story, read any history of World War Two. If you want a beautiful and complex examination of the very soul of humanity, read War and Peace. If you want a good read that deals with the same complex personal and psychological issues that War and Peace does, but on a much more limited basis (and about 800 pages shorter), read Ender's Game. And its sequals.
Re:The new ENDER'S GAME OF LIFE from Parker Bros.!
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 1
Forgot to mention this; read this section of the CNN article and see if this sounds strange to anyone (you would have to have read the book before of course):
"...Ender's Game," the Hugo and Nebula winning book, is an amazing piece of science fiction. Earth had barely escaped being invaded by the Formics twice before. In mankind's darkest hour, Ender Wiggin, a reluctant 10-year-old hero, comes forward to lead humanity's space fleet against the Formics in a daring battle to save the Earth..."
The Formics? The insecticoid alien race in Ender's Game that Ender and his comrades fought against were called the Buggers....so what's the deal?
Just a little General Confusion, nothing to be really worried about. I'd be more worried about General Chaos. He's a dick.
Re:Holy Shit! Someone has heard of Enders Game!
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 2
Actually, there are four books (well, five now with Ender's Shadow), and the third book, Xenocide, takes off right where Speaker for the Dead ends , and the same goes for the 4th book, Children of the Mind, which picks up where Xenocide leaves off. Don't just get half the story! Pick up a copy today!
Yes, I feel like a cheap salesman, but cut me some slack; this is the only chance we'll ever have of plugging these books and proclaiming publically with pride that we've read them, and then finding others who feel the same way. So, put a four pronged eating utensil into my physical manifestation, I am completed.
The new ENDER'S GAME OF LIFE from Parker Bros.!
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 1
This series of books is one of the greatest I have ever read (Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide and Children of the Mind). In fact, I just finished reading the cycle again a few months ago, right in time for this new addition. Orson Scott Card is a great author, and although these books may be considered the crown jewel of his accomplishments thus far, he has many other fine works in publication (The Harmony series, The Worthing Saga, many more than I could name within a reasonable amount of space). A highly recommended author for anyone who is looking for a thought provoking/entertaining experience. But don't just take my word for it! (ba-da-bump!)
Re:Ender's Game started VRML
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 1
Just a minor non-important point, but Ender's sister's name was Valentine, not Valerie. Just for clairty's sake.
Stealing? What is being stolen? Bandwidth maybe, but that could be said of so many things other than advertisements. And the "my property your property shared property" concept gets rather blurred as you reach the virtual mediums, doesn't it? What is mine on the TV? What is yours on the radio? What is his on the internet? Can you really define possession on a virtual medium? Television carries commercials and no one is outraged. Radio carries commercials and no one is outraged. Billboards scream commercials and no one is outraged. Commercials have been around even since the time of the "old timers", so why is it any different now? Just because it's a new untamed medium? It's still virtual. There is no you. There is no me. Just ten trillion electrons.
I admit it, if a business were to emplace a large rotating neon sign advertising their steak house in my front yard, yes, I would take approiate action (C-4 anyone?:) That's because I can; it's physical, defined. This line on the map indicates my side, and you get the other side. But with virtual mediums, there are no sides. There is no possession.
All in all, it comes down to a simple annoyance and inconvience, but what a small price to pay for the exorborant power of the internet! Or television! Or radio! And, and this is a good thing, when you want to leave this undefined virtual world, there is always an off switch, and then you can rejoin the real world. When the day comes that there is no off switch...well, that's when we should get worried.
I think that most advertisement is unsolicited. Television commercials, radio commercials, ads in the newspaper and the mail, billboards...no one asks for them, and many people find them annoying; personally I don't like having commercials interrupt a show I am watching, but that's the way it works. That's how the networks get their money and it's how the businesses can expand. If we say that unsolicited e-mail from businesses are illegal, what is to stop the crusade from going further to billboards, or newspapers, or radio commercials, or television commercials? If that is your stance and your crusade, that is well and fine, but at least admit it, take up the flag and prepare to go all the way. But to say that e-mail should be protected while every other medium is legal is a hypocrasy. And elitist. Just becuase it's the internet does not mean it's in some way higher than the rest. It's just another medium. And businesses do have a right to advertise in whatever medium they choose to.
As for businesses using your money without your conscent, I would argue that they pay the same ISP bills as you, probably more so. They have as much right to e-mail as you, and seriously, how much can it cost you? It's electrons for goodness sake! I would much rather have electronic junk mail than real junk mail - at least we don't have to sacrifice a natural resource for it!
Unless you consider electrons natural resources. Which I usually don't, there being so freaking many of them.:)
And for the record, I don't know why you think I think you're stupid, but it's obvious that you're an educated and intelligent/.er, and it's been my pleasure debating with you.
The solution is to make unsolicited commercial e-mail illegal, in order to make it possible to stop the companies causing the problem instead of treating the symptoms.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that comment does actually frighten me. Commercial e-mail illegal. Companies causing the problem. Don't you see a major breach of constitutional ettiquette (not to mention a right or three) in blaming and punishing businesses for trying to expand themselves and advertise? Let's leave the businesses alone and concentrate on the real criminal spammers, those who would be fradulant and steal money from too trusting people.
And before anyone says it, yes, businesses can be fradulant too, all businesses are not perfect, and those breaking the law will be punished. But for the most part I think most businesses play it legal, and their rights should not be infringed.
All email that is sent from someone you do not know, to convince you of something is spam....All unsolicited junkmail should be eradicated, and I do not want my bandwidth to be wasted on some company wanting to market itself. Everything that is sent to me, without me requesting it - or it originating from someone I know - I regard as spam.
I think there need to be distinctions made in the blanket word of "spam". There's a difference between a business legally and rightly advertising through available mediums and a spammer who will try to wreak havoc by promising people "get rich quick" and "free money today!" schemes. The former I would not consider spam; the latter of course, and I think that schemes to cheat people out of money and the like should be prosecuted. But legitimate businesses have a right to advertise, just as you have a right to mute the TV when a commercial comes on, or leave the room when the radio goes to commercial, just as you have the right to delete the ads in your mailbox when they come in. Do we really want to deny businesses a true and legitimate right to advertise? What precident does that set?
I know many would not cry to see businesses castrated, to have all commercialization eridicated, but look at the big picture; in a free market capitalist system businesses grow in part by advertisement, and that of course has it's pluses and minuses, but to outlaw advertisement, on any medium, paints a bad picture and will harm business, especially the small businesses.
Now there haven't been any comments about this article yet, but I predict that this ruling is not unfavourable to the/. audience. Myself included, really, no one likes junk mail (I think) of any kind, and it would be well to dispose of it all. However, despite this seemingly simple solution, I think to outlaw and censor it violates some of the principles we feel strongly about. Just about a week ago we were having a debate about pornography in libraries (the Liz Dole thing, remember?), and the overwhelming majority here on/. seemed to be against any kind of government censorship intrusion. These cases aren't exactly parallel, but I think the same principle applies. To have a government step in and restrict anything that is unfavourable to the majority will infringe upon the minority, and damage the whole as a result.
I don't endorse spam, and I think that schemes using e-mail to scam people out of money should be prosecuted under the full extent of the applicable laws. But the article pointed out that there are legitimate businesses who use e-mail to advertise, much like a circular in the newspaper, and this ruling appearently considers that spam. Laws to outlaw spam would be extremely hard to enforce and leave much room for interpetation. What is spam? Who will decide what is and what isn't? How many tax dollars will be spent on endless debates about what kind of e-mail is acceptable for you and what kind is not? Do you really want politicians deciding that for you? Personally, I think there are better ways to handle this, again going back to personal choice and responsibility. Don't want spam? Then instead of using just one e-mail address for everything, obtain at least two, one for private use between friends, and a public one that you can plaster everywhere if you like, to give to people you don't really know. A throwaway address if you will. If the spam on the public box becomes too intense, throw it away and start another. No loss. But I wager that if you keep the private address private, spam intensity will drop, probably even to zero.
The more power we give a government, the more power that government has. I think we can solve these problems with cleverness rather than blanket censorship and legislation. Junk mail doesn't hurt anyone. False schemes and illegal operations do of course, and as said above, those should be prosecuted. But junk mail is just an annoyance, and to get a government involved in that....I don't think it's necessary or desirable.
And to all non-Canadian/.er's, I understand this was a Canadian ruling, but how long until this debate comes to your country? Or has it already? I think we're seeing a trend in the world community of increasing limitations on public access to the internet, and this ruling is just one more step. Don't be fooled, especially those of us here in the U.S.; these are not isolated events, and we are by no means immune.
For the most part, as of now, this article confused me in that "what the hell is this" kind of way. They guy wanders off point halfway through, and ends up talking about AOL and loans and deals and.....huh?? But the first part that was on subject was interesting in the "oh look, this guy's kind of conceited isn't he?" kind of way. He didn't like the movie because the documentary was better (I gather that he made said documentary, so that may not be the most objective opinion), and because in the movie, Bill Gates went to IBM, while really it was IBM who went to Bill Gates. That was the only reason he gave that I could find. That comment blew me away. It's poetic license! And it's so small that it's hardly worth mentioning. I'm glad that the scriptwriters changed it; I mean, how entertaining would it have been to see the IBM executives running towards their plane on their way to Microsoft with "Synchronicity I" playing in the background?:)
Was the TNT production completely and utterly correct? Probably not. But what is except reality itself? But was it entertaining...? AY! There's the rub. And yes it was. I thought so anyway.
The kryptonite comments in the article just plain threw me off.
Small doses of censorship are fine and peachy, good stopgaps for the underlying problems that we are afraid to face. We'll take our doses of it like sour medicine and smile at the end when we can look and say "there! we did something...and all for the children"...but the doses accumulate faster than one might think, and where before it was just a small poem torn up, a small idea thrown out, those words, those concepts, they collectively become a larger and larger chain to bind us all into a slavery of unthought. It starts and continues in small doses like this, stopgaps politicians use to get elected, to stay in office, to fool you; be wary of the small doses, for unlike other toxins, these doses of bitter poison will never flush out of the system with time alone.
Some may say that my post is completely off-subject, that blocking child access to library porn has nothing to do with censorship or slavery. As I say, small doses.
Shouting loud loses face. Unfortunately, staying silent doesn't change laws (or keep them the same as the case may be). So what's the solution?....VOTE FOR ME. I don't see any other way around it. I'll accept the burden of the presidency, with a heavy heart, but always willing to help out when I can. No need to thank me.:)
I wasn't planning to respond to this post, I think it pretty much scuttles itself quite well without additional torpedos, but I find it extremely intersting how the idea of "if you don't have children your ideas and opinions can and do not matter" is used as a rational argument. Ludicrious. And it doesn't even matter the subject in question; guns, sex, books or the weather, appearently if you've not had a child you've not been "living it" so to speak, and so you can't speak. Interesting; guess I better go out and get some girl pregnant so I can figure it all out and then rightfully participate in the democratic process!!
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I almost wish a black hole would sweep down from that big bad particle accelerator and wipe out earth, just so we could stop having to read these ignorant doomsayers (Fred Moody) predict the end of the world....how's that for recursive irony?
yeah, I knew feinstein, a democrat, was the co-author of the "link to drugs and go to prison" bill. I didn't switch my flag from the republican to the democrat side, by any means, that's like jumping out of the frying pan and into the 4e7 K core of any various blue giant star. Right now, my flag of political alignment belongs to no one party. Not anymore. I'll never vote along party lines. But, as americans, we don't get much of a choice in these virtual puppet elections, do we? Hmmm...
Well well well, here we are again. Weren't we all assembled under the waning flag of freedom not too long ago with the encryption export deal? Oh boy.
Two more genuis bills from our legislature. Will the joyride never end? One thing I take a little comfort in is that the second bill, the "link to drugs and go to prison", has not passed yet, it is only proposed. I guess we see how far the Congress is ready to push this. I don't have a lot of hope, but this does mean that there is time to write your congressperson. This is an idiotic idea. The free flow of information does not make people crack dealers or users; quite the contrary! It is precisely the lack and interuption of information and education that will ultimately hurt people with drugs, and anything! This kind of censorship mentality only leads to limited thought (limithought). Or, as someone else in 1949 put it so perfectly, crimestop. The inability to form even a thought on what the government considers illegal.
And one of the co-authors of both these bills? Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (r). Every time I see this guy I want to vomit more and more. And this guy wants to be president! From his webpage:
"...Always striving to protect the principles of limited government, tax restraint, and integrity in public service..."
Limited government aye? Maybe it's a new strategy, the indirect approach of curtailing government expansion by expanding the government! Wasn't a phrase invented for concepts like that...say, doublethink? I think it was that same wise man back in 1949 who came up with that....
Could you believe I used to be a republican?
Wow, yes, YOU TOO can send a message RIGHT TO THOSE FRISKY ALIENS for just $10.95!!! But wait, there's more! Oh, well, actually, there's not!
I don't know about making contact with any alien life forms, but if nothing else it appears man has created yet another money singularity right here on earth (black hole that is). What a piece of work is man!
As if there aren't enough things to waste money on out there.
Voyagers 1 and 2 are the probes that contain the gold records of which you speak. Right now they're both crusing through the vast expanse, probably having a grand time playing chuck berry over and over and over again...
I think the posters in this thread are missing a key point; OSC didn't write Ender's Game as a war sci-fi novel, it was much more character oriented story. OSC's point wasn't to tell a humanity vs. an alien race interstellar war story (if that were the case, the book would have ended right after Ender won the final battle), that was just the backdrop for the real story, which is the concept of Ender, a child, being isolated from everything except pain and struggle and the changes that take place within him, and to those around him (in a limited fashion). As for the Valentine and Peter subplot, why would that be BS? Because it's never happened before? By that reasoning almost every piece of literature should be BS. I think Mr. Card should be given some leeway to create the future as he sees it.
It's not a war story, just as War and Peace isn't a war story (that is to say, Tolstoy isn't just retelling a history of the invasion of Russia). Both novels deal with complex character issues and changes that occur over the backdrop of war. Tolstoy examines the effects upon society and individual by the Napoleonic invasion of Russia, and OSC examines the effects of the desperate attempts by a human government at war to produce a child progeny, that being Ender.
(And hold on, I am not by any means comparing the two novels as if they were equal. Sorry, War and Peace is several thousand planes above Ender's Game. I just wanted to show similarities).
If you want a good war story, read any history of World War Two. If you want a beautiful and complex examination of the very soul of humanity, read War and Peace. If you want a good read that deals with the same complex personal and psychological issues that War and Peace does, but on a much more limited basis (and about 800 pages shorter), read Ender's Game. And its sequals.
Forgot to mention this; read this section of the CNN article and see if this sounds strange to anyone (you would have to have read the book before of course):
"...Ender's Game," the Hugo and Nebula winning book, is an amazing piece of science fiction. Earth had barely escaped being invaded by the Formics twice before. In mankind's darkest hour, Ender Wiggin, a reluctant 10-year-old hero, comes forward to lead humanity's space fleet against the Formics in a daring battle to save the Earth..."
The Formics? The insecticoid alien race in Ender's Game that Ender and his comrades fought against were called the Buggers....so what's the deal?
Just a little General Confusion, nothing to be really worried about. I'd be more worried about General Chaos. He's a dick.
Actually, there are four books (well, five now with Ender's Shadow), and the third book, Xenocide, takes off right where Speaker for the Dead ends , and the same goes for the 4th book, Children of the Mind, which picks up where Xenocide leaves off. Don't just get half the story! Pick up a copy today!
Yes, I feel like a cheap salesman, but cut me some slack; this is the only chance we'll ever have of plugging these books and proclaiming publically with pride that we've read them, and then finding others who feel the same way. So, put a four pronged eating utensil into my physical manifestation, I am completed.
This series of books is one of the greatest I have ever read (Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide and Children of the Mind). In fact, I just finished reading the cycle again a few months ago, right in time for this new addition. Orson Scott Card is a great author, and although these books may be considered the crown jewel of his accomplishments thus far, he has many other fine works in publication (The Harmony series, The Worthing Saga, many more than I could name within a reasonable amount of space). A highly recommended author for anyone who is looking for a thought provoking/entertaining experience. But don't just take my word for it! (ba-da-bump!)
Just a minor non-important point, but Ender's sister's name was Valentine, not Valerie. Just for clairty's sake.
Stealing? What is being stolen? Bandwidth maybe, but that could be said of so many things other than advertisements. And the "my property your property shared property" concept gets rather blurred as you reach the virtual mediums, doesn't it? What is mine on the TV? What is yours on the radio? What is his on the internet? Can you really define possession on a virtual medium? Television carries commercials and no one is outraged. Radio carries commercials and no one is outraged. Billboards scream commercials and no one is outraged. Commercials have been around even since the time of the "old timers", so why is it any different now? Just because it's a new untamed medium? It's still virtual. There is no you. There is no me. Just ten trillion electrons.
I admit it, if a business were to emplace a large rotating neon sign advertising their steak house in my front yard, yes, I would take approiate action (C-4 anyone?
All in all, it comes down to a simple annoyance and inconvience, but what a small price to pay for the exorborant power of the internet! Or television! Or radio! And, and this is a good thing, when you want to leave this undefined virtual world, there is always an off switch, and then you can rejoin the real world. When the day comes that there is no off switch...well, that's when we should get worried.
I think that most advertisement is unsolicited. Television commercials, radio commercials, ads in the newspaper and the mail, billboards...no one asks for them, and many people find them annoying; personally I don't like having commercials interrupt a show I am watching, but that's the way it works. That's how the networks get their money and it's how the businesses can expand. If we say that unsolicited e-mail from businesses are illegal, what is to stop the crusade from going further to billboards, or newspapers, or radio commercials, or television commercials? If that is your stance and your crusade, that is well and fine, but at least admit it, take up the flag and prepare to go all the way. But to say that e-mail should be protected while every other medium is legal is a hypocrasy. And elitist. Just becuase it's the internet does not mean it's in some way higher than the rest. It's just another medium. And businesses do have a right to advertise in whatever medium they choose to.
As for businesses using your money without your conscent, I would argue that they pay the same ISP bills as you, probably more so. They have as much right to e-mail as you, and seriously, how much can it cost you? It's electrons for goodness sake! I would much rather have electronic junk mail than real junk mail - at least we don't have to sacrifice a natural resource for it!
Unless you consider electrons natural resources. Which I usually don't, there being so freaking many of them.
And for the record, I don't know why you think I think you're stupid, but it's obvious that you're an educated and intelligent
-zi-
The solution is to make unsolicited commercial e-mail illegal, in order to make it possible to stop the companies causing the problem instead of treating the symptoms.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that comment does actually frighten me. Commercial e-mail illegal. Companies causing the problem. Don't you see a major breach of constitutional ettiquette (not to mention a right or three) in blaming and punishing businesses for trying to expand themselves and advertise? Let's leave the businesses alone and concentrate on the real criminal spammers, those who would be fradulant and steal money from too trusting people.
And before anyone says it, yes, businesses can be fradulant too, all businesses are not perfect, and those breaking the law will be punished. But for the most part I think most businesses play it legal, and their rights should not be infringed.
All email that is sent from someone you do not know, to convince you of something is spam....All unsolicited junkmail should be eradicated, and I do not want my bandwidth to be wasted on some company wanting to market itself. Everything that is sent to me, without me requesting it - or it originating from someone I know - I regard as spam.
I think there need to be distinctions made in the blanket word of "spam". There's a difference between a business legally and rightly advertising through available mediums and a spammer who will try to wreak havoc by promising people "get rich quick" and "free money today!" schemes. The former I would not consider spam; the latter of course, and I think that schemes to cheat people out of money and the like should be prosecuted. But legitimate businesses have a right to advertise, just as you have a right to mute the TV when a commercial comes on, or leave the room when the radio goes to commercial, just as you have the right to delete the ads in your mailbox when they come in. Do we really want to deny businesses a true and legitimate right to advertise? What precident does that set?
I know many would not cry to see businesses castrated, to have all commercialization eridicated, but look at the big picture; in a free market capitalist system businesses grow in part by advertisement, and that of course has it's pluses and minuses, but to outlaw advertisement, on any medium, paints a bad picture and will harm business, especially the small businesses.
Now there haven't been any comments about this article yet, but I predict that this ruling is not unfavourable to the
I don't endorse spam, and I think that schemes using e-mail to scam people out of money should be prosecuted under the full extent of the applicable laws. But the article pointed out that there are legitimate businesses who use e-mail to advertise, much like a circular in the newspaper, and this ruling appearently considers that spam. Laws to outlaw spam would be extremely hard to enforce and leave much room for interpetation. What is spam? Who will decide what is and what isn't? How many tax dollars will be spent on endless debates about what kind of e-mail is acceptable for you and what kind is not? Do you really want politicians deciding that for you? Personally, I think there are better ways to handle this, again going back to personal choice and responsibility. Don't want spam? Then instead of using just one e-mail address for everything, obtain at least two, one for private use between friends, and a public one that you can plaster everywhere if you like, to give to people you don't really know. A throwaway address if you will. If the spam on the public box becomes too intense, throw it away and start another. No loss. But I wager that if you keep the private address private, spam intensity will drop, probably even to zero.
The more power we give a government, the more power that government has. I think we can solve these problems with cleverness rather than blanket censorship and legislation. Junk mail doesn't hurt anyone. False schemes and illegal operations do of course, and as said above, those should be prosecuted. But junk mail is just an annoyance, and to get a government involved in that....I don't think it's necessary or desirable.
And to all non-Canadian
For the most part, as of now, this article confused me in that "what the hell is this" kind of way. They guy wanders off point halfway through, and ends up talking about AOL and loans and deals and.....huh?? But the first part that was on subject was interesting in the "oh look, this guy's kind of conceited isn't he?" kind of way. He didn't like the movie because the documentary was better (I gather that he made said documentary, so that may not be the most objective opinion), and because in the movie, Bill Gates went to IBM, while really it was IBM who went to Bill Gates. That was the only reason he gave that I could find. That comment blew me away. It's poetic license! And it's so small that it's hardly worth mentioning. I'm glad that the scriptwriters changed it; I mean, how entertaining would it have been to see the IBM executives running towards their plane on their way to Microsoft with "Synchronicity I" playing in the background? :)
Was the TNT production completely and utterly correct? Probably not. But what is except reality itself? But was it entertaining...? AY! There's the rub. And yes it was. I thought so anyway.
The kryptonite comments in the article just plain threw me off.
Small doses of censorship are fine and peachy, good stopgaps for the underlying problems that we are afraid to face. We'll take our doses of it like sour medicine and smile at the end when we can look and say "there! we did something...and all for the children"...but the doses accumulate faster than one might think, and where before it was just a small poem torn up, a small idea thrown out, those words, those concepts, they collectively become a larger and larger chain to bind us all into a slavery of unthought. It starts and continues in small doses like this, stopgaps politicians use to get elected, to stay in office, to fool you; be wary of the small doses, for unlike other toxins, these doses of bitter poison will never flush out of the system with time alone.
Some may say that my post is completely off-subject, that blocking child access to library porn has nothing to do with censorship or slavery. As I say, small doses.
Shouting loud loses face. Unfortunately, staying silent doesn't change laws (or keep them the same as the case may be). So what's the solution?....VOTE FOR ME. I don't see any other way around it. I'll accept the burden of the presidency, with a heavy heart, but always willing to help out when I can. No need to thank me. :)
I wasn't planning to respond to this post, I think it pretty much scuttles itself quite well without additional torpedos, but I find it extremely intersting how the idea of "if you don't have children your ideas and opinions can and do not matter" is used as a rational argument. Ludicrious. And it doesn't even matter the subject in question; guns, sex, books or the weather, appearently if you've not had a child you've not been "living it" so to speak, and so you can't speak. Interesting; guess I better go out and get some girl pregnant so I can figure it all out and then rightfully participate in the democratic process!!