Whether or not the asteroids we found quickly in succession or not is beside the point - the first few were still labelled planets for about 50 years, before they decided to reclassify them.
I demand that we also "grandfather" in Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta, for historical reasons.
Some of us still consider them to be planets, and are really getting sick of the jackasses who keep changing their names (minor planets? asteroids? dwarf planet?)
Quite a few of them are round I believe, we'd certainly have quite a few extra.
Though that wasn't the OP's definition anyway, he was saying that anything orbiting the sun should be a planet. Not that I think there's a problem with that - we use his definition for moon, after all, there's no awkward requirements for "must be round" or "must be minimum mass" or "must clear its orbit". As long as we can identify a particular piece of rock, it gets labelled a moon.
Unfortunately, the BBFC has a history of requiring cuts, for example headbutts are frowned upon, in order to release the film at all.
Yes, it's true that this already exists with other products, and generally I have no problem with things that are limited to children.
But as you say the BBFC has a habit of insisting on cuts for release at all - i.e., there are restrictions on what even adults can view in the UK. Furthermore the Government now thinks that people viewing material online is a "loophole", and plans to fix this by criminalising possession of violent material (see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/30/18 19228 , though note that it isn't actually law like the article suggests, but may soon be as part of the upcoming Criminal Justice Bill).
So I fear it's all part of an ever increasing wedge - restrictions on sales to children today, restrictions on sale to adults tomorrow, and then criminalising possession the day after.
I'm not so sure. How long have Apple reminded us that Windows = Bad?
Probably the same amount of time they've told us that Intel x86 = Bad.
Their more recent marketing is about PCs vs Macs - yes, obviously we know they mean Windows, but to the general public, they are differentiating them from PCs. Any new Windows-based machines would still be marketed as "Macs" and "not PCs". I can hear it now: "You can now run Windows on something other than PCs - now you can run it on a Mac!"
If they switched to something Windows based, I'd be outta here like a shot. I'd rather run Linux than anything based on the Windows kernel - and I suspect many of the Mac geeks out there would agree.
And there were people who loved MacOS (non-X) too, and people who couldn't stand x86.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting them to do this - but I wouldn't be surprised either if they did.
The fervor with which most of the Mac community, myself included, worship OS X?
Like the fervor with which most of the Mac community worshipped classic Mac OS?
It wouldn't be the first time Apple ditch their OS. And the new system would still be branded as "Mac OS", so the brand loyalty would just carry straight over.
Your argument is like saying "just because I said I agree, doesn't mean I agree."
I didn't say I agree, the company claimed I agreed because I clicked the button that was needed to be clicked to install the software.
Your argument is like saying "just because I say he agreed, he must have agreed". If that's valid, then I'll claim you agree to pay me $100 if you click to reply to my post.
Yes, good point. In fact, even if there was a way for the installation process for software to require a signature (I dunno, maybe if light pens were popular?), I'd still believe they should not be valid, because there isn't a two way contract, and it's reasonable to assume agreement.
I mean, I can't walk into a bank, point at a random person about to sign a cheque that's nothing to do with me, and say "If you sign your name, you agree to pay me one thousand dollars!"
I agree that EUL"A"s should not be binding, but note that contracts don't need a signature - I presume that purchasing something online is legally binding. Even verbal contracts can be made, I believe.
But the question is whether it's likely that someone willingly entered into the contract. If someone goes out of their way to sign something, or buy something online, or otherwise make a sign of agreement, that they otherwise had no reason to do, then it's reasonable to presume they agreed.
But putting an item down is something that someone might want to do anyway. Just as installing their legally-bought software is something they might want to do anyway...
but the agreement states that you agree to it automatically by hitting the "I agree" button
This is circular logic. Sure, if you agree with it, then it's agreed that hitting the button constitutes agreement. But if you disagree, then it's not true that hitting "I agree" constitutes agreement. You can't assume it's an agreement, and then use that to prove the person agreed!
And if EULAs are ever found legally binding, consumers simply need to put this statement somewhere public like a webpage:
"Any company selling me a product agrees that I have the right to sue them. And the company agrees to this automatically by selling me the product"
Simple. Perhaps add in a clause that said company owes them a million dollars too.
I am open to the possibility that there could be good reasons to expose children to porn, however I can't think of any.
The point you are missing is that there are some situations where it is not specifically a good reason, but it is not bad either.
Yes, grooming is bad. Grooming can be illegal. This doesn't mean that anyone allowing a child to see a naughty image should be treated the same way. (Also there's a grey area between "accidental" and "intentional" - for example, someone might intentionally be looking at porn, but not intend that a child saw it; in fact in this case, I believe the argument is that she intentionally visited porn sites, therefore it's her fault that there were porn popups.)
If the incident is not a crime, it would logically follow that prison time or any other punishment is inappropriate.
Of course, yes, but it is still interesting to discuss what punishment is fair if someone had intentionally looked at porn at school.
If this has been only about IE, people would be posting "Use Firefox" all over the place.
Just like everytime there's a story about Windows flaws, we get "Get a Mac" comments modded up. As for the "And lynx too" posts, I could say "Get a Commodore 64" for those articles, which is also free of Windows viruses and security flaws.
For some reason, Opera doesn't fit into the cool "be different" crowd. It can't be an issue of not being open source (which is what people usually say as the reason), since that doesn't apply for OS X.
You've got it wrong; they haven't pissed off their customers, they're probably in fact doing what their customers have asked.
I'm a paying customer.
And if they are responding to advertisers, that's a serious issue for any site, but especially for LiveJournal.
For a long time, LiveJournal never had ads, and they were strongly against the concept. Then recently they said they'll have ads, but only for people who opt in for "plus" accounts, for extra features. Well, there was a slight flaw in that non-paid users who view a "plus" account will also see ads, but anyway - the point is we were assured that this wouldn't change anything.
But now I wake up to find that content is being dictated by advertisers? When did that get decided, I want to know. Especially as a paying customer - who was told the change to ads would never affect me - why I now can't access or have accounts that the advertisers disapprove of?
This is all speculation though - we don't know yet whether there was any direct involvement from advertisers or if LJ acted out of fear of annoying them. The WFI site claims they contacted advertisers and received responses, but I'm not sure anything they say can be trusted.
Even when children don't or can't result from it (e.g., contraception, different types of sex, same sex couples)?
And do you share the same view on people with genetic diseases?
And even if it's wrong, why does that mean talking or writing about it (or listing it as a keyword on your profile) is wrong? By that reasoning, you are wrong to be mentioning it!
Slashdot Mirror
At the least, Ceres, Vesta, Pallas and Hygiea ( http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9761 &feedId=online-news_rss20F53 ). Admittedly not as many as I'd first thought there might be.
Whether or not the asteroids we found quickly in succession or not is beside the point - the first few were still labelled planets for about 50 years, before they decided to reclassify them.
I demand that we also "grandfather" in Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta, for historical reasons.
Some of us still consider them to be planets, and are really getting sick of the jackasses who keep changing their names (minor planets? asteroids? dwarf planet?)
Oops, didn't see the subject line - I see he did specify a planet should be round. But as I say, quite a few of the asteroids are.
Quite a few of them are round I believe, we'd certainly have quite a few extra.
Though that wasn't the OP's definition anyway, he was saying that anything orbiting the sun should be a planet. Not that I think there's a problem with that - we use his definition for moon, after all, there's no awkward requirements for "must be round" or "must be minimum mass" or "must clear its orbit". As long as we can identify a particular piece of rock, it gets labelled a moon.
But can be triggered by them.
No, it can't. Unless maybe it came in a particularly heavy box.
Compare how you feel after a yoga class and after watching a violent film - there will be a difference, I promise.
Perhaps I'll feel better with the former, perhaps not - but that's not the issue here, the issue is one of legality.
Compare choosing what to do for yourself rather than being told what's better for you by the Government.
Compare being a free person compared with being locked up for not doing what the Government thinks is best for you.
There will be a difference, I promise.
Unfortunately, the BBFC has a history of requiring cuts, for example headbutts are frowned upon, in order to release the film at all.
8 19228 , though note that it isn't actually law like the article suggests, but may soon be as part of the upcoming Criminal Justice Bill).
Yes, it's true that this already exists with other products, and generally I have no problem with things that are limited to children.
But as you say the BBFC has a habit of insisting on cuts for release at all - i.e., there are restrictions on what even adults can view in the UK. Furthermore the Government now thinks that people viewing material online is a "loophole", and plans to fix this by criminalising possession of violent material (see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/30/1
So I fear it's all part of an ever increasing wedge - restrictions on sales to children today, restrictions on sale to adults tomorrow, and then criminalising possession the day after.
Sounds much like every Java app. A lot of GTK+ apps. On Mac: every app not written by Apple or Adobe (all 3 of them).
And it's bad that they do it, too.
Note that Java has moved on a bit since the early days, and these days they can look and feel like native applications.
I'm not so sure. How long have Apple reminded us that Windows = Bad?
Probably the same amount of time they've told us that Intel x86 = Bad.
Their more recent marketing is about PCs vs Macs - yes, obviously we know they mean Windows, but to the general public, they are differentiating them from PCs. Any new Windows-based machines would still be marketed as "Macs" and "not PCs". I can hear it now: "You can now run Windows on something other than PCs - now you can run it on a Mac!"
If they switched to something Windows based, I'd be outta here like a shot. I'd rather run Linux than anything based on the Windows kernel - and I suspect many of the Mac geeks out there would agree.
And there were people who loved MacOS (non-X) too, and people who couldn't stand x86.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting them to do this - but I wouldn't be surprised either if they did.
The fervor with which most of the Mac community, myself included, worship OS X?
Like the fervor with which most of the Mac community worshipped classic Mac OS?
It wouldn't be the first time Apple ditch their OS. And the new system would still be branded as "Mac OS", so the brand loyalty would just carry straight over.
Your argument is like saying "just because I said I agree, doesn't mean I agree."
I didn't say I agree, the company claimed I agreed because I clicked the button that was needed to be clicked to install the software.
Your argument is like saying "just because I say he agreed, he must have agreed". If that's valid, then I'll claim you agree to pay me $100 if you click to reply to my post.
Yes, good point. In fact, even if there was a way for the installation process for software to require a signature (I dunno, maybe if light pens were popular?), I'd still believe they should not be valid, because there isn't a two way contract, and it's reasonable to assume agreement.
I mean, I can't walk into a bank, point at a random person about to sign a cheque that's nothing to do with me, and say "If you sign your name, you agree to pay me one thousand dollars!"
You need to sign to agree
I agree that EUL"A"s should not be binding, but note that contracts don't need a signature - I presume that purchasing something online is legally binding. Even verbal contracts can be made, I believe.
But the question is whether it's likely that someone willingly entered into the contract. If someone goes out of their way to sign something, or buy something online, or otherwise make a sign of agreement, that they otherwise had no reason to do, then it's reasonable to presume they agreed.
But putting an item down is something that someone might want to do anyway. Just as installing their legally-bought software is something they might want to do anyway...
but the agreement states that you agree to it automatically by hitting the "I agree" button
This is circular logic. Sure, if you agree with it, then it's agreed that hitting the button constitutes agreement. But if you disagree, then it's not true that hitting "I agree" constitutes agreement. You can't assume it's an agreement, and then use that to prove the person agreed!
And if EULAs are ever found legally binding, consumers simply need to put this statement somewhere public like a webpage:
"Any company selling me a product agrees that I have the right to sue them. And the company agrees to this automatically by selling me the product"
Simple. Perhaps add in a clause that said company owes them a million dollars too.
I am open to the possibility that there could be good reasons to expose children to porn, however I can't think of any.
The point you are missing is that there are some situations where it is not specifically a good reason, but it is not bad either.
Yes, grooming is bad. Grooming can be illegal. This doesn't mean that anyone allowing a child to see a naughty image should be treated the same way. (Also there's a grey area between "accidental" and "intentional" - for example, someone might intentionally be looking at porn, but not intend that a child saw it; in fact in this case, I believe the argument is that she intentionally visited porn sites, therefore it's her fault that there were porn popups.)
If the incident is not a crime, it would logically follow that prison time or any other punishment is inappropriate.
Of course, yes, but it is still interesting to discuss what punishment is fair if someone had intentionally looked at porn at school.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2 097354,00.html says "some of whom were as young as 12". So yeah, we're not even talking little kids here.
I can't think of any good reason
Firstly, "no good reason" is not sufficient for making it a crime - you have to show why it is bad.
I don't mind it being a crime, but is 40 years in prison proportionate? Surely she'd have got less if she'd physically attacked a child...?
Should the same law and punishment apply if a child accidently sees something naughty in real life, rather than an image?
Troll?
If this has been only about IE, people would be posting "Use Firefox" all over the place.
Just like everytime there's a story about Windows flaws, we get "Get a Mac" comments modded up. As for the "And lynx too" posts, I could say "Get a Commodore 64" for those articles, which is also free of Windows viruses and security flaws.
For some reason, Opera doesn't fit into the cool "be different" crowd. It can't be an issue of not being open source (which is what people usually say as the reason), since that doesn't apply for OS X.
Businesses have often done things to piss people off to end relationships with them. The have dress codes to keep some people out
True, though they usually do this before taking your money rather than kicking you out without warning.
with someone seriously underage
Right, this was the rather important detail missing in your original post.
what's a good software to get to copy all your old posts in case you decide to leave lj in protest?
LJArchive (for Windows, at least).
People who allow abuse without comment are not defending free speech.
Did you RTFA? No one is defending abuse.
You've got it wrong; they haven't pissed off their customers, they're probably in fact doing what their customers have asked.
I'm a paying customer.
And if they are responding to advertisers, that's a serious issue for any site, but especially for LiveJournal.
For a long time, LiveJournal never had ads, and they were strongly against the concept. Then recently they said they'll have ads, but only for people who opt in for "plus" accounts, for extra features. Well, there was a slight flaw in that non-paid users who view a "plus" account will also see ads, but anyway - the point is we were assured that this wouldn't change anything.
But now I wake up to find that content is being dictated by advertisers? When did that get decided, I want to know. Especially as a paying customer - who was told the change to ads would never affect me - why I now can't access or have accounts that the advertisers disapprove of?
This is all speculation though - we don't know yet whether there was any direct involvement from advertisers or if LJ acted out of fear of annoying them. The WFI site claims they contacted advertisers and received responses, but I'm not sure anything they say can be trusted.
Even when children don't or can't result from it (e.g., contraception, different types of sex, same sex couples)?
And do you share the same view on people with genetic diseases?
And even if it's wrong, why does that mean talking or writing about it (or listing it as a keyword on your profile) is wrong? By that reasoning, you are wrong to be mentioning it!