Naturally I prefer the refusal option you describe, but nobody wants to fight to set precedents about what censorship is and is not acceptable online using pornography as their champion. I don't think any government-mandated censorship is acceptable, but I really don't think flat refusal is a better solution in this case when it's so much easier to illustrate the futility and/or stupidity of trying to mandate the censorship.
Another fun option is to block every page except for the official sites of the Bananas in Pyjamas, My Little Pony, and the Care Bears by default, and make the opt-out extremely easy.
That's not just a fear. It's a reality. It's not that people don't still find PCs useful, but rather that they took a step back and realized that if Win8 wants to treat a PC as a tablet, they were just doing stuff on their PC that would be more convenient on a tablet. That's not to say the PC has no place, but that its place is not as important to buyers as it used to be. And that its replacement for many people is a market Microsoft has utterly failed to take control of.
The only difference between doorkickers in Fallujah and doorkickers here in the states is that here in the states, they wear different patches on their uniforms.
I think the constitution is fatally flawed in one major way: the founders did not anticipate the idea of full-time law enforcement agencies as we know them today. Quoting Wikipedia's history of law enforcement, "In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854." The idea that somehow the citizens would willingly allow today's highly militarized police to exist is something I believe would never have crossed the founders' minds.
The naval camouflage patterns were not meant to make a ship invisible. They were meant to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of attacks upon the ships by making them either less tempting targets by the known challenges of tracking and targeting such a ship or to make the attack itself more difficult by creating a situation where the size, shape, direction, and even orientation of the ship difficult to ascertain. Imagine attempting to track a zig-zagging ship where you couldn't even be certain which end was the bow.
The problem is that he was in fact guilty. Guilt is not determined in courts based on the morality of an action, but of the laws at that time. Whether the law was just or not, the verdict based on the law of the time was just.
That's why when there is a law people don't like, they need to campaign against the law itself, not the verdicts. Verdicts are based on law. Change the law, and no more such verdicts will come.
Of course, I tend to think that if someone has been found guilty of something that becomes legal, any remaining sentence or punishment for the same should end. For example, if marijuana were legalized, I would argue in favor of releasing anyone serving a sentence, probation, or parole based on a marijuana charge from the remaining sentence.
What is the liability for quality on this? As best I can tell, it would be ideal for ISPs to simply have minimal and really crappy filters that do next to nothing if there's no real penalty for lack of quality on the filters.
I'll take truth-telling officials over what we've got here in the the States. As best as I can tell, they've got 100% of the lines tapped and just aren't listening to them here.
Sure, it didn't get into the groundwater this time. My concern is whether proper studies are being done to ensure that other sites do not see different results from the supposedly clean ones here.
I went back and finished my associates, graduating this past December. If there's one thing I observed, it's that a lot of people passed classes who really shouldn't have. Thanks to treating professors' pass rates as a measure of success, following a syllabus is all you really have to do to pass these days. If online students weren't even putting in that kind of effort, there's nothing an instructor can do for them.
They do when their first friend who touches the OS bitches about how horrible it was, and how it doesn't work right. That's when they refuse to make the switch themselves.
Imagine you're a parent of a teenager, and he uses the car to go street-racing. You catch him at it, and take his keys. His arguments are sure to be any number of legitimate uses for that car, but once that trust is broken, you're a fool if you hand him back the keys based on those arguments.
There's no good reason to allow a surveilance state, and I support any government entity that helps the populace fight back against it in such efforts.
I can think of countless proprietary solutions that were highly problematic for XP/2K users with the Vista/7 transition, including multiple vendors who hated Vista and refused to support it.
The fundamental problem with that statement is that Microsoft got their foot in the door by making an OS that could run across multiple manufacturers who were building to a common standard. There have been compatibilitiy problems irking consumers ever since Vista x86_64 hit the market. Now throwing ARM into the mix alongside x86 and x86_64, where you don't even have that convenient x86 compatibility? Not a good encore.
There's a certain weakness this exposes in Microsoft's products: the fact that people stay with them because they have legacy programs they can't let go of. Microsoft products don't sell themselves. The programs people want to run on them do.
Slashdot Mirror
Naturally I prefer the refusal option you describe, but nobody wants to fight to set precedents about what censorship is and is not acceptable online using pornography as their champion. I don't think any government-mandated censorship is acceptable, but I really don't think flat refusal is a better solution in this case when it's so much easier to illustrate the futility and/or stupidity of trying to mandate the censorship.
Another fun option is to block every page except for the official sites of the Bananas in Pyjamas, My Little Pony, and the Care Bears by default, and make the opt-out extremely easy.
And how I know why. Thanks, Slashdot!
That's not just a fear. It's a reality. It's not that people don't still find PCs useful, but rather that they took a step back and realized that if Win8 wants to treat a PC as a tablet, they were just doing stuff on their PC that would be more convenient on a tablet. That's not to say the PC has no place, but that its place is not as important to buyers as it used to be. And that its replacement for many people is a market Microsoft has utterly failed to take control of.
The only difference between doorkickers in Fallujah and doorkickers here in the states is that here in the states, they wear different patches on their uniforms.
I think the constitution is fatally flawed in one major way: the founders did not anticipate the idea of full-time law enforcement agencies as we know them today. Quoting Wikipedia's history of law enforcement, "In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854." The idea that somehow the citizens would willingly allow today's highly militarized police to exist is something I believe would never have crossed the founders' minds.
The naval camouflage patterns were not meant to make a ship invisible. They were meant to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of attacks upon the ships by making them either less tempting targets by the known challenges of tracking and targeting such a ship or to make the attack itself more difficult by creating a situation where the size, shape, direction, and even orientation of the ship difficult to ascertain. Imagine attempting to track a zig-zagging ship where you couldn't even be certain which end was the bow.
The problem is that he was in fact guilty. Guilt is not determined in courts based on the morality of an action, but of the laws at that time. Whether the law was just or not, the verdict based on the law of the time was just.
That's why when there is a law people don't like, they need to campaign against the law itself, not the verdicts. Verdicts are based on law. Change the law, and no more such verdicts will come.
Of course, I tend to think that if someone has been found guilty of something that becomes legal, any remaining sentence or punishment for the same should end. For example, if marijuana were legalized, I would argue in favor of releasing anyone serving a sentence, probation, or parole based on a marijuana charge from the remaining sentence.
What is the liability for quality on this? As best I can tell, it would be ideal for ISPs to simply have minimal and really crappy filters that do next to nothing if there's no real penalty for lack of quality on the filters.
I'll take truth-telling officials over what we've got here in the the States. As best as I can tell, they've got 100% of the lines tapped and just aren't listening to them here.
Sure, it didn't get into the groundwater this time. My concern is whether proper studies are being done to ensure that other sites do not see different results from the supposedly clean ones here.
Online courses are the collegiate equivalent of independent study programs. Independent study programs are definitely not for everyone.
I went back and finished my associates, graduating this past December. If there's one thing I observed, it's that a lot of people passed classes who really shouldn't have. Thanks to treating professors' pass rates as a measure of success, following a syllabus is all you really have to do to pass these days. If online students weren't even putting in that kind of effort, there's nothing an instructor can do for them.
Wait, how is that qualified as not being broken?
If by "NSA payroll" you mean "held in control by threats" I'm inclined to agree.
It's true. I believed Obama that one time when he called Kanye West a jackass.
Wow. With all the logical fallacies, I'm just going to let your response here stand or fall on its own merits. I have confidence I'll come out on top.
Nobody on Tumblr believed them. Why would anyone else?
They do when their first friend who touches the OS bitches about how horrible it was, and how it doesn't work right. That's when they refuse to make the switch themselves.
Imagine you're a parent of a teenager, and he uses the car to go street-racing. You catch him at it, and take his keys. His arguments are sure to be any number of legitimate uses for that car, but once that trust is broken, you're a fool if you hand him back the keys based on those arguments.
There's no good reason to allow a surveilance state, and I support any government entity that helps the populace fight back against it in such efforts.
I can think of countless proprietary solutions that were highly problematic for XP/2K users with the Vista/7 transition, including multiple vendors who hated Vista and refused to support it.
The fundamental problem with that statement is that Microsoft got their foot in the door by making an OS that could run across multiple manufacturers who were building to a common standard. There have been compatibilitiy problems irking consumers ever since Vista x86_64 hit the market. Now throwing ARM into the mix alongside x86 and x86_64, where you don't even have that convenient x86 compatibility? Not a good encore.
There's a certain weakness this exposes in Microsoft's products: the fact that people stay with them because they have legacy programs they can't let go of. Microsoft products don't sell themselves. The programs people want to run on them do.
Welcome to the Internet.
The people who care already care. The ones who don't aren't the type to read /.
The NSA says a lot of things. It doesn't mean we ought to believe them.