Fair enough. I think there are arguments to make on both sides - but whichever one's point of view is, both sides are reasonable positions I think. I just don't understand why one side of the argument here seems to get such contempt, just because Opera's involved.
Not to disagree with your main point, but why is it important to stress that it's closed source, apart from making a cheap dig at it?
I don't understand why this appears to come up everytime with Opera, and only Opera. I never hear Firefox fans talking down the closed-source MacOS, for example.
This closed-sourced software company brought me an IE alternative long before it became trendy, not to mention useful things like Opera Mini for my phone. Firefox is cool too, but I don't see why there has to be some competition between them, when the real enemy is IE.
Indeed, if anything it's the response to this blog post which is the overreaction.
(And I agree with your comments about the register, I used to read it, but it really does seem to be the tabloid of the geek world - if they're not picking on some blog post, they're trying to run a scare story based on a bogus Wikipedia edit they found in the history three years ago...)
Some astronomers believe there may be hundreds of small rocky bodies in the outer edges of our own Solar System, and perhaps even a handful of frozen Earth-sized worlds.
So it's reasonable that any Earth-sized bodies would be considered as new planets, but "handful" doesn't seem to account for "hundreds if not thousands".
Then again, I'm amused that this guy still seems to insist that there are 9 planets in our solar system, so either he slept through the recent decision, or he disagrees with it, and in both cases it's consistent that if Pluto is a planet, all those hundreds of other small rocky bodies should be too...
Moore's law isn't a law, and should never have been called that way. It's merely a prognosis.
Actually, I believe he based it on observed past behaviour, so even though he may have intended it to also be a prediction, calling it a law is fine.
I'm also confused by "merely" - I'd argue that saying it is a prognosis carries the implication that it will hold in future, whilst "law" implies that, just like other laws, it is merely a generalisation of observed behaviour.
My professors always called it "Moore's Observation".
A law is an observation. That's what it means. There seems to be a misconception that "law" means "fundament law of nature which is 100% proven to be true", but that's not correct.
(True, you might say it's not a scientific law in that it's not an observation about scientific matters, but instead, an observation about technology, economics and other factors, but it's still a law. You might as well moan that it's not a legal law - big deal.)
And if you can run them awful quicker than nature, then they are all awful approximations...
Think about it, suppose we have a program that is almost on par with human intelligence. Obviously ONE such program is going to need some rather nifty hardware to run.
I presumed human intelligence was the end goal of this idea - for most of the billions of years, brains were much simpler, and for the most part didn't exist at all.
Obviously it would still take vast amounts of computing power, but it wouldn't have to take the same amount of time, as you don't have to wait around years for every organism to physically grow. Nature is pretty much itself an "approximation", with some many random factors and variables - it's not clear that every last detail of where a little rodent walks throughout the years of its life is necessary to reproduce.
I think you are mistaken about something here that I was trying to say. I said nothing of a universal faith that can be called atheism here, but rather was describing a whole spectrum in various dimensions of atheistic belief.
Atheists have beliefs, sure, this doesn't mean that there is a belief system or religion called "Atheism", nor are these beliefs a form of atheism.
If an atheist believes that communism is a good system, or that chocolate is a tasty food, these are not forms of atheism, anymore than they would be forms of Christianity if a Christian believed them.
This has been a fun thread, but it also missed the point completely about the existence or non-existence of a soul and if that may be critical somehow to the field of artificial intelligence.
Until someone gives an actual definition of "soul", there is no point to miss ("something eternal and infinite, that continues after your physical death, are vague properties of this soul, but they don't tell us what it is). It makes about as much sense as me saying that Duke Nukem Forever can never be released, because it requires some magical but undefined thing that I will call a "wibble", that cannot be reproduced by mere mortal programmers. What is special about intelligence? The only thing I think you could possibly say is that intelligence isn't reproduceable on a classical Turing machine, because of its complexity (in which case, a classical computer couldn't reproduce intelligence, but that doesn't mean we could never build an intelligent machine, e.g., using a quantum computer).
I agree though that belief in a soul - whatever that is - doesn't have to be correlated with belief in God; theoretically an atheist could believe in souls. Or fairies, the easter bunny or Father Christmas.
There are "prophets", but they aren't called prophets. There are "sacred books", but they tend to be things like "Principia Mathematica", "Origin of Species", or other such books.
No, these books are not "sacred books of atheism". Please try again.
Firstly, it doesn't follow that an atheist believes either of these things (it seems to be that atheists usually accept logic, mathematics and science, but this isn't part of the definition). Secondly, anything in those books is accepted based on whether it is logical and can be verified to be true - not simply because it is written in that book. I also feel this quote is relevant from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html , discussing the myth that Darwin recanted: The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.
atheism was an official state religion
Religions were outlawed, I would like to see a source that they introduced a new religion that was named "atheism"?
Mao's "Little Red Book" certainly fits the role of religious scripture with a near deification of Mao's actions
So? Call it Mao-ism then. You seriously believe that all atheists are communists and accept the teachings of Mao?
I have observed "congregations" of atheists that have come together in terms of organizing a social network for the common good.
Yeah, so do geeks, role-players and swingers. Since when did having a social meet mean anything to do with religion? Just because religion can be social doesn't imply anything social is religious!
Atheism is much broader and deeper than you are implying here, and takes on many different forms.
For example? Darwinist evolving programs? Well that could theoretically work, but given that our brains had billions of years where we'd expect some results within decades... I don't think the odds are good for this one. Any other "paths" that you could think of?
But running genetic algorithms on a super computer, I think each generation would happen an awful lot quicker than in nature...
Are those features any different to other smartphones? I've seen big screens on other phones too. A quick Google search suggests there are other phones with Wi-Fi. Other smartphones have proper browsers, and can run all those applications. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by "buzzword" - to you, 3G is a buzzword whilst Wi-Fi is important, but to someone else, 3G and MMS are important whilst Wi-Fi (along with SSH, photo-album, e-mail etc) is a buzzword!
Even for cheap non-smartphones: Storage for mp3s has been increasing gradually, and other phones have reached 8GB too. Any old phone can download Opera Mini, so you at least have that as a decent functioning browser. And something is severely wrong if you can't download your photos - any normal phone lets you do this. I'm not sure that the iphone wins on the carrier part anyway, given that it's tied into a contract - with any other phone, you can have a choice, and just don't choose stupid carriers that suck like yours did.
It sounds like you have a really bad experience with a poor phone and/or network. The rest of the market is a lot better than what you describe - and I was hoping there'd be something going for the iphone more than simply "There are worse phones". But so far, that's all I've had people tell me.
The implication in the post I replied to was that Apple had succeeded where no other phone company has, not simply who is currently popular[*]. Even if the claims about Motorola right now are true, they nonetheless have succeeded too. For all we now, Apple might hit these same issues that Motorola supposedly faces.
[*] Well, are there some market share stats for 2007 then, anyway?
Interestingly you should mention this, I just read it on Wikipedia too:
I also like the fact that the Treo has cut and paste, so I can trim down the quoted part of email.
My cheap ordinary phone does this, something which I'd consider to be a standard part of UI functionality - does it really not do this, or am I misunderstanding, I wonder. Then again, my cheap ordinary phone does basic features like 3G, video recording and MMS...
An "iphone done right" as you describe it would be good. But beware of the battery life - there is an advantage to having separate devices.
I'm not sure that being able to run multiple OSs on the same box is a particular advantage for most people. Years ago, I remember the Amiga could do this feat, running AmigaOS, MacOS, some Unixes and so on, but Macs couldn't do the same - I don't recall Mac users being bothered though. Plus all these years we heard about how Windows was bad - I find it interesting that now Macs can run Windows, it's touted as a good thing.
If you're buying a Mac to run OS X, then you don't care about Windows anyway. If you're buying a Mac to run Windows - then yeah, so the Mac is as good as a PC, but that's not saying anything good about OS X. If you actually need to dual boot both operating systems, then you are either someone in a small minority (e.g., a developer porting an application), or for some reason your preferred OS isn't up to the job of doing everything you need.
Anyhow, there are also other operating systems that run on PCs, which may not run on Macs, so I'm not convinced that your Mac wins the "can run most operating systems" trophy anyway.
I fully agree. I find it sad that what the number of Iphone Slashvertisments we get here anyway, even on the rare blue moon occasion we get a story about another phone, we still have to have a mention for the iphone. What about all the other phones on the market?
I feel it's the marketing equivalent of "famous for being famous" - it gets lots of publicity because it's well known, but it's well known because of all the publicity... (I wonder if Paris Hilton owns one?)
The cell industry has had it's ass so far up there for so long, it took Steve Jobs to show them how screwed up they are.
In what way? The post your replied to listed a whole load of things that need to be fixed for it, so how exactly are they leading the way?
This is a genuine question - given all the bog-standard things that the iphone lacks (3G, MMS, video recording, even drafts and copy and past according to Wikipedia though I can't believe it?), that any normal dirt cheap phone has, I'm curious what special features it does have that no other phone has?
Interesting - here in the UK I've yet to see a single iphone. I've seen lots of other types of smartphones. Perhaps it's different in different countries, but I suspect people just use what smartphone is best for them, and the iphone is yet another one. As with everything else, Apple fans love to claim that Apple did something first, but then qualify it with "well, they were the ones who made it popular", whether or not that was true.
I know a lot of people that freelance, and want/need email and some sort of web access in their pocket.
Any dirt cheap bog standard phone does email and web access. I think you're missing a point here - what distinguishes smartphones is usually the ability to run standalone applications, and running a complete operating system, and not that they have Internet access. The iphone isn't popularising anything here, rather it's become standard for all phones - including phones hundreds of pounds cheaper. I'm also not convinced people are using iphones for the ability to run general standalone applications.
If anything, I suspect people are more interested in using it as a combined phone and ipod, as this is still a relatively new market (most phones do mp3, but the storage sizes have only recently been of any significant size). But then again, as prices of memory cards fall, this market will be quickly swamped with every other bog standard phone that can do Internet and play mp3s.
Depends on who you mean. To common people like us, it won't. To the Governments though? With the pro-censorship attitudes we also have in places like the US and UK (albeit to a lesser degree thankfully, but still the same idea - wanting to ban sex and violence, even for adults, because it supposedly harms us; here in the UK, MPs are proposing a bill to allow them the power to ban films and games that even the censors think are okay, and they are passing through a law to criminalise depictions of sexual violence), it probably won't harm China's image. If anything, our Governments will just be envious - pesky things like freedom of speech and democracy prevent them for banning as much as they'd like, as can be done in China. But I bet they'll be saying "Well other countries ban this material, so it's okay for us to do so too".
This article is interesting - usually we only hear about the political kind of censorship in China, but it seems they do the same old "Let's criminalise depictions of things that we claim obviously have a negative effect on society" that western democracies love to do too. And I don't want the same kind of censorship that China has.
That's backwards. Why deny kids access to, say Wikipedia. You can't move all the non-porn content to.kids.
If your viewpoint is that your child shouldn't see any adult content, then you shouldn't be letting them on Wikipedia, which has adult content - yes, including erotic images.
If your viewpoint is that it's okay for your child to use Wikipedia (possibly with you keeping an eye on them, if you choose), then there's no need for.kids; just let them use the normal Internet.
So you're telling me I should block all content, including Linux.com, distowatch, slashdot, CNN.com, NYT.com, FoxNews.com and so on just so my 12-yr old doesn't accidentally stumble upon a porno site while researching the dangers of breast enlargement surgery?
Given the kind of adult material that quite often gets posted or linked on Slashdot (often by people trolling), I'm not clear - is Slashdot a site that your 12 year old should be able to access, or shouldn't? Or do you propose some way to magically filter out the adult content?
What about a CNN article that talks about pornography or other adult matters?
I'm not sure a.kids domain is much better than a.xxx domain - but I do note it's a lot easier to take a subset of material and say "This is definitely child-safe", rather than managing to filter out everything that isn't child-safe. With a.xxx domain, there'd still be loads of adult content (porn sites in other countries that don't have to follow that law; erotic images which aren't on porn sites; other adult matters).
A kids domain would at least provide something absolutely safe for very young (under-12, at least) children, who probably aren't going to be reading Slashdot (and any child-friendly news sites could be in the kids domain anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not like Firefox has any fanboys...
So I took a look at the last story about Firefox bugs. And guess what - you have people criticising the person for making the bug public in a way not helpful to the developers. And do I hear "crybaby"? No, instead it gets modded up to +4.
Fair enough. I think there are arguments to make on both sides - but whichever one's point of view is, both sides are reasonable positions I think. I just don't understand why one side of the argument here seems to get such contempt, just because Opera's involved.
closed-source Opera
Not to disagree with your main point, but why is it important to stress that it's closed source, apart from making a cheap dig at it?
I don't understand why this appears to come up everytime with Opera, and only Opera. I never hear Firefox fans talking down the closed-source MacOS, for example.
This closed-sourced software company brought me an IE alternative long before it became trendy, not to mention useful things like Opera Mini for my phone. Firefox is cool too, but I don't see why there has to be some competition between them, when the real enemy is IE.
Indeed, if anything it's the response to this blog post which is the overreaction.
(And I agree with your comments about the register, I used to read it, but it really does seem to be the tabloid of the geek world - if they're not picking on some blog post, they're trying to run a scare story based on a bogus Wikipedia edit they found in the history three years ago...)
Agreed. My thought was that the Opera guys could get their own back at Mozilla next time it's a bug that they discover first.
But then I thought, is that what we really want?
Indeed - the article also says:
Some astronomers believe there may be hundreds of small rocky bodies in the outer edges of our own Solar System, and perhaps even a handful of frozen Earth-sized worlds.
So it's reasonable that any Earth-sized bodies would be considered as new planets, but "handful" doesn't seem to account for "hundreds if not thousands".
Then again, I'm amused that this guy still seems to insist that there are 9 planets in our solar system, so either he slept through the recent decision, or he disagrees with it, and in both cases it's consistent that if Pluto is a planet, all those hundreds of other small rocky bodies should be too...
Moore's law isn't a law, and should never have been called that way. It's merely a prognosis.
Actually, I believe he based it on observed past behaviour, so even though he may have intended it to also be a prediction, calling it a law is fine.
I'm also confused by "merely" - I'd argue that saying it is a prognosis carries the implication that it will hold in future, whilst "law" implies that, just like other laws, it is merely a generalisation of observed behaviour.
My professors always called it "Moore's Observation".
A law is an observation. That's what it means. There seems to be a misconception that "law" means "fundament law of nature which is 100% proven to be true", but that's not correct.
(True, you might say it's not a scientific law in that it's not an observation about scientific matters, but instead, an observation about technology, economics and other factors, but it's still a law. You might as well moan that it's not a legal law - big deal.)
And if you can run them awful quicker than nature, then they are all awful approximations...
Think about it, suppose we have a program that is almost on par with human intelligence. Obviously ONE such program is going to need some rather nifty hardware to run.
I presumed human intelligence was the end goal of this idea - for most of the billions of years, brains were much simpler, and for the most part didn't exist at all.
Obviously it would still take vast amounts of computing power, but it wouldn't have to take the same amount of time, as you don't have to wait around years for every organism to physically grow. Nature is pretty much itself an "approximation", with some many random factors and variables - it's not clear that every last detail of where a little rodent walks throughout the years of its life is necessary to reproduce.
I think you are mistaken about something here that I was trying to say. I said nothing of a universal faith that can be called atheism here, but rather was describing a whole spectrum in various dimensions of atheistic belief.
Atheists have beliefs, sure, this doesn't mean that there is a belief system or religion called "Atheism", nor are these beliefs a form of atheism.
If an atheist believes that communism is a good system, or that chocolate is a tasty food, these are not forms of atheism, anymore than they would be forms of Christianity if a Christian believed them.
This has been a fun thread, but it also missed the point completely about the existence or non-existence of a soul and if that may be critical somehow to the field of artificial intelligence.
Until someone gives an actual definition of "soul", there is no point to miss ("something eternal and infinite, that continues after your physical death, are vague properties of this soul, but they don't tell us what it is). It makes about as much sense as me saying that Duke Nukem Forever can never be released, because it requires some magical but undefined thing that I will call a "wibble", that cannot be reproduced by mere mortal programmers. What is special about intelligence? The only thing I think you could possibly say is that intelligence isn't reproduceable on a classical Turing machine, because of its complexity (in which case, a classical computer couldn't reproduce intelligence, but that doesn't mean we could never build an intelligent machine, e.g., using a quantum computer).
I agree though that belief in a soul - whatever that is - doesn't have to be correlated with belief in God; theoretically an atheist could believe in souls. Or fairies, the easter bunny or Father Christmas.
There are "prophets", but they aren't called prophets. There are "sacred books", but they tend to be things like "Principia Mathematica", "Origin of Species", or other such books.
No, these books are not "sacred books of atheism". Please try again.
Firstly, it doesn't follow that an atheist believes either of these things (it seems to be that atheists usually accept logic, mathematics and science, but this isn't part of the definition). Secondly, anything in those books is accepted based on whether it is logical and can be verified to be true - not simply because it is written in that book. I also feel this quote is relevant from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html , discussing the myth that Darwin recanted: The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.
atheism was an official state religion
Religions were outlawed, I would like to see a source that they introduced a new religion that was named "atheism"?
Mao's "Little Red Book" certainly fits the role of religious scripture with a near deification of Mao's actions
So? Call it Mao-ism then. You seriously believe that all atheists are communists and accept the teachings of Mao?
I have observed "congregations" of atheists that have come together in terms of organizing a social network for the common good.
Yeah, so do geeks, role-players and swingers. Since when did having a social meet mean anything to do with religion? Just because religion can be social doesn't imply anything social is religious!
Atheism is much broader and deeper than you are implying here, and takes on many different forms.
Which is exactly why it isn't a religion.
For example? Darwinist evolving programs? Well that could theoretically work, but given that our brains had billions of years where we'd expect some results within decades... I don't think the odds are good for this one. Any other "paths" that you could think of?
But running genetic algorithms on a super computer, I think each generation would happen an awful lot quicker than in nature...
Are those features any different to other smartphones? I've seen big screens on other phones too. A quick Google search suggests there are other phones with Wi-Fi. Other smartphones have proper browsers, and can run all those applications. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by "buzzword" - to you, 3G is a buzzword whilst Wi-Fi is important, but to someone else, 3G and MMS are important whilst Wi-Fi (along with SSH, photo-album, e-mail etc) is a buzzword!
Even for cheap non-smartphones: Storage for mp3s has been increasing gradually, and other phones have reached 8GB too. Any old phone can download Opera Mini, so you at least have that as a decent functioning browser. And something is severely wrong if you can't download your photos - any normal phone lets you do this. I'm not sure that the iphone wins on the carrier part anyway, given that it's tied into a contract - with any other phone, you can have a choice, and just don't choose stupid carriers that suck like yours did.
It sounds like you have a really bad experience with a poor phone and/or network. The rest of the market is a lot better than what you describe - and I was hoping there'd be something going for the iphone more than simply "There are worse phones". But so far, that's all I've had people tell me.
The implication in the post I replied to was that Apple had succeeded where no other phone company has, not simply who is currently popular[*]. Even if the claims about Motorola right now are true, they nonetheless have succeeded too. For all we now, Apple might hit these same issues that Motorola supposedly faces.
[*] Well, are there some market share stats for 2007 then, anyway?
Interestingly you should mention this, I just read it on Wikipedia too:
I also like the fact that the Treo has cut and paste, so I can trim down the quoted part of email.
My cheap ordinary phone does this, something which I'd consider to be a standard part of UI functionality - does it really not do this, or am I misunderstanding, I wonder. Then again, my cheap ordinary phone does basic features like 3G, video recording and MMS...
An "iphone done right" as you describe it would be good. But beware of the battery life - there is an advantage to having separate devices.
It is why Apple has succeeded, and why Motorola is desperate to rid itself of its mobile division.
So what are the sales figures? Anywhere near 50 million yet?
My MacBook Pro that runs Windows, Linux, & OSX
I'm not sure that being able to run multiple OSs on the same box is a particular advantage for most people. Years ago, I remember the Amiga could do this feat, running AmigaOS, MacOS, some Unixes and so on, but Macs couldn't do the same - I don't recall Mac users being bothered though. Plus all these years we heard about how Windows was bad - I find it interesting that now Macs can run Windows, it's touted as a good thing.
If you're buying a Mac to run OS X, then you don't care about Windows anyway. If you're buying a Mac to run Windows - then yeah, so the Mac is as good as a PC, but that's not saying anything good about OS X. If you actually need to dual boot both operating systems, then you are either someone in a small minority (e.g., a developer porting an application), or for some reason your preferred OS isn't up to the job of doing everything you need.
Anyhow, there are also other operating systems that run on PCs, which may not run on Macs, so I'm not convinced that your Mac wins the "can run most operating systems" trophy anyway.
I fully agree. I find it sad that what the number of Iphone Slashvertisments we get here anyway, even on the rare blue moon occasion we get a story about another phone, we still have to have a mention for the iphone. What about all the other phones on the market?
I feel it's the marketing equivalent of "famous for being famous" - it gets lots of publicity because it's well known, but it's well known because of all the publicity... (I wonder if Paris Hilton owns one?)
The cell industry has had it's ass so far up there for so long, it took Steve Jobs to show them how screwed up they are.
In what way? The post your replied to listed a whole load of things that need to be fixed for it, so how exactly are they leading the way?
This is a genuine question - given all the bog-standard things that the iphone lacks (3G, MMS, video recording, even drafts and copy and past according to Wikipedia though I can't believe it?), that any normal dirt cheap phone has, I'm curious what special features it does have that no other phone has?
Interesting - here in the UK I've yet to see a single iphone. I've seen lots of other types of smartphones. Perhaps it's different in different countries, but I suspect people just use what smartphone is best for them, and the iphone is yet another one. As with everything else, Apple fans love to claim that Apple did something first, but then qualify it with "well, they were the ones who made it popular", whether or not that was true.
I know a lot of people that freelance, and want/need email and some sort of web access in their pocket.
Any dirt cheap bog standard phone does email and web access. I think you're missing a point here - what distinguishes smartphones is usually the ability to run standalone applications, and running a complete operating system, and not that they have Internet access. The iphone isn't popularising anything here, rather it's become standard for all phones - including phones hundreds of pounds cheaper. I'm also not convinced people are using iphones for the ability to run general standalone applications.
If anything, I suspect people are more interested in using it as a combined phone and ipod, as this is still a relatively new market (most phones do mp3, but the storage sizes have only recently been of any significant size). But then again, as prices of memory cards fall, this market will be quickly swamped with every other bog standard phone that can do Internet and play mp3s.
Depends on who you mean. To common people like us, it won't. To the Governments though? With the pro-censorship attitudes we also have in places like the US and UK (albeit to a lesser degree thankfully, but still the same idea - wanting to ban sex and violence, even for adults, because it supposedly harms us; here in the UK, MPs are proposing a bill to allow them the power to ban films and games that even the censors think are okay, and they are passing through a law to criminalise depictions of sexual violence), it probably won't harm China's image. If anything, our Governments will just be envious - pesky things like freedom of speech and democracy prevent them for banning as much as they'd like, as can be done in China. But I bet they'll be saying "Well other countries ban this material, so it's okay for us to do so too".
This article is interesting - usually we only hear about the political kind of censorship in China, but it seems they do the same old "Let's criminalise depictions of things that we claim obviously have a negative effect on society" that western democracies love to do too. And I don't want the same kind of censorship that China has.
(some page 3 girls baring their breasts in UK newspapers have been 16 or 17, for example),
Getting off-topic, but interestingly as of 2003, those images are now considered child porn in the UK too (and the age of consent is still 16).
I'm not sure if those back issues in the archives had to be destroyed, or what.
That's backwards. Why deny kids access to, say Wikipedia. You can't move all the non-porn content to .kids.
.kids; just let them use the normal Internet.
If your viewpoint is that your child shouldn't see any adult content, then you shouldn't be letting them on Wikipedia, which has adult content - yes, including erotic images.
If your viewpoint is that it's okay for your child to use Wikipedia (possibly with you keeping an eye on them, if you choose), then there's no need for
So you're telling me I should block all content, including Linux.com, distowatch, slashdot, CNN.com, NYT.com, FoxNews.com and so on just so my 12-yr old doesn't accidentally stumble upon a porno site while researching the dangers of breast enlargement surgery?
.kids domain is much better than a .xxx domain - but I do note it's a lot easier to take a subset of material and say "This is definitely child-safe", rather than managing to filter out everything that isn't child-safe. With a .xxx domain, there'd still be loads of adult content (porn sites in other countries that don't have to follow that law; erotic images which aren't on porn sites; other adult matters).
Given the kind of adult material that quite often gets posted or linked on Slashdot (often by people trolling), I'm not clear - is Slashdot a site that your 12 year old should be able to access, or shouldn't? Or do you propose some way to magically filter out the adult content?
What about a CNN article that talks about pornography or other adult matters?
I'm not sure a
A kids domain would at least provide something absolutely safe for very young (under-12, at least) children, who probably aren't going to be reading Slashdot (and any child-friendly news sites could be in the kids domain anyway).
Unfortunately, we British are very good at doublethink. Yesterday the Daily Mail's front page
;)
No, no, that's just the Daily Mail. We shouldn't lump all of us in with the Daily Mail