Of the gunfights I hear about on TV, I'll promise you none of the participants engage in target practice given the God awful aim they seem to have. Both parties empty their guns and no one is hit? From close range?
The kids that run amok in school playgrounds (columbine, yada) tend to have very good aim...
(Of course, we know CS is to blame for that, right?)
Dispite what most people think the oil industries AREN'T out to kill all other forms of energy production. They just want to make sure that by the time the oil DOES run out they are the ones that own the new source.
And they want to make sure they make a killing until then. Just like farmers make more money when food is scarce, oil companies will profit immensely if there is an energy crisis. OTOH, a gradual, smoothly managed transition will just bring extra costs for the new infrastructure needed for different energy sources, with no extra profit to be squeezed out.
Anyplace you see aggression and conflict at the hands of communists you can pretty much define it as a war in the name of 'no God.'
Capitalism is un-christian, and inherently sinful.
No, really, it is. There is no rational way that anyone can reconcile christianity with capitalism.
Remember, usury (paying or receiving interest) is a sin, whereas the whole principle of capitalism is based upon money (capital) being a tradeable 'good' like any other resource, which is paid for in interest.
But then again, most christians probably can't reconcile christianity with their own beliefs (that they actually live by rather than profess).
The same probably goes for other religions.
What happens if we create a file compression/security method that incorporates an original encryption technology, with some mechanism by which you only give out the key to people you trust?
And this is where it falls down. The **AA don't actually mind (much) if you give out a key to your friends and give them copies of your stuff. It's just like taping a CD for a friend - it doesn't achieve the kind of critical mass that actually cuts into their profit margins. Only anonymous access does that.
What you're proposing is not really any different from putting your MP3s etc onto an SCP server and emailing the password to your friends (but only them). Technically illegal, but small fry.
You can disable popups with the Moz based Netscapes, by editing the user.js file.
By "pref removed" I meant the check box in the prefs dialogue. Sure, you can still do it the other way, but it's less convenient (say, if you want to activate them as a one-off).
which is why you should use mozilla (1.2 latest (pre-release) works fine for me), and not netscape.
NS6/7 is just mozilla with AOL crap attached to it and the "disable popups" pref removed - 'cos AOL doesn't like its lusers to be able to turn off popups.
How is the incovinence to you any diffrent then if they were paying for movies with Movielink.com or something?
Hmm, let's try this. If they were paying for the movies they would be downloading less, unless they had infinite $$$? As far as I can see, the only conceivable way anyone would be constantly maxing out the bandwidth they had available is if they are pira^H^H^H^Hsharing files.
Your example is the most idiotic use of logic I've seen in a long time.
Last time I checked, nobody just sent me copyrighted software, music or movies without my permission or request. Maybe spammers should start mass-sending copyrighted materials, then at least we might find something useful taking up all our disk space...
<example>Hmmm, my ISP connection has been crap lately. I wonder if it has anything to do with other people on the same ISP downloading pr0n/mp3s/warez all day and using up the bandwidth?</example>
even more OT, but it has to be done...
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
A proven piece of art like a renaissance painting may be objectionable to some people but you can still go to the library and look at in an art book.
But if libraries are required to install filtering software, which the "ant-smut" brigade people are calling for, you will no longer be able to look up websites on renaissance paintings on library computers...
The question of where art stops and porn starts is not trivial at all. For example, in the UK there has been a fair bit of controversy about awarding certificates to movies that feature graphic sex scenes, and a turner prize exhibit that is just a synopsis of a porn movie[1]. Where do you draw the line between nudity and/or sex in the name or art and porn? (Obviously this isn't directly related to the kids.us domain, it's just an example of how you can't neatly divide all nudity into "art" and "porn" with no grey areas)
[1] There's a very funny article about that exhibit from a porn actor's point of view here.
...of the time a certain (now defunct) high street clothing retailer had the wheeze of trying to be "trendy" and putting a fake URL on kids' t-shirts...
...they probably tried going to the site and got an error message, and thought that was safe enough...
...pity they didn't understand how second- and third-level domains work...
The URL was "www.canda.boys.com"
it didn't take long for the rightful owners of boys.com to spot this and add a "*" entry to their DNS table...
I'm sure I don't have to tell you what happened next...
If it was made mandatory for all pr0n sites to go under.xxx or.sex I think it would be much better. First of all it would be very easy to prevent access by kids. Second it would be easier for pervs to find porn, making porn sites more money. And there wont be a chance of a kid not being able to go to a kid's site.
The problem is that there is lots of content that some people (christian right) would find "objectionable" for children, and a lot of it isn't pr0n. The classic example is that of renaissance nude paintings, which always get picked up by the "naked people finder" filter programs and will probably be banned from.kids.us as "smut" even though they are obviously art. For that matter, do you want to force every site that mentions human reproductivity into a pr0n domain, just because some "anti-smut" campaigners don't want their children to know that babies aren't delivered by the stork?
(cf the ridiculous controversy about a "burka" being forced on that statue of justice)
Obvious this poster doesn't read the New York Times, watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US, which has a long history of critizing presidents during war - especially republican presidents.
After 2001/09/11, it took the "hawks" mere hours to come out on TV and go "hey, let's bomb Iraq, because, ummm, we can". I didn't see anyone criticising them at the time. It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers". Off the top of my head, have a
link.
Earle delivered a snarling treatise on the sidelining of the American ideal by blinkered greed. The song was duly grafted on to the film's closing credits - until the after-effects of September 11 began to emerge. "He [Cassavetes] finally admitted that the film's distributors had decided that it was too critical of the Bush administration," says Earle. "They couldn't include it in the film in this political climate. 'While we're at war' is what they said."
OK, "art media" rather than politics, but you get the idea. Don't say anything that criticises TPTB.
And no, not living in the US, I don't "watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US". The only instance of such things I see is the NYT, which wasn't always as anti-bush as it is now, and CNN, which is devoid of journalism anyway, preferring pointless interviews with people who have nothing to say or don't want to say anything, and parroting press releases.
The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.
Is that so? Maybe you should tell the people who compiled the report. I was quoting the passage to point out why these people thought the US had a poor record on press freedom, not to make a point.
So German press reports [slashdot.org] that Germany has a freer press than USA. Then we get an article about their censorship.
And if you read the original
article (by a french, not german outfit BTW), you will read that:
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings."
No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.
Frankly I find it rather interesting that Germany is censoring and banning pro-Nazi sites and literature that it doesn't agree with. Gee, sounds rather familiar to a Germany of the past...
Very true. The problem that Germany has, though, is that whenever some neo-nazi skinheads or right-wing politicians make headlines in Germany, the entire world points the finger and goes "nasty germans"! Whereas e.g. in the USA the whole "white power" crowd goes pretty much unmolested, and nationalist rhetoric is considered standard rather than offensive.
Because of its past, Germany does live under the microscope in that sense and it sometimes makes Germans a bit hyper-sensitive, and excesses (such as the (IMHO extremely stupid and counter-productive) law that denying the holocaust happened is an offense) do happen.
And if your reading a page with links you dont want to click, lets say to a picture of a man stretching his balloon knot open, then they'll be cached for you and swallow up more and more system resources. nice!
That's a fair point - there is potential for abusem since the web page decides which "hints" to issue. Hopefully it'll eventually have an "enable prefetching for these sites"-type access control, similarly to the way it's done with cookies. Or a limit on the amount of data to prefetch.
Slashdot Mirror
Duke Nukem forever "almost" ready!
Linux 2.6 "almost" ready!
The kids that run amok in school playgrounds (columbine, yada) tend to have very good aim...
(Of course, we know CS is to blame for that, right?)
Nope.
pardoned != exonerated
pardoned == forgiven
Pardoning someone for a crime implies you think they are guilty of it.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a flock of african swallows with DAT tapes tied to their feet.
And they want to make sure they make a killing until then. Just like farmers make more money when food is scarce, oil companies will profit immensely if there is an energy crisis. OTOH, a gradual, smoothly managed transition will just bring extra costs for the new infrastructure needed for different energy sources, with no extra profit to be squeezed out.
Capitalism is un-christian, and inherently sinful.
No, really, it is. There is no rational way that anyone can reconcile christianity with capitalism. Remember, usury (paying or receiving interest) is a sin, whereas the whole principle of capitalism is based upon money (capital) being a tradeable 'good' like any other resource, which is paid for in interest.
But then again, most christians probably can't reconcile christianity with their own beliefs (that they actually live by rather than profess). The same probably goes for other religions.
YET
Give them another 50 years and they'll get all excited about "DC alzheimer cures".
F@H rocks.
And this is where it falls down. The **AA don't actually mind (much) if you give out a key to your friends and give them copies of your stuff. It's just like taping a CD for a friend - it doesn't achieve the kind of critical mass that actually cuts into their profit margins. Only anonymous access does that.
What you're proposing is not really any different from putting your MP3s etc onto an SCP server and emailing the password to your friends (but only them). Technically illegal, but small fry.
look here.
Yeah, and who cares about stability anyway?
I don't even want to think about sim-goatse-guy...
By "pref removed" I meant the check box in the prefs dialogue. Sure, you can still do it the other way, but it's less convenient (say, if you want to activate them as a one-off).
which is why you should use mozilla (1.2 latest (pre-release) works fine for me), and not netscape.
NS6/7 is just mozilla with AOL crap attached to it and the "disable popups" pref removed - 'cos AOL doesn't like its lusers to be able to turn off popups.
You argued with the principal out of principle?
Hmm, let's try this. If they were paying for the movies they would be downloading less, unless they had infinite $$$? As far as I can see, the only conceivable way anyone would be constantly maxing out the bandwidth they had available is if they are pira^H^H^H^Hsharing files.
Your example is the most idiotic use of logic I've seen in a long time.
<example>Hmmm, my ISP connection has been crap lately. I wonder if it has anything to do with other people on the same ISP downloading pr0n/mp3s/warez all day and using up the bandwidth?</example>
Same thing, no?
even more OT, but it has to be done... A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling by Mark Twain For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
But if libraries are required to install filtering software, which the "ant-smut" brigade people are calling for, you will no longer be able to look up websites on renaissance paintings on library computers...
The question of where art stops and porn starts is not trivial at all. For example, in the UK there has been a fair bit of controversy about awarding certificates to movies that feature graphic sex scenes, and a turner prize exhibit that is just a synopsis of a porn movie[1]. Where do you draw the line between nudity and/or sex in the name or art and porn? (Obviously this isn't directly related to the kids.us domain, it's just an example of how you can't neatly divide all nudity into "art" and "porn" with no grey areas)
[1] There's a very funny article about that exhibit from a porn actor's point of view here.
The URL was "www.canda.boys.com"
it didn't take long for the rightful owners of boys.com to spot this and add a "*" entry to their DNS table...
I'm sure I don't have to tell you what happened next...
The problem is that there is lots of content that some people (christian right) would find "objectionable" for children, and a lot of it isn't pr0n. The classic example is that of renaissance nude paintings, which always get picked up by the "naked people finder" filter programs and will probably be banned from .kids.us as "smut" even though they are obviously art. For that matter, do you want to force every site that mentions human reproductivity into a pr0n domain, just because some "anti-smut" campaigners don't want their children to know that babies aren't delivered by the stork?
(cf the ridiculous controversy about a "burka" being forced on that statue of justice)
After 2001/09/11, it took the "hawks" mere hours to come out on TV and go "hey, let's bomb Iraq, because, ummm, we can". I didn't see anyone criticising them at the time. It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers". Off the top of my head, have a link.
Earle delivered a snarling treatise on the sidelining of the American ideal by blinkered greed. The song was duly grafted on to the film's closing credits - until the after-effects of September 11 began to emerge. "He [Cassavetes] finally admitted that the film's distributors had decided that it was too critical of the Bush administration," says Earle. "They couldn't include it in the film in this political climate. 'While we're at war' is what they said."
OK, "art media" rather than politics, but you get the idea. Don't say anything that criticises TPTB.
And no, not living in the US, I don't "watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US". The only instance of such things I see is the NYT, which wasn't always as anti-bush as it is now, and CNN, which is devoid of journalism anyway, preferring pointless interviews with people who have nothing to say or don't want to say anything, and parroting press releases.
The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.
Is that so? Maybe you should tell the people who compiled the report. I was quoting the passage to point out why these people thought the US had a poor record on press freedom, not to make a point.
And if you read the original article (by a french, not german outfit BTW), you will read that:
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings."
No mention of actual censorship. Although the american media has a reputation for being good at self-censorship, i.e. 'don't criticise the president while we're "at war"' and all that.
Very true. The problem that Germany has, though, is that whenever some neo-nazi skinheads or right-wing politicians make headlines in Germany, the entire world points the finger and goes "nasty germans"! Whereas e.g. in the USA the whole "white power" crowd goes pretty much unmolested, and nationalist rhetoric is considered standard rather than offensive.
Because of its past, Germany does live under the microscope in that sense and it sometimes makes Germans a bit hyper-sensitive, and excesses (such as the (IMHO extremely stupid and counter-productive) law that denying the holocaust happened is an offense) do happen.
That's a fair point - there is potential for abusem since the web page decides which "hints" to issue. Hopefully it'll eventually have an "enable prefetching for these sites"-type access control, similarly to the way it's done with cookies. Or a limit on the amount of data to prefetch.