No, what I said was (and I quote) "most censorship does more harm than good." Note the word "most".
Apologies -- my bad.
However, my point stands. Information needs to be throttled back (to borrow a phrase from another poster), especially for younger children. The older the kid (and depending on the kid's temperament), the less throttling required. Is it the governments place to determine how much throttling is required? Absolutely not. Is that what this bill does? Absolutely not.
There tends to be far more consensus on what is appropriate for younger kids; for that reason, the kids.us domain is likely to be equivalent to a G-rated movie, assuming it doesn't turn into a McDisney dominated marketing morass (another distinct, unfortunate possibility). The latter is actually my major concern as far as content goes.
I am well aware that "sheltering a child from all 'bad things' is impossible", but that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. I am not claiming that porn "builds character", nor am I claiming that we should go out of our way to show it to children, but a fact of life is that they will see it -- with or without the internet. By pretending that we can corral children into a "safe" area, we would actually be providing a false sense of security.
No -- what you appeared to be claiming (unless I misunderstood the post) was that all censorship was always bad in all cases. This is flatly untrue.
To be a parent is to live in a perpetual state of insecurity. The bill in question does not appear be an attempt to provide a blanket sense of security to anyone. What it does provide is a tool, at minimal cost and intrusiveness, for those parents who whish to avial themselves of it. Don't think it's appropriate? Don't use it.
That is the point, people are relying on the government to raise their children. No one, other than the parents themselves, should decide what is "kid-friendly" or appropriate for their child.
Providing tool != "government raising your children". Can you really not distinguish the difference between these two things? Obviously, this is no substitute for parental oversight -- but then nobody is claiming otherwise.
Moreover, Congress is not deciding what is "appropriate for all children". They are deciding what is appropriate for inclusion in a domain which, as a parent, I am free to use or ignore. The key phrase here is "free to ignore".
Can you honestly say that everything that you believe is alright for your kids to see, is the same as what your next-door neighbor believes is alright for his/her children to see?
Of course not. But then that's irrelevant to your argument. It would be relevant only if my neighbor were forced to adhere to my standards or visa versa. It might also be relevant if the Senate bill would incur massive taxpayer costs. However this does not appear to be the case.
In fact, I suspect that the kids.us domain contents will probably skew toward younger children. For my older kid, it'll probably be too restrictive and won't be used. In any case, whether my neighbor and I share the same standards (and you'd be surprised to what extent standards tend to be shared, especially regarding younger children) is entirely beside the point.
As I mentioned earlier, this bill should be supported for the simple reason that it potentially heads off truly onerous legislation. Being fetishistic about free speech doesn't help matters here; in politics it is generally wise to choose your battles with great care.
Parents need to realize that the Internet is not some evil place trying to take their children away. There is no way that someone can come out of the computer screen and snatch your child away. If your child is stupid enough to go and meet someone in the real world just because some text on a screen told them too, then you have bigger problems as a parent. This is no different than someone pulling up in a van, and offering your kid candy, except that the person on the other end has no way to physically grab and take the child.
This is really pretty condescending. Most of us who have children understand this. The real issue is that there is quite a bit on the net that children may encounter that they just aren't ready for. Only a few folks have real fears of actual physical harm befalling a child as a result of surfing the web. Most of us would just like our children to have an actual childhood, however brief.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
Censorship is a bad thing only when foisted on adults. I think, however, that you are going to have a pretty hard time making the case that keeping a 7 year-old from accidentally encountering www.fursuitsex.com is a bad thing.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If you have ever raised children, you would understand that sheltering a child from all "bad things" is impossible. Few parents are attempting to do this. While I'm all for porn and violence, let's not pretend that it somehow builds character and prepares you for life -- it doesn't.
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
Nobody is relying on the government to raise their children. All this bill does is attempt to create a limited, safe space. It does so without foisting draconian censorship on the rest of us and reducing the Internet to the lowest "kid-friendly" denominator.
More importantly, the creation of such a safe space strengthens the hands (politically) of those who oppose broader censorship laws, such as COPA and its ilk, since it essentially takes away the "but we must protect the children " argument. This is a good thing.
The easiest way is to stick a sniffer on the output side. Get a decent IDS system, capture and obstruct any suspicious looking packets, and there you go.
Exactly! You could use something like tcpdump, for instance. Oh, wait...
You're correct -- this is total bullshit. In fact, I think NDIS intermediate drivers have been around for longer than win2k.
Having said that, they're a pain in the ass to write. There's quite a dearth of information on this type of driver, which means you have to rely a lot on MS sample code -- never a good thing IMHO.
I'm not sure how having the source would remedy that, though.
There's also some kind of IP stack hook independent of MS made specifically for this type of thing. Last I checked, though, it could only be hooked by a single caller.
The oilrigs in the north sea simply send electrical signals trough the drilling residues. Off course thise residues contain a lot of water.
I gather this is incredibly slow, however. I recall that the speeds achieved are something on the order of 24 bits/second (that's bits, not kb). I think there was an article recently (mebbe IEEE times, I can't remember right now) about actually using an acoustic system to boost data rates.
I'm no expert, but how practical is it to lay radio relays along the depth of the hole?
My understanding is that in the (terrestrial) drilling industry, telemetry from the bottom of a borehole is a major problem, with RF being pretty much unworkable -- I assume because of the amount of ferrous material in the borehole itself. Anybody out there who works in oil exploration care to comment?
If they're serious, they're going to be checking logs. If they're REALLY serious, they'll check your machine periodically for unapproved software.
I've worked plenty of places where IS and IS only were allowed to install ANY software. Even though most of us were developers with years of experience, unauthorized installation of anything was potentially grounds for termination.
You'll be blinded, which will make you easy pickin's for the man-eating plants that will have sprouted by next morning. I mean, geez, doesn't anyone else here watch science documentaries?
Top countries looking on Linux with favor:
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Among those aware, favorability was highest among the Germans, French, and Brazilians
Yes -- it will also add inches to your penis and bring instant riches.
My point is merely that two devices shouldn't interfere with one another. And -- assuming that the two devices have different addresses -- yes, each mouse should talk to its designated node, although this may depend on how Logitech actually implements the device and drivers.
Bluetooth should handle this automagically. It's not just a remote control protocol, it's really more of a short-range networking protocol which assumes multiple nodes in close proximity.
One often-overlooked part of a battery-operated device is the design of the battery compartment door. On most devices, the door is secured at only one point. Invariably, that part of the device breaks and one is forced to resort to other methods of keeping the batteries secured.
"Other methods" indeed. What the hell to these people have against duct tape? It's both stylish AND waterproof! No real geek should ever be without at least three rolls.
It should probably be mentioned that LOT's of commercial RTOS's provide source. For a lot of applications this is pretty much a requirement. The real distinction here is the royalty-free license, although RT-Linux (which I know almost nothing about) obviously doesn't require royalties.
...a move that critics complained could make the group indifferent to ordinary users and hurt innovation.
Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...
Not to argue from a position of authority -- for that would be wrong, horribly wrong -- but I am a Super-Dooper Gold Plus Pro consultant, which implies that you may as well stop reading right now because I am bound by the laws of basic physics to be correct. However, although any explanation is really wasted, I will go further than merely pointing out that you are wrong:
Despite some code I've perused in the past, coding is not really a semi-skilled profession like, say, fry cook.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, offsite contractors are notoriously difficult to work with, even when not overseas. I have seen many of them fired mid-project. This is particularly true when ISVs make the mistake of outsourcing in this way. Ultimately this is because offsite contractors -- particularly larger houses -- tend to have massively different priorities than those who hire them, and are in general in a position to act on those priorities. Not all of my experiences with outsourcing have been bad, but most have.
Anyone who has been downsized recently can testify that there are really few barriers to lightening staff load. Furthermore, even individual firings for nonperformance are really a pretty simple matter, provided such basic measures as periodic performance reviews were implemented by an employer. While anyone can sue for any reason, few of these suits ever get very far. The sole exception would be the civil service.
Finally, of all the industrialized countries on the planet, the US is likely close to the bottom of the list for government-mandated benefits.
Again, bear in mind that I am a Super-Dooper Gold Plus Pro consultant; thus any rebuttal is futile.
What would be nifty would be the ability to transfer telemarketing calls to a little black box that, upon detecting a pause on on the part of the speaker, says a short, encouraging phrase, like "Tell me more!", "Sounds interesting?", "How do I sign up?", "Do you take credit cards?", "Hold on a sec.", etc. The idea would be to keep the caller on the line for as long as possible. Also useful for in-laws, bill collectors, etc. I shall draw up a patent application forthwith.
Verizon spokeswoman Catherine Lewis says the company isn't playing telemarketers and consumers against each other.
"I don't think it's a case of we should pick one side over the other," she said. "We do serve both sides."
So... she's actually saying that Verizon does play telemarketers and consumers agianst each other, but not in a bad way? Huh? I think a little downsizing is way past due in Verizon's PR dept...
On a slightly unrelated note, I've noticed that I've continually had problems with CPU fans (usually of the cheaper variety) dying a fairly early death. However, even on the cheapest of PSUs this has never been an issue for me. Does this jibe with anyone else's experience? If so, why might this be the case? Does the smaller CPU fan size somehow increase the expense of providing decent bearings?
1) Make sure Google is faced with the possibility that it might have to reveal the details of its page ranking algorithm in open court. Might make for a quick settlement.
2) Quick publicity for Search King! They consider themselves a publicity company, after all.
Makes perfect sense to me, especially if you can get an attorney willing to take the gamble. Given the current glut of attorneys, this wouldn't seem to be much of an obstacle.
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies -- my bad.
However, my point stands. Information needs to be throttled back (to borrow a phrase from another poster), especially for younger children. The older the kid (and depending on the kid's temperament), the less throttling required. Is it the governments place to determine how much throttling is required? Absolutely not. Is that what this bill does? Absolutely not.
There tends to be far more consensus on what is appropriate for younger kids; for that reason, the kids.us domain is likely to be equivalent to a G-rated movie, assuming it doesn't turn into a McDisney dominated marketing morass (another distinct, unfortunate possibility). The latter is actually my major concern as far as content goes.
No -- what you appeared to be claiming (unless I misunderstood the post) was that all censorship was always bad in all cases. This is flatly untrue.
To be a parent is to live in a perpetual state of insecurity. The bill in question does not appear be an attempt to provide a blanket sense of security to anyone. What it does provide is a tool, at minimal cost and intrusiveness, for those parents who whish to avial themselves of it. Don't think it's appropriate? Don't use it.
That is the point, people are relying on the government to raise their children. No one, other than the parents themselves, should decide what is "kid-friendly" or appropriate for their child.
Providing tool != "government raising your children". Can you really not distinguish the difference between these two things? Obviously, this is no substitute for parental oversight -- but then nobody is claiming otherwise.
Moreover, Congress is not deciding what is "appropriate for all children". They are deciding what is appropriate for inclusion in a domain which, as a parent, I am free to use or ignore. The key phrase here is "free to ignore".
Can you honestly say that everything that you believe is alright for your kids to see, is the same as what your next-door neighbor believes is alright for his/her children to see?
Of course not. But then that's irrelevant to your argument. It would be relevant only if my neighbor were forced to adhere to my standards or visa versa. It might also be relevant if the Senate bill would incur massive taxpayer costs. However this does not appear to be the case.
In fact, I suspect that the kids.us domain contents will probably skew toward younger children. For my older kid, it'll probably be too restrictive and won't be used. In any case, whether my neighbor and I share the same standards (and you'd be surprised to what extent standards tend to be shared, especially regarding younger children) is entirely beside the point.
As I mentioned earlier, this bill should be supported for the simple reason that it potentially heads off truly onerous legislation. Being fetishistic about free speech doesn't help matters here; in politics it is generally wise to choose your battles with great care.
This is really pretty condescending. Most of us who have children understand this. The real issue is that there is quite a bit on the net that children may encounter that they just aren't ready for. Only a few folks have real fears of actual physical harm befalling a child as a result of surfing the web. Most of us would just like our children to have an actual childhood, however brief.
People need to realize that most censorship does more harm than good. Every attempt to provide a list of "good" and "bad" sites has failed, and will always fail, because "good" and "bad" are purely subjective.
Censorship is a bad thing only when foisted on adults. I think, however, that you are going to have a pretty hard time making the case that keeping a 7 year-old from accidentally encountering www.fursuitsex.com is a bad thing.
People need to stop raising such gullible children, The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them. If a child is brought up, and hasn't ever seen "bad" in his/her life, then (s)he will be ill-prepared to function in our world.
If you have ever raised children, you would understand that sheltering a child from all "bad things" is impossible. Few parents are attempting to do this. While I'm all for porn and violence, let's not pretend that it somehow builds character and prepares you for life -- it doesn't.
While we would all like for the world to be a place where everyone is happy, and protected, that is simply not the case. You have to look out for your own -- you can't rely on some (government, company, whatever) to raise your children for you.
Nobody is relying on the government to raise their children. All this bill does is attempt to create a limited, safe space. It does so without foisting draconian censorship on the rest of us and reducing the Internet to the lowest "kid-friendly" denominator.
More importantly, the creation of such a safe space strengthens the hands (politically) of those who oppose broader censorship laws, such as COPA and its ilk, since it essentially takes away the "but we must protect the children " argument. This is a good thing.
Exactly! You could use something like tcpdump, for instance. Oh, wait...
Having said that, they're a pain in the ass to write. There's quite a dearth of information on this type of driver, which means you have to rely a lot on MS sample code -- never a good thing IMHO. I'm not sure how having the source would remedy that, though.
There's also some kind of IP stack hook independent of MS made specifically for this type of thing. Last I checked, though, it could only be hooked by a single caller.
To be more specific, government researchers have incontrovertible proof that my penchant for bean burritos caused the last two El Ninos...
I gather this is incredibly slow, however. I recall that the speeds achieved are something on the order of 24 bits/second (that's bits, not kb). I think there was an article recently (mebbe IEEE times, I can't remember right now) about actually using an acoustic system to boost data rates.
My understanding is that in the (terrestrial) drilling industry, telemetry from the bottom of a borehole is a major problem, with RF being pretty much unworkable -- I assume because of the amount of ferrous material in the borehole itself. Anybody out there who works in oil exploration care to comment?
I've worked plenty of places where IS and IS only were allowed to install ANY software. Even though most of us were developers with years of experience, unauthorized installation of anything was potentially grounds for termination.
Ok -- That site was funny enough that I actually soiled myself.
When will this end? Can I look forward to a Clutch Cargo channel in the near future? All Clutch! All the time!
You'll be blinded, which will make you easy pickin's for the man-eating plants that will have sprouted by next morning. I mean, geez, doesn't anyone else here watch science documentaries?
What? No Finns? How terribly unpatriotic of them!
My point is merely that two devices shouldn't interfere with one another. And -- assuming that the two devices have different addresses -- yes, each mouse should talk to its designated node, although this may depend on how Logitech actually implements the device and drivers.
Bluetooth should handle this automagically. It's not just a remote control protocol, it's really more of a short-range networking protocol which assumes multiple nodes in close proximity.
"Other methods" indeed. What the hell to these people have against duct tape? It's both stylish AND waterproof! No real geek should ever be without at least three rolls.
Probably cache -- NASA uses it.
It should probably be mentioned that LOT's of commercial RTOS's provide source. For a lot of applications this is pretty much a requirement. The real distinction here is the royalty-free license, although RT-Linux (which I know almost nothing about) obviously doesn't require royalties.
Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...
Not to argue from a position of authority -- for that would be wrong, horribly wrong -- but I am a Super-Dooper Gold Plus Pro consultant, which implies that you may as well stop reading right now because I am bound by the laws of basic physics to be correct. However, although any explanation is really wasted, I will go further than merely pointing out that you are wrong:
Despite some code I've perused in the past, coding is not really a semi-skilled profession like, say, fry cook.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, offsite contractors are notoriously difficult to work with, even when not overseas. I have seen many of them fired mid-project. This is particularly true when ISVs make the mistake of outsourcing in this way. Ultimately this is because offsite contractors -- particularly larger houses -- tend to have massively different priorities than those who hire them, and are in general in a position to act on those priorities. Not all of my experiences with outsourcing have been bad, but most have.
Anyone who has been downsized recently can testify that there are really few barriers to lightening staff load. Furthermore, even individual firings for nonperformance are really a pretty simple matter, provided such basic measures as periodic performance reviews were implemented by an employer. While anyone can sue for any reason, few of these suits ever get very far. The sole exception would be the civil service.
Finally, of all the industrialized countries on the planet, the US is likely close to the bottom of the list for government-mandated benefits.
Again, bear in mind that I am a Super-Dooper Gold Plus Pro consultant; thus any rebuttal is futile.
What would be nifty would be the ability to transfer telemarketing calls to a little black box that, upon detecting a pause on on the part of the speaker, says a short, encouraging phrase, like "Tell me more!", "Sounds interesting?", "How do I sign up?", "Do you take credit cards?", "Hold on a sec.", etc. The idea would be to keep the caller on the line for as long as possible. Also useful for in-laws, bill collectors, etc. I shall draw up a patent application forthwith.
"I don't think it's a case of we should pick one side over the other," she said. "We do serve both sides."
So... she's actually saying that Verizon does play telemarketers and consumers agianst each other, but not in a bad way? Huh? I think a little downsizing is way past due in Verizon's PR dept...
Fold up and edible! I could watch Beverly Hillbillies reruns on a bean burrito! Play Quake on a Hot Pocket! Quick -- somebody get me a DARPA grant...
On a slightly unrelated note, I've noticed that I've continually had problems with CPU fans (usually of the cheaper variety) dying a fairly early death. However, even on the cheapest of PSUs this has never been an issue for me. Does this jibe with anyone else's experience? If so, why might this be the case? Does the smaller CPU fan size somehow increase the expense of providing decent bearings?
1) Make sure Google is faced with the possibility that it might have to reveal the details of its page ranking algorithm in open court. Might make for a quick settlement.
2) Quick publicity for Search King! They consider themselves a publicity company, after all.
Makes perfect sense to me, especially if you can get an attorney willing to take the gamble. Given the current glut of attorneys, this wouldn't seem to be much of an obstacle.