First off, I'll say that I respect your view, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it.
That said, I believe that this problem still can be solved by attentive parenting. Even if a store sells a violent game to a teenager, it seems unlikely that teenager would be able to keep their parents from ever discovering the game.
If parents don't approve of certain games, they can merely randomly observe what their child is playing. They can easily do this by placing the gaming system in a common area, such as a living room or study. If a parent isn't willing to do this to enforce their rules and views, then the problem lies with the parents, not with the store or the video game manufacturer.
Government is not meant to be an end-all and be-all for the "sanitation" of our lives. This especially holds true in America, where we have the fundamental right to make decisions for ourselves and our children with a minimum of governmental interference. If we want freedom of speech for ourselves, we also have to advocate freedom of speech for those who disagree with us and our views. It's that simple.
My guess as to why this page won't work in Mozilla (and Opera, as I've found) is their use of the Javascript-reserved variable name "char".
Apparently in order to reduce confusion between Java and Javascript, the creators of Javascript reserved most of the Java basic keywords. "Char" is one of those words, and the page uses it as a variable name. IE probably doesn't reserve that word, so it works there.
I'm using Opera 6.02 for Win, identifying as Mozilla 4.78, and the page worked just fine for me. I don't know about 6.01, which you may still be using (6.02 was just released a day or two ago). Probably was just some minor issue in earlier versions of Opera. I know I'd had problems with other Hotmail features before upgrading, so just updating Opera should help anyone having the same problem.
Ok, so here's the real deal on what the court said, taken right from the ruling:
[quote] "There is a very real likelihood that...COPA...is overbroad and cannot survive such a challenge." (From Justice Kennedy's concurring judgement, PDF page 32) [/quote]
Basically what happened today was the Court said that the appeals court used the wrong reason to justify the injunction put in place by the district court. That's all.
As is said by Kennedy later, "[O]nce it is accepted that we cannot strike down the Act based merely on the phrase 'contemporary community standards,' we should go no farther than to vacate and remand..." (PDF page 39)
Assuming that the ACLU et al. can prove that the law is unconstitutional in other respects (and I believe that they can) the Court is basically saying that they'll treat that as a totally separate issue. In the meantime, the law's still not in force, and I believe that the Court will eventually rule that the law is indeed unconstitutional, just not for this precise reason.
Yeah, right, like I really wanted to type in "computers" and not know whether I was going to Dell's site (best case scenario) or HP's site (worst case scenario). RealNames's technology was even slightly useful only to newbies who have no clue about how to use the Internet.
Me, I'll find my information without some idiotic little keywords system getting in my way. I'm not shedding even a tear in memory of RealNames. Good riddance! The Internet has been saved from another stupid technology.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I'll say that I respect your view, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it.
That said, I believe that this problem still can be solved by attentive parenting. Even if a store sells a violent game to a teenager, it seems unlikely that teenager would be able to keep their parents from ever discovering the game.
If parents don't approve of certain games, they can merely randomly observe what their child is playing. They can easily do this by placing the gaming system in a common area, such as a living room or study. If a parent isn't willing to do this to enforce their rules and views, then the problem lies with the parents, not with the store or the video game manufacturer.
Government is not meant to be an end-all and be-all for the "sanitation" of our lives. This especially holds true in America, where we have the fundamental right to make decisions for ourselves and our children with a minimum of governmental interference. If we want freedom of speech for ourselves, we also have to advocate freedom of speech for those who disagree with us and our views. It's that simple.
My guess as to why this page won't work in Mozilla (and Opera, as I've found) is their use of the Javascript-reserved variable name "char".
Apparently in order to reduce confusion between Java and Javascript, the creators of Javascript reserved most of the Java basic keywords. "Char" is one of those words, and the page uses it as a variable name. IE probably doesn't reserve that word, so it works there.
So Microsoft is stepping up the removal of old code from Windows?
Hrm, so this means that Internet Explorer will be gone from the OS completely in a few months? Cool!
Quote from the end of the article:
.Net."
"[John Carroll] specializes in the design and development of distributed systems using Java and
Seems like he has a lot to lose if open-source takes over...after all, he is devoting his energy to restrictively-licensed programming languages.
I'm using Opera 6.02 for Win, identifying as Mozilla 4.78, and the page worked just fine for me. I don't know about 6.01, which you may still be using (6.02 was just released a day or two ago). Probably was just some minor issue in earlier versions of Opera. I know I'd had problems with other Hotmail features before upgrading, so just updating Opera should help anyone having the same problem.
Ok, so here's the real deal on what the court said, taken right from the ruling:
[quote]
"There is a very real likelihood that...COPA...is overbroad and cannot survive such a challenge." (From Justice Kennedy's concurring judgement, PDF page 32)
[/quote]
Basically what happened today was the Court said that the appeals court used the wrong reason to justify the injunction put in place by the district court. That's all.
As is said by Kennedy later, "[O]nce it is accepted that we cannot strike down the Act based merely on the phrase 'contemporary community standards,' we should go no farther than to vacate and remand..." (PDF page 39)
Assuming that the ACLU et al. can prove that the law is unconstitutional in other respects (and I believe that they can) the Court is basically saying that they'll treat that as a totally separate issue. In the meantime, the law's still not in force, and I believe that the Court will eventually rule that the law is indeed unconstitutional, just not for this precise reason.
Yeah, right, like I really wanted to type in "computers" and not know whether I was going to Dell's site (best case scenario) or HP's site (worst case scenario). RealNames's technology was even slightly useful only to newbies who have no clue about how to use the Internet.
Me, I'll find my information without some idiotic little keywords system getting in my way. I'm not shedding even a tear in memory of RealNames. Good riddance! The Internet has been saved from another stupid technology.