I didn't RTFA (obviously), so maybe the assumption that this whole thing automatically translates into "spying" is warranted. I was rather assuming that it's not, and to me, the most beneficial aspect of this would be for the kid to know that their parents will have some kind of limited oversight over the goings on.
It's a boundary thing. Privacy is great and important (even when you are a kid), but an expectation of complete privacy from your parents only is just a weird concept.
Your vignette is cute and heartwarming, but the real world isn't always so idyllic. What do they call it, the excluded middle fallacy (You know, table vs dungeon)?
The law in this case if very broken, but arrest are made based on what the law is, not what it should be.
This is a good thing - a legitimate activity shouldn't exist under constant threat of prosecution; only avoiding it because everyone feels that the law shouldn't be applied in this case. If that's actually true, then the law needs to be changed, not ignored (until it isn't).
With any luck, this will be the third-to-last/. article about MySpace.
Why would that be a good thing? I love MySpace - having one place for so many people that I don't want to have any interaction with is great! All I have to remember is: "Don't go to fucking MySpace."
Would you tap your teenagers phone calls? If not whats the difference?
Most parents can safely assume their kids are only talking to people they personally know? Not really advocating one side or the other here, just saying - it's a real difference; there are others, too.
Even with only 15 comments so far, it's obvious how easily this story will classify the respondents into the "has kids" and "lives with parents" categories.
Native speakers automatically speak perfectly correct English, since correct English is determined by how native speakers speak. You are thinking that people speak incorrectly just because they don't mold their speech to artificial proscriptivist norms
That is a terrible description of how descriptive language rules work. By your logic, the word "proscriptivist" actually means "prescriptive" (I'm assuming you are a native speaker), simply because you used it in that word's place; whereas I would have to guess that it'd mean "someone who wants to prohibit you from using the language", if it existed.
Grammatical rules and conventions are defined by how the native speakers use the language, they change and evolve over time. That doesn't mean that whatever comes out of the mouth of a particular native speaker is magically correct. And I say that people speak incorrectly when they don't mold their speech to the entirely natural and descriptive norms currently prevailing. Sure there are plenty of gray areas created by rules and conventions that are in transition from one accepted form to another, but that's what makes language fun (for example, the actual meaning of "beg the question" is probably lost forever; whereas no amount of instant messages will ever make the contraction "you're" into a possessive pronoun). Point is, most identifiable linguistic rules have specific logic behind them, and even though popular use has the power to change them, disregarding their current forms makes your language weaker. (btw, the whole "split infinitive" thing is a ridiculous assertion that hasn't been taken seriously for some time now. I think it actually grew out of a general avoidance of split infinitives in literature in the 17-18th centuries - in that sense it's actually descriptive. The whole Latin connection as an attempt to justify the rule is a later fabrication, and like I said, is utterly ridiculous. )
I don't really know what "African American Vernacular English" is, but I'm guessing that since you've given it a distinct name, it's not part of what we commonly refer to as "English"?
I've heard this a few times and I just don't understand where this myth comes from. English is far and away one of the easiest (widely spoken) languages to learn (assuming you are coming from some other IE language, of course).
It's very streamlined and has a comparatively small set of "primitives" that combine in a largely regular manner. It's the Java of human languages:) This is reflected in the very permissive morphology: almost any passable sequence of phonemes can be a usable word in English, you never have to worry about fitting it into a declension/conjugation (which is why English easily adopts so many words from other languages, and easily integrates new words for novel concepts; words that many foreign speakers use verbatim, rather than the awkward local forms; well, there's a cultural element to that too, of course).
Now I've heard that it's hard to get to the point where you are indistinguishable from a native speaker (well it's hard in any language, harder I suppose), largely owing to the highly idiomatic conversational style. Don't know how true that one is - most people only pick up on my foreignness by the accent; but then again, I don't claim to be "near-native" in any other language I've learned, so I can't compare.
But apart from that, learning fluent, correct, perfectly functional English is easier than most Western languages.
Oh and on the topic at hand: if you come to a country to live - learn the damn language. All philosophical and socio-political arguments aside, it's just plain rude not to. I don't even really have anything against the little ethnic communities that invariably spring up in large cities (though I don't get the appeal myself - if I wanted to feel like I'm living in Russia, I would've stayed in Russia), nothing wrong with that, just make sure you can function outside of your little "home away from home".
unlike most pop-physics books in... skepticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory
Now, I can't claim to be up to date on the pop-physics scene, but do most people writing for it actually subscribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation? Somewhat surprising, given that CI is basically, well, magic (or the "scientific theory of the immortal soul", whichever way you want to look at it).
Whatever you think of its actual merits as a theory, surely it's still firmly in the outer reaches of "scientifically-minded philosophy", rather than accepted scientific dogma?
That's what really bothers me about the theoretical physcis groupthink: it seems they've completely dispensed with the concept of falsifiability (and, you know, actual physical evidence), and whatever hypothesis presents as the most elegant, or neat sounding (or has the loudest proponents), holds sway. String "theory" is of course the poster child for this phenomenon.
Really, why not let your IDE render it into proper mathematical symbols for you? As a mathematician it looks damn appealing to me.
Because as programmers, we'd rather not have what essentially is a whole new edit-compile-debug cycle just to type the damn code. IDEs are great, and they vastly improve productivity, but they start to hurt productivity if they are required to do something with your code.
Fortress uses a lot of unicode mathematical operators
This is also something I'm really looking forward to in Perl 6; I'm guessing the conversation went like this:
Guy: "Here's an idea - let's require the coders to use a lot of characters that aren't on the keyboard!"
Other Guy: "Brilliant!"
I'm sure productivity will skyrocket with this invention.
They also seem to have jumped on the (to me) unfathomable "using braces to clearly delineate code blocks is evil!" bandwagon. I guess it's what all the cool kids are doing these days.
Well, the way I see it is this: if I can stick it all together for myself without anybody caring too much, then what's the problem with somebody else doing it for me?...and lots of other people as well?
Well, that's the difference between end-use and redistribution, I think you'll find this distinction is made in many circumstances, not just with software.
I guess what it all boils down to is I just really can't see the point of the billion-and-one different FOSS licenses out there. Even more so when you consider that you can seemingly change from one to another on a whim, or even distribute the same thing under different licenses for different platforms.
Keeping software Free after you distribute it is a difficult problem, as with most difficult problems several different (and non-optimal) solutions exist. And while there might be a huge number of F/OS licenses, less than half a dozen are widely used - it's not all that difficult to keep track of their differences.
Of course you can change the license your release under (why wouldn't you be able to?), but the previous versions already released keep their original license. Oh, and you can release products under different licenses even on the same platform, but the users are still required to fully comply with whichever one they are using.
As other posts have revealed in this discussion you can even (seemingly, I only skim-read it) arbitrarily change the conditions of somebody else's licensing terms...
That's simply not the case, I'm pretty sure they are talking about a specific provision of that license.
How about just a mass free-for-all with these conditions:
1) All FOS produce is to remain credited to its author/s
2) All FOS produce is to remain FOS
3) All FOS produce shall be able to be intermingled with other FOS and non-FOS produce without legal issue.
Well, (1) is the (fairly non-standard) clause in BSD4 that's causing the issue in this case. Many developers feels that places undue burden on large projects with many contributors (and prevents future license changes). (2) what is FOS? People have very different definitions, hence the proliferation of licenses. (3) easier said than done, and certainly conflicts with (2) more often than not.
What "moral highground"? When you use other people's software, you are expected to comply with the license it's released under. With a lot of redistribution and integration of products with different licenses it can get a bit tricky sometimes.
If you are only a user you would obviously care only if you are a user of that particular product, and licensing issues would prevent you from using it. Seems pretty obvious.
Although mostly this is of interest to developers who might run into similar issues themselves.
No, read the bit you quoted again: I think it would be "ideal" if online harassment were restricted.
Alright, I'll rephrase what I said for your benefit: what happened in that game was not harrasment. I was merely using the polygon thing to underline the triviality of the situation. Get it now?
No more than I'm "contributing to the conversation" on Slashdot by replying to every one of your comments saying something disgustingly insulting about your mother.
And slashdot has a perfectly functional way of dealing with that. Besides, where does it say that you have to "contribute" to the converstation to participate here? Controlling the behaviour of people in online communities of various kinds is entirely up to the people running those online communities - you just can't be serious when you suggest that criminal law should be involved.
In the offline world, they're called "restraining orders".
And in online computer games they are called "suspended accounts".
Yep, you've caught me. I'm also against screaming "fire" in a crowded theater...
See how you are comparing a couple of flying penes to putting people in physical danger? That's what gets you, just because you think something isn't nice you want it to be illegal.
[long, nigh incomprehensible paragraph]
... just so they can say, "LAWLZ, PENII!"
You know, for all your smugness, you don't seem to posses a functional grasp of the principles of copyright. For the first half of that mess you seem to be arguing my point, then you draw the conclusion that it's basically impossible for anyone to post a screenshot of an online game... I mean, I don't have any clever ad hominem attacks for this, it's just plain wrong.
Just to keep this from being a complete waste of time: "penis" is a third declension noun, there is no such thing as a second declension "penius". You learn something new every day.
if you spend a few minutes thinking about it
Well, I agree with that sentiment. It's a practice what you preach kind of situation here, it seems.
if someone beaned Ted Kennedy with a rubber phallus at a private Democratic Party fundraiser and someone caught a picture of it, would that not fall under fair use for it to be distributed for no cost
No, I don't think fair use (does that even exist anymore?) would apply here, since copyright isn't involved in any way. The person taking the picture would own the copyright on it, and could distribute it any way they see fit: for profit or not.
Unless you are suggesting the picture would be a derivative work of the suit? Which I would think would be utterly ridiculous.
Now, I have a fairly fuzzy (ok, extremely fuzzy) understanding of the case law around this, but a lot seems to hinge on whether the person taking the picture is actually a member of the press (isn't everyone nowadays?) and the delectably vaguely defined "legitimate news interest". Then again, I don't think you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when speaking at a function, even if it is held on private property (I'm pretty sure it's only your home that counts for this purpose).
The OP wasn't really talking about the fact that those people play the game, rather that the are obnoxious about pretending that it's more than that, going so far as to sue other people over what they do in the game.
The ideal situation would be that online harassment such as what was experienced in the photos/videos would be illegal.
Seriously? You think it would be "ideal" if there were laws regarding what kind of polygons people can put on the same screen as other people's polygons? Unless they are exploiting game mechanics, the "griefers" are just as much "playing a game they happen to enjoy" as anyone else. Oh, and it's a "reasonable explanation" for someone being able to use criminal law to avoid "unflattering" attention? Give me a break.
Saying that you are a proponent of free speech in the middle of that nonsense is a huge freaking joke dude.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't RTFA (obviously), so maybe the assumption that this whole thing automatically translates into "spying" is warranted. I was rather assuming that it's not, and to me, the most beneficial aspect of this would be for the kid to know that their parents will have some kind of limited oversight over the goings on.
It's a boundary thing. Privacy is great and important (even when you are a kid), but an expectation of complete privacy from your parents only is just a weird concept.
Your vignette is cute and heartwarming, but the real world isn't always so idyllic. What do they call it, the excluded middle fallacy (You know, table vs dungeon)?
The law in this case if very broken, but arrest are made based on what the law is, not what it should be.
This is a good thing - a legitimate activity shouldn't exist under constant threat of prosecution; only avoiding it because everyone feels that the law shouldn't be applied in this case. If that's actually true, then the law needs to be changed, not ignored (until it isn't).
I'm pretty sure that's pre-filtered.
With any luck, this will be the third-to-last /. article about MySpace.
Why would that be a good thing? I love MySpace - having one place for so many people that I don't want to have any interaction with is great! All I have to remember is: "Don't go to fucking MySpace."
Would you tap your teenagers phone calls? If not whats the difference?
Most parents can safely assume their kids are only talking to people they personally know? Not really advocating one side or the other here, just saying - it's a real difference; there are others, too.
So, that's a nice knee-jerk reaction there, but better parenting potentially involve having some idea of what your kid is up to with these things, no?
Even with only 15 comments so far, it's obvious how easily this story will classify the respondents into the "has kids" and "lives with parents" categories.
Vaguely entertaining, is all.
I think the GPL is different to an EULA... (my personal bias shining through)
It is. It's just a plain old L, it's the EU and "A" that make EULAs bullshit.
Native speakers automatically speak perfectly correct English, since correct English is determined by how native speakers speak. You are thinking that people speak incorrectly just because they don't mold their speech to artificial proscriptivist norms
That is a terrible description of how descriptive language rules work. By your logic, the word "proscriptivist" actually means "prescriptive" (I'm assuming you are a native speaker), simply because you used it in that word's place; whereas I would have to guess that it'd mean "someone who wants to prohibit you from using the language", if it existed.
Grammatical rules and conventions are defined by how the native speakers use the language, they change and evolve over time. That doesn't mean that whatever comes out of the mouth of a particular native speaker is magically correct. And I say that people speak incorrectly when they don't mold their speech to the entirely natural and descriptive norms currently prevailing. Sure there are plenty of gray areas created by rules and conventions that are in transition from one accepted form to another, but that's what makes language fun (for example, the actual meaning of "beg the question" is probably lost forever; whereas no amount of instant messages will ever make the contraction "you're" into a possessive pronoun). Point is, most identifiable linguistic rules have specific logic behind them, and even though popular use has the power to change them, disregarding their current forms makes your language weaker. (btw, the whole "split infinitive" thing is a ridiculous assertion that hasn't been taken seriously for some time now. I think it actually grew out of a general avoidance of split infinitives in literature in the 17-18th centuries - in that sense it's actually descriptive. The whole Latin connection as an attempt to justify the rule is a later fabrication, and like I said, is utterly ridiculous. )
I don't really know what "African American Vernacular English" is, but I'm guessing that since you've given it a distinct name, it's not part of what we commonly refer to as "English"?
understand that English is difficult
:) This is reflected in the very permissive morphology: almost any passable sequence of phonemes can be a usable word in English, you never have to worry about fitting it into a declension/conjugation (which is why English easily adopts so many words from other languages, and easily integrates new words for novel concepts; words that many foreign speakers use verbatim, rather than the awkward local forms; well, there's a cultural element to that too, of course).
I've heard this a few times and I just don't understand where this myth comes from. English is far and away one of the easiest (widely spoken) languages to learn (assuming you are coming from some other IE language, of course).
It's very streamlined and has a comparatively small set of "primitives" that combine in a largely regular manner. It's the Java of human languages
Now I've heard that it's hard to get to the point where you are indistinguishable from a native speaker (well it's hard in any language, harder I suppose), largely owing to the highly idiomatic conversational style. Don't know how true that one is - most people only pick up on my foreignness by the accent; but then again, I don't claim to be "near-native" in any other language I've learned, so I can't compare.
But apart from that, learning fluent, correct, perfectly functional English is easier than most Western languages.
Oh and on the topic at hand: if you come to a country to live - learn the damn language. All philosophical and socio-political arguments aside, it's just plain rude not to. I don't even really have anything against the little ethnic communities that invariably spring up in large cities (though I don't get the appeal myself - if I wanted to feel like I'm living in Russia, I would've stayed in Russia), nothing wrong with that, just make sure you can function outside of your little "home away from home".
unlike most pop-physics books in ... skepticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory
Now, I can't claim to be up to date on the pop-physics scene, but do most people writing for it actually subscribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation? Somewhat surprising, given that CI is basically, well, magic (or the "scientific theory of the immortal soul", whichever way you want to look at it).
Whatever you think of its actual merits as a theory, surely it's still firmly in the outer reaches of "scientifically-minded philosophy", rather than accepted scientific dogma?
That's what really bothers me about the theoretical physcis groupthink: it seems they've completely dispensed with the concept of falsifiability (and, you know, actual physical evidence), and whatever hypothesis presents as the most elegant, or neat sounding (or has the loudest proponents), holds sway. String "theory" is of course the poster child for this phenomenon.
Really, why not let your IDE render it into proper mathematical symbols for you? As a mathematician it looks damn appealing to me.
Because as programmers, we'd rather not have what essentially is a whole new edit-compile-debug cycle just to type the damn code. IDEs are great, and they vastly improve productivity, but they start to hurt productivity if they are required to do something with your code.
Fortress uses a lot of unicode mathematical operators
This is also something I'm really looking forward to in Perl 6; I'm guessing the conversation went like this:
Guy: "Here's an idea - let's require the coders to use a lot of characters that aren't on the keyboard!"
Other Guy: "Brilliant!"
I'm sure productivity will skyrocket with this invention.
They also seem to have jumped on the (to me) unfathomable "using braces to clearly delineate code blocks is evil!" bandwagon. I guess it's what all the cool kids are doing these days.
Other than that, it looks really neat!
is that ugly! I mean, just... wow. It looks like 70's future-chic threw up into a metallic space-dildo.
It also has a nation which is a dude with a nuclear warhead strapped to his motorcycle.
It is a good book, but the central premise is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
Well, the way I see it is this: if I can stick it all together for myself without anybody caring too much, then what's the problem with somebody else doing it for me? ...and lots of other people as well?
Well, that's the difference between end-use and redistribution, I think you'll find this distinction is made in many circumstances, not just with software.
I guess what it all boils down to is I just really can't see the point of the billion-and-one different FOSS licenses out there. Even more so when you consider that you can seemingly change from one to another on a whim, or even distribute the same thing under different licenses for different platforms.
Keeping software Free after you distribute it is a difficult problem, as with most difficult problems several different (and non-optimal) solutions exist. And while there might be a huge number of F/OS licenses, less than half a dozen are widely used - it's not all that difficult to keep track of their differences.
Of course you can change the license your release under (why wouldn't you be able to?), but the previous versions already released keep their original license. Oh, and you can release products under different licenses even on the same platform, but the users are still required to fully comply with whichever one they are using.
As other posts have revealed in this discussion you can even (seemingly, I only skim-read it) arbitrarily change the conditions of somebody else's licensing terms...
That's simply not the case, I'm pretty sure they are talking about a specific provision of that license.
How about just a mass free-for-all with these conditions:
1) All FOS produce is to remain credited to its author/s
2) All FOS produce is to remain FOS
3) All FOS produce shall be able to be intermingled with other FOS and non-FOS produce without legal issue.
Well, (1) is the (fairly non-standard) clause in BSD4 that's causing the issue in this case. Many developers feels that places undue burden on large projects with many contributors (and prevents future license changes). (2) what is FOS? People have very different definitions, hence the proliferation of licenses. (3) easier said than done, and certainly conflicts with (2) more often than not.
Now, there is simply no such thing as graphical Intellectual Property.
There's never been such a ridiculous thing to begin with. That the previous clients pretended there was was the problem, not this.
What "moral highground"? When you use other people's software, you are expected to comply with the license it's released under. With a lot of redistribution and integration of products with different licenses it can get a bit tricky sometimes.
If you are only a user you would obviously care only if you are a user of that particular product, and licensing issues would prevent you from using it. Seems pretty obvious.
Although mostly this is of interest to developers who might run into similar issues themselves.
Some string theorists believe dark matter may be gravitons, emitted by matter on adjacent branes
:)
Yeah, but string theorists make theoretical physicists look like scientists
It's a typo, should have been "penisland.xxx"
No, read the bit you quoted again: I think it would be "ideal" if online harassment were restricted.
... just so they can say, "LAWLZ, PENII!"
Alright, I'll rephrase what I said for your benefit: what happened in that game was not harrasment. I was merely using the polygon thing to underline the triviality of the situation. Get it now?
No more than I'm "contributing to the conversation" on Slashdot by replying to every one of your comments saying something disgustingly insulting about your mother.
And slashdot has a perfectly functional way of dealing with that. Besides, where does it say that you have to "contribute" to the converstation to participate here? Controlling the behaviour of people in online communities of various kinds is entirely up to the people running those online communities - you just can't be serious when you suggest that criminal law should be involved.
In the offline world, they're called "restraining orders".
And in online computer games they are called "suspended accounts".
Yep, you've caught me. I'm also against screaming "fire" in a crowded theater...
See how you are comparing a couple of flying penes to putting people in physical danger? That's what gets you, just because you think something isn't nice you want it to be illegal.
[long, nigh incomprehensible paragraph]
You know, for all your smugness, you don't seem to posses a functional grasp of the principles of copyright. For the first half of that mess you seem to be arguing my point, then you draw the conclusion that it's basically impossible for anyone to post a screenshot of an online game... I mean, I don't have any clever ad hominem attacks for this, it's just plain wrong.
Just to keep this from being a complete waste of time: "penis" is a third declension noun, there is no such thing as a second declension "penius". You learn something new every day.
if you spend a few minutes thinking about it
Well, I agree with that sentiment. It's a practice what you preach kind of situation here, it seems.
if someone beaned Ted Kennedy with a rubber phallus at a private Democratic Party fundraiser and someone caught a picture of it, would that not fall under fair use for it to be distributed for no cost
No, I don't think fair use (does that even exist anymore?) would apply here, since copyright isn't involved in any way. The person taking the picture would own the copyright on it, and could distribute it any way they see fit: for profit or not.
Unless you are suggesting the picture would be a derivative work of the suit? Which I would think would be utterly ridiculous.
Now, I have a fairly fuzzy (ok, extremely fuzzy) understanding of the case law around this, but a lot seems to hinge on whether the person taking the picture is actually a member of the press (isn't everyone nowadays?) and the delectably vaguely defined "legitimate news interest". Then again, I don't think you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when speaking at a function, even if it is held on private property (I'm pretty sure it's only your home that counts for this purpose).
So what exactly are you doing here, then?
The OP wasn't really talking about the fact that those people play the game, rather that the are obnoxious about pretending that it's more than that, going so far as to sue other people over what they do in the game.
The ideal situation would be that online harassment such as what was experienced in the photos/videos would be illegal.
Seriously? You think it would be "ideal" if there were laws regarding what kind of polygons people can put on the same screen as other people's polygons? Unless they are exploiting game mechanics, the "griefers" are just as much "playing a game they happen to enjoy" as anyone else. Oh, and it's a "reasonable explanation" for someone being able to use criminal law to avoid "unflattering" attention? Give me a break.
Saying that you are a proponent of free speech in the middle of that nonsense is a huge freaking joke dude.
Is "Not Bloated as Fuck" going to be one of them?