Oh, CSpan can be hilariously funny sometimes. Usually when a politician is going on about an issue s/he clearly doesn't understand. Which is of course most of the time.
If you want more proof, note that a good portion of the goofy clips that end up on the Daily Show are from CSpan. Granted, then you have Stewart et al sifting through a lot of the more exciting parts.
Coming from an ultra-liberal background myself, I wish to let you know that you're right on the money.
The people who wish to censor the Internet are those that want to pretend that the stuff they don't like doesn't exist. Particularly because that stuff they don't like would be more a log in their own eye than a splinter in someone else's.
I guess I included searching The Pirate Bay and the like as a step a reasonably enterprising user would take to circumvent DRM. But yes, it's true that all it takes is one to figure out how to break it.
Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see/hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.
Except that you won't have your brain free for doing other tasks while driving. That's why hand-free devices don't actually make driving while cell-phoning significantly safer.
Of course, maybe you drive in Boston or Chicago, where clearly brain-free driving isn't a problem.
I disagree with your specific proposal, for the simple reason that either whoever reaches that age is going to go completely bonkers engaging in all those activities, or underage people will be trying some of that stuff out. Think of what are now 21st birthday parties combined with driving for the first time, smoking, and porn.
What I prefer over a firm age limit is tests. For instance, you can legally drive when you can pass all the appropriate tests, regardless of age (and IMHO have to retest periodically). For stuff like beer and tobacco, the test would be on the health risks. For whether to try someone as an adult, I'd look for some sort of evaluation of whether the person's brain is an adult brain, not whether they've reached a certain calendar age. And so on.
In short, age is an approximation of how mature someone is, and usually when it's used in laws like these it's done as a shortcut to figuring out a much more specific issue.
determine whether a picture constitutes child pornography
We don't have a scientific or legal definition for whether a picture constitutes any sort of pornography, other than Oliver Wendel Holmes' "I know it when I see it".
That's easy: 1. Add a speaker to your mouse (Probably would need to be a USB mouse). 2. Write a driver to allow you to tell the mouse to play a clip. 3. Tell your driver to play Scotty quotes. 4. Use the mouse as usual.
Aye, it's not this "creationism" that has scientific evidence, it be the Great Truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that should be spread to all the landlubbers. In praise of His Noodly Appendages, ramen.
For some people, the idea is that teenagers getting naked for other teenagers is moral decay, and moral decay means that God will punish the country by sending hurricanes and the like. So this sort of social issue is in their mind really a matter of life-and-death or the safety-of-the-nation. In this mindset, Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for boobs on Mardi Gras, for instance. People like Pat Robertson have been pushing this worldview for a long time.
No, I don't believe it for a second, but that's the mindset.
As much as the thought of millions of pampered city dwellers wailing helplessly in the darkness might amuse me, I can not imagine that their lives are so different to country people as to make survival a difficult prospect.
There are a number of potential problems that us pampered city dwellers have to deal with in the case of an extended power outage that simply aren't as much of a problem in rural areas, such as: 1. Traffic lights being shut down, which can grind traffic and thus commerce to a halt. 2. Crime. 3. Panicking people who don't have the sense to just wait it out.
And of course, most everyone who works in technical jobs is out of work until the power comes back on.
When it comes down to it, experience will trump a degree anyday...
Sort of. The degree is darned useful, not just for getting the job, but for doing your work well. For instance, it's easier to use a hash table or linked list if you know what one is. That's the sort of theoretical knowledge that is hard to pick up in the real world, but helps you in the real world.
Some theoretical stuff that pops up a lot: database normalization, regular expressions, and algorithmic efficiency.
Some people are smart. Some people aren't. Discriminating in IT based on age (or most other pursuits) is not only immoral, it's just plain stupid, because you'll hire a kid who doesn't know what they're doing over an older worker that is brilliant. It would be about as dumb as hiring based on race or gender.
Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.
For starters, in most states that would be illegal.
On top of that, most companies eager to hire younger workers over others do so because younger workers are (a) cheaper and (b) easier to overwork. It's not because they're smarter, or because they're better at coding, or anything like that.
I'd buy point (a) if there wasn't a practice of journals charging authors for the ability to publish (which they pay in order to continue to have a career). I'd agree with point (b) if the peer reviewers were paid. There may be advantages to the closed source model, but neither of those are it.
I'd go with option 1. I highly doubt the Bush administration would intentionally strengthen the position of a left-wing government that had recently nationalized the oil industry.
There are a few legal theories regarding some searches: For instance, a locker at school is school property, so the school can search it. The other major one is in loco parentis, which states that since the school is entrusted with the care of children the staff has many of the same rights as parents (e.g. approving emergency medical treatment).
No, I would not strip search another persons child, especially a female.
Why a different standard for boys? Do you have any logical reason to believe that boys would be less traumatized by a strip search than a girl would be? He might not complain as much, but to say that it would be OK to do the same to a boy doesn't seem right either.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, CSpan can be hilariously funny sometimes. Usually when a politician is going on about an issue s/he clearly doesn't understand. Which is of course most of the time.
If you want more proof, note that a good portion of the goofy clips that end up on the Daily Show are from CSpan. Granted, then you have Stewart et al sifting through a lot of the more exciting parts.
Coming from an ultra-liberal background myself, I wish to let you know that you're right on the money.
The people who wish to censor the Internet are those that want to pretend that the stuff they don't like doesn't exist. Particularly because that stuff they don't like would be more a log in their own eye than a splinter in someone else's.
I guess I included searching The Pirate Bay and the like as a step a reasonably enterprising user would take to circumvent DRM. But yes, it's true that all it takes is one to figure out how to break it.
Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see /hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.
Except that you won't have your brain free for doing other tasks while driving. That's why hand-free devices don't actually make driving while cell-phoning significantly safer.
Of course, maybe you drive in Boston or Chicago, where clearly brain-free driving isn't a problem.
Yes, thank you and Opyros for that correction.
I agree that trying kids as adults is silly.
I disagree with your specific proposal, for the simple reason that either whoever reaches that age is going to go completely bonkers engaging in all those activities, or underage people will be trying some of that stuff out. Think of what are now 21st birthday parties combined with driving for the first time, smoking, and porn.
What I prefer over a firm age limit is tests. For instance, you can legally drive when you can pass all the appropriate tests, regardless of age (and IMHO have to retest periodically). For stuff like beer and tobacco, the test would be on the health risks. For whether to try someone as an adult, I'd look for some sort of evaluation of whether the person's brain is an adult brain, not whether they've reached a certain calendar age. And so on.
In short, age is an approximation of how mature someone is, and usually when it's used in laws like these it's done as a shortcut to figuring out a much more specific issue.
determine whether a picture constitutes child pornography
We don't have a scientific or legal definition for whether a picture constitutes any sort of pornography, other than Oliver Wendel Holmes' "I know it when I see it".
That's easy:
1. Add a speaker to your mouse (Probably would need to be a USB mouse).
2. Write a driver to allow you to tell the mouse to play a clip.
3. Tell your driver to play Scotty quotes.
4. Use the mouse as usual.
Yeah, I especially was startled by the part where my textures randomly get corrupted. Really innovative.
That is innovative. Would you have thought to randomly corrupt the users' textures for them?
Aye, it's not this "creationism" that has scientific evidence, it be the Great Truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that should be spread to all the landlubbers. In praise of His Noodly Appendages, ramen.
I'd love to be able to ignore everything they say, but unfortunately there are enough of 'em that it's hard to do so.
And whoever modded me troll missed the point.
(playing Devil's Advocate for a moment)
For some people, the idea is that teenagers getting naked for other teenagers is moral decay, and moral decay means that God will punish the country by sending hurricanes and the like. So this sort of social issue is in their mind really a matter of life-and-death or the safety-of-the-nation. In this mindset, Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for boobs on Mardi Gras, for instance. People like Pat Robertson have been pushing this worldview for a long time.
No, I don't believe it for a second, but that's the mindset.
As much as the thought of millions of pampered city dwellers wailing helplessly in the darkness might amuse me, I can not imagine that their lives are so different to country people as to make survival a difficult prospect.
There are a number of potential problems that us pampered city dwellers have to deal with in the case of an extended power outage that simply aren't as much of a problem in rural areas, such as:
1. Traffic lights being shut down, which can grind traffic and thus commerce to a halt.
2. Crime.
3. Panicking people who don't have the sense to just wait it out.
And of course, most everyone who works in technical jobs is out of work until the power comes back on.
When it comes down to it, experience will trump a degree anyday...
Sort of. The degree is darned useful, not just for getting the job, but for doing your work well. For instance, it's easier to use a hash table or linked list if you know what one is. That's the sort of theoretical knowledge that is hard to pick up in the real world, but helps you in the real world.
Some theoretical stuff that pops up a lot: database normalization, regular expressions, and algorithmic efficiency.
Even more unbearable is that you posted the same joke twice, and got modded +4 Funny on both of them.
Some people are smart. Some people aren't. Discriminating in IT based on age (or most other pursuits) is not only immoral, it's just plain stupid, because you'll hire a kid who doesn't know what they're doing over an older worker that is brilliant. It would be about as dumb as hiring based on race or gender.
Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.
For starters, in most states that would be illegal.
On top of that, most companies eager to hire younger workers over others do so because younger workers are (a) cheaper and (b) easier to overwork. It's not because they're smarter, or because they're better at coding, or anything like that.
I'd buy point (a) if there wasn't a practice of journals charging authors for the ability to publish (which they pay in order to continue to have a career). I'd agree with point (b) if the peer reviewers were paid. There may be advantages to the closed source model, but neither of those are it.
I'd go with option 1. I highly doubt the Bush administration would intentionally strengthen the position of a left-wing government that had recently nationalized the oil industry.
We have a closer precedent, actually: Project FUBELT.
No it wasn't. It was mimicking a human brain, so clearly the first things it knew how to do were say "What?" and "Where's the tea?"
Because Texas chooses its textbooks on a state-wide basis, while California chooses by district, making Texas the single largest market.
There are a few legal theories regarding some searches: For instance, a locker at school is school property, so the school can search it. The other major one is in loco parentis, which states that since the school is entrusted with the care of children the staff has many of the same rights as parents (e.g. approving emergency medical treatment).
No, I would not strip search another persons child, especially a female.
Why a different standard for boys? Do you have any logical reason to believe that boys would be less traumatized by a strip search than a girl would be? He might not complain as much, but to say that it would be OK to do the same to a boy doesn't seem right either.