Ah, so because it's private the science behind it is automatically invalidated?
Not necessarily. But a roofer always thinks it's worth doing work on people's roofs. Because that's how they get paid. If you pay people by the medical procedure, don't be surprised if they tend to find medical procedures a good idea.
I'm not aware of any medical practitioners anywhere else in the world recommending circumcision. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they do in Israel.
It was built for the military and the universities. But at some point they let you on it. And at the same time they let you on it, they let all other civilians on it, including children.
Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard
As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.
I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection
As I also pointed out, a net nanny on a PC isn't enough. Even if the kids can't find their way around it, they have consoles, smartphones, their friends houses, free wifi all over the place.
Same as the USA did two hundred and odd years ago.
And if the USA hadn't done that. If they'd been independent states, they'd never have become a world superpower. So much as it's very fashionable theses days to be libertarian and hate the federal government, you Americans wouldn't have had the success you have had without it.
Indeed, I've always thought the US fad of circumcision is barbaric. I can't understand it at all. The Jews have a religious tradition, but what's the excuse for the rest of the parents? "It's traditional in the USA so it's OK?"
Most people accept that children should't see pornography. Square that circle with the internet allowing unrestricted access to porn. Without saying "it's the parents responsibility". Most parents don't have the ability to restrict what their children see on the internet. A net nanny on the home computer isn't enough.
There's no good answers here. And thinking censorship is never justified is just as bad an answer as the rest.
If you had claimed I was a Libertarian (a supporter of, if not necessarily a member of, the Libertarian Party of the United States), you would have been correct. And I tried to tell you that, but you didn't listen. Instead, you have now insisted twice that I am a "libertarian", and that's just wrong.
You're an idiot is what you are. As if being a Libertarian wasn't enough evidence you are a libertarian, all the political crap you spout on slashdot is absolutely libertarian. Who are you lying to, yourself? Because no one else is buying it. You are a libertarian.
Why have marriage at all is another discussion. But whilst there is a state sanctioned thing as marriage, then there should be no discrimination about what couples may take part in it.
As I say, that's a trick of the mind. It says more about you and your propensity to believe that for which there is no evidence than it does about Dawkins.
Windows is still the most popular desktop OS and IE is still installed on virtually all the Windows machines, so IE may be the minority browser in use but it still has one of the largest installed bases.
Not so. Smartphones now outnumber PCs. And nearly all of them are WebKit.
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
I'm not saying that the time for the remedy is definitely over. Windows market share for PCs is still dangerously high. But it's on the wane, and if it's not past time for the remedy yet, it soon will be.
This was done under EU anti-monopoly legislation. Microsoft was at the time judged to have a monopoly share of the PC OS market. And as such they couldn't use that monopoly to leverage advantage into the web browser market.
Since neither Google nor Apple have monopoly shares in any OS platform, they should not and cannot be required to do this.
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
Who ever said fines were supposed to be proportional to perceived severity of crime? Especially across different judicial systems.
Fines need to take account of ability to pay. And they also need to be designed to be of a size that will stop reoffending. GIven that Microsoft have reoffended, that's a good indication that the original fine wasn't big enough.
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Sure. But starting new projects, even when one exists; forking existing ones on a whim; the whole "yet another" naming convention; the idolisation of choice. These are all OSS ideals.
It's only recently when Linux and Android enthusiasts have come to realise that those things aren't necessarily a good idea. That the flip side of choice and unmanaged development is fragmentation.
And then they blame it on a person that did follow those original ideals, and contributed some of the best known software to OSS. Seems a bit capricious.
Pardon me. I admit that I mis-wrote. Such a law does exist. BUT... I challenge you to find any Constitutional authority for it.
Moving the goal posts because you couldn't hit the one you originally set yourself?
And nobody is impressed by your disdain for Libertarians.
It's not about impressing. I have disdain for libertarians and I will display it.
And that's capital "L", by the way, not lower-case. There is a difference. Or were you too "ignorant" to know that?
You're being ignorant again. A democrat is someone who believes in democracy. A Democrat is someone who belongs to the Democratic party. I was referring to libertarians (those who believe in libertarianism), not Libertarians (those who belong to the Libertarian Party).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so because it's private the science behind it is automatically invalidated?
Not necessarily. But a roofer always thinks it's worth doing work on people's roofs. Because that's how they get paid. If you pay people by the medical procedure, don't be surprised if they tend to find medical procedures a good idea.
I'm not aware of any medical practitioners anywhere else in the world recommending circumcision. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they do in Israel.
Ok, who ever said that life was FAIR?
Right, so if life isn't fair, why do we have to make sure you can access porn on the internet?
Are you a parent?
For OS X it still is customizable. It won't be for long, though.
How many years have you been claiming that now? Longer than "The Year of Linux"?
Well that's what you get with a private healthcare system.
And libertarians and child pornographers are in agreement that an unrestricted internet will make the world better.
See how stupid it is to associate people based on one particular thing they agree on?
The internet wasn't built for children.
It was built for the military and the universities. But at some point they let you on it. And at the same time they let you on it, they let all other civilians on it, including children.
Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard
As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.
I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection
As I also pointed out, a net nanny on a PC isn't enough. Even if the kids can't find their way around it, they have consoles, smartphones, their friends houses, free wifi all over the place.
Same as the USA did two hundred and odd years ago.
And if the USA hadn't done that. If they'd been independent states, they'd never have become a world superpower. So much as it's very fashionable theses days to be libertarian and hate the federal government, you Americans wouldn't have had the success you have had without it.
Indeed, I've always thought the US fad of circumcision is barbaric. I can't understand it at all. The Jews have a religious tradition, but what's the excuse for the rest of the parents? "It's traditional in the USA so it's OK?"
Most people accept that children should't see pornography. Square that circle with the internet allowing unrestricted access to porn. Without saying "it's the parents responsibility". Most parents don't have the ability to restrict what their children see on the internet. A net nanny on the home computer isn't enough.
There's no good answers here. And thinking censorship is never justified is just as bad an answer as the rest.
I misspoke. I meant they are the clearly ahead in market share.
But your estimate of IE & Firefox combined is way over what it should be. Sources vary, but IE is typically around 30% and Firefox 20%.
If you had claimed I was a Libertarian (a supporter of, if not necessarily a member of, the Libertarian Party of the United States), you would have been correct. And I tried to tell you that, but you didn't listen. Instead, you have now insisted twice that I am a "libertarian", and that's just wrong.
You're an idiot is what you are. As if being a Libertarian wasn't enough evidence you are a libertarian, all the political crap you spout on slashdot is absolutely libertarian. Who are you lying to, yourself? Because no one else is buying it. You are a libertarian.
No need to since we already have browser stats that show more browsing is done with WebKit than IE.
Why have marriage at all is another discussion. But whilst there is a state sanctioned thing as marriage, then there should be no discrimination about what couples may take part in it.
"seems like"?
As I say, that's a trick of the mind. It says more about you and your propensity to believe that for which there is no evidence than it does about Dawkins.
"Even as a Microsoft hater of old..."
I find this to be very unlikely.
Well that makes a change from being accused of being an Apple fanboy I suppose.
If some computer's are setup, or don't supply the keys necessary to run Linux, then don't buy that PC.
If ever it comes to there being no PCs that Linux can be loaded on, that'll be because there's no market for them.
Windows is still the most popular desktop OS and IE is still installed on virtually all the Windows machines, so IE may be the minority browser in use but it still has one of the largest installed bases.
Not so. Smartphones now outnumber PCs. And nearly all of them are WebKit.
If you think MS is not doing anything anti-monopoly, I'd like to remind you of the UEFI BIOS issue.
What issue? OSX also uses UEFI. So there's no monopoly there. That the OSS community don't like UEFI does not make it a monopoly issue.
*Plus*, just because a remedy is no longer necessary does not mean it shouldn't still happen. That's the nature of punishments.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
I'm not saying that the time for the remedy is definitely over. Windows market share for PCs is still dangerously high. But it's on the wane, and if it's not past time for the remedy yet, it soon will be.
This was done under EU anti-monopoly legislation. Microsoft was at the time judged to have a monopoly share of the PC OS market. And as such they couldn't use that monopoly to leverage advantage into the web browser market.
Since neither Google nor Apple have monopoly shares in any OS platform, they should not and cannot be required to do this.
One could argue that since Microsoft Windows is now on the slide, and WebKit based browsers are now the market leader, that the anti-monopoly action against Microsoft is no longer necessary. However that is for a court to decide. Not for Microsoft to simply disregard their obligation.
Who ever said fines were supposed to be proportional to perceived severity of crime? Especially across different judicial systems.
Fines need to take account of ability to pay. And they also need to be designed to be of a size that will stop reoffending. GIven that Microsoft have reoffended, that's a good indication that the original fine wasn't big enough.
Even as a Microsoft hater of old, I'm beginning to feel sorry for MS. For sure, 15 years ago they were engaged in monopoly abuse to advantage IE. But these days, IE itself is on the way out. WebKit based browsers are the clear majority these days. And neither Apple nor Google have to offer users of their systems a choice of browser.
It must really rub salt in the wound to have a statutory obligation to offer alternatives to their minority browser.
Sure. But starting new projects, even when one exists; forking existing ones on a whim; the whole "yet another" naming convention; the idolisation of choice. These are all OSS ideals.
It's only recently when Linux and Android enthusiasts have come to realise that those things aren't necessarily a good idea. That the flip side of choice and unmanaged development is fragmentation.
And then they blame it on a person that did follow those original ideals, and contributed some of the best known software to OSS. Seems a bit capricious.
Pardon me. I admit that I mis-wrote. Such a law does exist. BUT... I challenge you to find any Constitutional authority for it.
Moving the goal posts because you couldn't hit the one you originally set yourself?
And nobody is impressed by your disdain for Libertarians.
It's not about impressing. I have disdain for libertarians and I will display it.
And that's capital "L", by the way, not lower-case. There is a difference. Or were you too "ignorant" to know that?
You're being ignorant again. A democrat is someone who believes in democracy. A Democrat is someone who belongs to the Democratic party. I was referring to libertarians (those who believe in libertarianism), not Libertarians (those who belong to the Libertarian Party).