House OKs CB Radio Protection for Kids
Wed May 22, 1:35 AM ET
By DENNIS MORAD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing the recent death of a Connecticut child who apparently fell victim to a man she met using a Citizens Band (CB) Radio, the House voted overwhelmingly to establish a new channel for kid-friendly chat and to expand surveillance authority to target CB predators.
The channel measure, approved on a 406-2 vote, would have the federal government oversee a ".kids" channel on CBs that would have only material appropriate for children under 13. CB operators' participation would be voluntary. Parents could set CB radios to limit a child's access to only the kids channel.
"Sometimes I think the Citizens Band Radio should be renamed the Wicked Mans Radio," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Supporters of the channel bill, sponsored by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., say it should reduce the chance of accidental exposure to pornography and to other conversations considered harmful to children, and it would not provide any access to interactive features, such as the ability to talk back.
Groups opposing the domain, including the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), have called the legislation a backdoor attempt at censorship.
Shimkus said parents need to be aware of what channels their children are scanning.
"I have repeatedly said that libraries have children's book sections, why can't CBs have the same type of section devoted to children's interests?" he said.
"The threat to our children is real," its chief sponsor, Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., said.
Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., argued against expanding wiretap authority, voicing concerns that even current limited use by law enforcement typically results in overhearing innocent conversations.
"It ought to be necessary," he said of wiretapping authority. "It's not enough for it to be helpful for law enforcement."
A similar wiretapping bill passed the House last year but died in the Senate.
While we're here bickering over people's personalities, we're loosing our freedom.
If the greater technical community had any vision outside of the inside of a machine, we would do whatever we could to make sure that a future of open standards would be secured. Instead, we pick apart a genius because because he is passionate about ideas that aren't technical. If RMS was normal...we wouldn't have GNU/Linux and we wouldn't have the GNU-GPL and we wouldn't have an opportunity to keep freedom of speech alive.
RMS is right, the system should be called GNU/Linux because we need to keep in mind the philosophical architecture that forms the foundation for our open world.
Lessig said "GNU/Linux for those who want to keep the contributions in view". More of us need to give credit to the GNU project because without focusing on the ideals behind the architecture...we'll loose this great open place. The scary thing is...it may already be too late.
1. the period in European history from about a.d. 476 to about 1000.
2. the whole of the Middle Ages, from about a.d. 476 to the Renaissance.
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, etc.
Dark Ages (new definition)
1. the period in World history from about a.d. 2002 to 2100.
2. the whole of the Binary Age, from about a.d. 2000 to the Open Age
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, a lack of advanced knowledge except for those who finance political campaigns.
If you can't make it work out without donations, it's just not a good business.
I would agree that in many industries, donations don't make sense. But, honestly, tell the millions of people who work for "tips" that it isn't good business. Tell the thousands of hotels, bars, resorts, restaurant chains, and other service industries that their business of paying low base wages to employees and expecting donatations to drive better delivery of valuable service and a good income to their employees is bad business.
Mandrakes approach is innovative and time will tell whether it will work for a larger community of employees who wish to organize themselves in a for-profit.
First, for profits are able to offer benefits to investors and employees as well as users. This enables a for profit entity to compete more effectively against other for profits.
Second, if Mandrake were to become a nonprofit, the capitalists would loose a potential role model to follow.
The most exciting aspect of this innovative approach is that *if* Mandrake is successfull, it could give others a role model to follow. For profit businesses need to have better role models that the likes of Enron & others. For profit has received a bad name because of managements focus on the bottom line and disregard for other responsiblities. This type of approach is needed more in the for profit world.
It's quite early to declare that this isn't sustainable and the early indications are contrary to your declaration.
Maybe it will be. Instead of discounting Mandrake's efforts to stay true to a culture of giving...why not applaud them for innovating. They deserve credit for this.
Mandrakes new business model is a very important step for Free Software. Every software company in this space has been struggling to find a model that will work to support the culture and ideology that underpins this movement.
Many companies have abandoned their roots based on certain philosophical principles only to say "well...we're grown up now so we have to be capitalists..." causing incredible divisions in their internal corporate culture. As soon as they "grow up" they forget what has driven their success - the human interest in sharing.
Mandrake has successfully found a model based upon the notion of sharing. They have extended the concept of giving to enable the users who have the financial resources to give with a way to do it. No longer are poeple restricted to only giving back code or free support. Those users who have a little money (or more) can share it freely with the great people in the Mandrake community who are sharing their code with the commons.
If anyone doesn't think this fits "capitalism"...well maybe capitalism in cyberspace needs an adjustment. Finally, an innovative business model which doesn't destroy the Free Software culture!
Slashdot Mirror
House OKs CB Radio Protection for Kids
Wed May 22, 1:35 AM ET
By DENNIS MORAD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing the recent death of a Connecticut child who apparently fell victim to a man she met using a Citizens Band (CB) Radio, the House voted overwhelmingly to establish a new channel for kid-friendly chat and to expand surveillance authority to target CB predators.
The channel measure, approved on a 406-2 vote, would have the federal government oversee a ".kids" channel on CBs that would have only material appropriate for children under 13. CB operators' participation would be voluntary. Parents could set CB radios to limit a child's access to only the kids channel.
"Sometimes I think the Citizens Band Radio should be renamed the Wicked Mans Radio," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Supporters of the channel bill, sponsored by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., say it should reduce the chance of accidental exposure to pornography and to other conversations considered harmful to children, and it would not provide any access to interactive features, such as the ability to talk back.
Groups opposing the domain, including the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), have called the legislation a backdoor attempt at censorship.
Shimkus said parents need to be aware of what channels their children are scanning.
"I have repeatedly said that libraries have children's book sections, why can't CBs have the same type of section devoted to children's interests?" he said.
"The threat to our children is real," its chief sponsor, Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., said.
Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., argued against expanding wiretap authority, voicing concerns that even current limited use by law enforcement typically results in overhearing innocent conversations.
"It ought to be necessary," he said of wiretapping authority. "It's not enough for it to be helpful for law enforcement."
A similar wiretapping bill passed the House last year but died in the Senate.
While we're here bickering over people's personalities, we're loosing our freedom.
If the greater technical community had any vision outside of the inside of a machine, we would do whatever we could to make sure that a future of open standards would be secured. Instead, we pick apart a genius because because he is passionate about ideas that aren't technical. If RMS was normal...we wouldn't have GNU/Linux and we wouldn't have the GNU-GPL and we wouldn't have an opportunity to keep freedom of speech alive.
RMS is right, the system should be called GNU/Linux because we need to keep in mind the philosophical architecture that forms the foundation for our open world.
Lessig said "GNU/Linux for those who want to keep the contributions in view". More of us need to give credit to the GNU project because without focusing on the ideals behind the architecture...we'll loose this great open place. The scary thing is...it may already be too late.
Let's see if I got this right.
Cable broadcasts propanda.
Internet transports propaganda.
So...words transport propaganda.
Every since people began talking...people began using those words to spread hatred and fear!
As a society, we've really got to do something about this unrestrained use of words! What can we do?
If Hollings has his way:
Dark Ages (old definition)
1. the period in European history from about a.d. 476 to about 1000.
2. the whole of the Middle Ages, from about a.d. 476 to the Renaissance.
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, etc.
Dark Ages (new definition)
1. the period in World history from about a.d. 2002 to 2100.
2. the whole of the Binary Age, from about a.d. 2000 to the Open Age
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, a lack of advanced knowledge except for those who finance political campaigns.
If you can't make it work out without donations, it's just not a good business.
I would agree that in many industries, donations don't make sense. But, honestly, tell the millions of people who work for "tips" that it isn't good business. Tell the thousands of hotels, bars, resorts, restaurant chains, and other service industries that their business of paying low base wages to employees and expecting donatations to drive better delivery of valuable service and a good income to their employees is bad business.
Mandrakes approach is innovative and time will tell whether it will work for a larger community of employees who wish to organize themselves in a for-profit.
>more sense to become a non-profit?
First, for profits are able to offer benefits to investors and employees as well as users. This enables a for profit entity to compete more effectively against other for profits.
Second, if Mandrake were to become a nonprofit, the capitalists would loose a potential role model to follow.
The most exciting aspect of this innovative approach is that *if* Mandrake is successfull, it could give others a role model to follow. For profit businesses need to have better role models that the likes of Enron & others. For profit has received a bad name because of managements focus on the bottom line and disregard for other responsiblities. This type of approach is needed more in the for profit world.
It's quite early to declare that this isn't sustainable and the early indications are contrary to your declaration.
Maybe it will be. Instead of discounting Mandrake's efforts to stay true to a culture of giving...why not applaud them for innovating. They deserve credit for this.
Mandrakes new business model is a very important step for Free Software. Every software company in this space has been struggling to find a model that will work to support the culture and ideology that underpins this movement.
Many companies have abandoned their roots based on certain philosophical principles only to say "well...we're grown up now so we have to be capitalists..." causing incredible divisions in their internal corporate culture. As soon as they "grow up" they forget what has driven their success - the human interest in sharing.
Mandrake has successfully found a model based upon the notion of sharing. They have extended the concept of giving to enable the users who have the financial resources to give with a way to do it. No longer are poeple restricted to only giving back code or free support. Those users who have a little money (or more) can share it freely with the great people in the Mandrake community who are sharing their code with the commons.
If anyone doesn't think this fits "capitalism"...well maybe capitalism in cyberspace needs an adjustment. Finally, an innovative business model which doesn't destroy the Free Software culture!