Re:Do they have a strategy behind this?
on
Google Hires Vint Cerf
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Do they have a strategy behind this?
Of course -- to make money for their investors.
Or are they merely collecting people and figuring out what to do with them later? From the outside looking in, it sure seems like the latter.
Google has always been fairly secretive about their dealings, even after they went public -- it's just that now they are releasing stuff a lot sooner than they were in the past.
Yeah, I'm sure that they are "just collecting" people but I have a feeling that they are being put to good use. Dodgeball (one of the collected items) is likely going to be put to excellent use for business reviews and frequency of visits -- especially when they figure out a way to tie it to everything else.
If you haven't seen their recent additions of Google Maps showing locations of you, and your friends' check-ins, I suggest that you do that.
The possibilities are scary.
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It looks like these days, that Microsoft is getting a little scared of the Open Source movement... especially having to share how their server software's communication protocols work. Information of this nature is easily available in the Linux community, yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.
These days? I see by your UID that you've not been around on Slashdot all that long (at least w/your current username) but Microsoft has been fearing OSS for years. This is no new development.
Of course they are keeping tight controls on their communications protocols (they always did - SMB). They were never about to open their document formats or networking protocols to the public. Why should they? Their software is only marginally better than any other alternative out there -- it's just that they are the ones that interoperate with it the best because it's their format!
It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...
Welcome to 1998. This is exactly the rhetoric being tossed around then. We then moved to Linux taking over the desktop. It's 2005. While I see significant strides on both sides of that coin I don't see us "taking over the market" in either.
Windows will likely always exist. Linux will always be there as well but they certainly won't amass the domination that Microsoft has now.
You seem to think in terms of "the Patriot act is evil", without any depth of understanding of the trade off between freedom and security, and the fact that historically these sort of ebbs and flows of freedom are temporary -- and necessary.
There is to be NO trade off between freedom and security as it's completely unnecessary. Freedom is freedom! If you believe otherwise you are a "New Aged Unfree American" and unworthy of trust, liberty, or free speech.
Franklin's frequently recited quote: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They want to be angry and self righteous, and spew hatred toward Bush et al.
God, you know, what the fuck is it w/you morons? BUSH ISN'T THE PROBLEM. It's people like you -- people who believe that the issue is only political. I don't spread "hatred" towards Bush. He's certainly part of the larger problem but he's not the only part. I love the idiots, like you, that continuously believe that I am some left wing retard. I'm not. I'm a TRUE republican. One who believes in the original values of our country -- including real freedoms and not the ones that have been recently invented.
You really need to step back from your backwards and politically biased thinking and really listen to what others are telling you. Right now, you're so worthless that I'm not going to continue this discussion w/you.
I was more pointing out that it sounds like in real life you talk a lot more than you listen to the people around you, and you sound awfully arrogant.
I'd prefer to be thought of as "arrogant" than meek, worthless, and your typical impressionable sheep.
Chances are that if there is immediate disclosure, the users will have a chance to stop using the product until a patch is available. Every day until the patch is issued they should just bill the software company. That would be a great incentive to test well, code carefully and fix the problems faster.
Chances are that a) no one will stop using the unpatched software because they can't afford to or they don't care to be informed of it (how many places were pwnt by worms that had known patches months in advance?)
b) No one will indemnify their code because it wouldn't be cost effective to do so and it wouldn't stop the issue.
It would be a *great* incentive but the cost of software would go up and either people would buy software that was less money (not as well coded) and put the others out of business or they would just continue on the old path.
To be honest, I've stopped arguing with people like you, because you/want/ to believe that freedom is getting squashed, despite all evidence to the contrary. Tou say you want to "educate" (how arrogant is that?) the people around you, but perhaps you should be willing to be educated first.
Excuse me? Just because there is no *physical evidence* of freedoms being squashed does not mean it isn't happening.
Remember that a government report is the place where you found your "evidence" and that the Patriot Act itself creates its own safeguards against releasing any information about "investigations" made under its umbrella.
Oooh, you believe everything that the government tells you. Sorry, I don't even bother trying to have an intelligent debate with someone that stands idly by while they are "educated" by those that are trying to deceive them.
Maybe I'd be more willing to learn from others, like you, that were informed and made sense. Unfortunately for you, in this case at least, you are just another sheep willing to take everything that is told to you at face value.
Apple makes a very handsome profit on iPods. You don't have to fill them with iTMS songs (MP3s work just as well) but the pairing of iPod with iTunes now accounts for over a billion dollars annually in sales for Apple.
Which is why they should be less money. Wake me up when they play video and have TV-out like the Archos.
That Apple, they think of everything. Now I'm going to go back to waiting for my Dalmation iPod nano tube.
Except how to make their shit affordable. $199 for 4GB? Don't you find that a bit expensive especially when it's really meant to be an end-unit for their super successful iTMS (additional costs and perhaps even rising costs)?
Yes, it's sexy, small, and cute but 4GB doesn't do me all that much and I would constantly worry about losing it, damanging it, or out and out destroying it.
I'd love to see their breakdown of exactly how they plan to make this mission happen, and on what buget they think they're going to acheive it on. Will they use existing rocketry technology, or will they develop their own? What are the precise economic goals? Will they be relying on any other efforts (e.g. the CEV) to achieve their goals? Just how do they think they're going to get approval for nuclear propulsion? (See the Jobs page under Engineering.) Do they have any experience in these areas, or are they making it up as they go?
They are betting on the fact that people don't require any of that to give money away. They are "hiring" people for a company that is full of freedom and is pro-exploration but gives no solid foundation of how they will remain employed.
Making plastics is great and all but how do you expect to get people there and start the colony so that people can actually make these items w/the materials that are so readily available?
Update: It looks like the partly plan to make their money by building the technological infrastructure themselves. According to this document, they feel that they could be turning a $29.7 million dollar profit by 2010, 15 years before they establish their settlement! This document supposedly shows their plan of attack, but it seems so preliminary that it suggests that the company plans to make it up as they go along.
Just as I pointed out before, without actually saying it, this is very similiar to any dotcom startup in the 1990s. No true business model, no real plan, and no real company. Just a bunch of money and the web.
This is nothing more than an advertisement to gain capital.
And I don't think it could be thought of as spyware.
Spyware is supposed to be unknowingly reporting information about you, whether it was mistakenly installed by you or it crept in from somewhere else.
The typical Linux user won't think it's spyware, no, but those working to move Linux towards a larger market want to be certain that newer users don't ever confuse the two.
Unfortunately, this *could* be confused with Spyware -- especially after a cute little Microsoft funded "research" item gets posted to ZDnet or news.com.com.
Linux Kernel Includes Spyware Reporting Your Usage Habits!
And don't think for one second that any backpedaling by the kernel gurus could outsmart the Microsoft FUD team.
If I turn on my computer and don't touch it for a year, it will have excellent uptime, but it doesn't really test very much. Same too, if I just start up Apache and let it do its thing.
So? The theoretical number of users that will be doing that sort of operation should be outnumbered by those that use it for "normal, day to day operations".
In the end it would even itself out.
If they make the kernel option totally opt-in, which is the right way to go, most people won't use it and only power-users will enable the function which will end up with the results you mentioned (or will it?)
An interesting debate but at least they are willing to 100% respect the rights of their users.
Google omits controversial news stories in China 17:36 21 September 2004 NewScientist.com news service Will Knight
I realize that the Slashdot editors have recently posted duplicate content and even posted stories with linked articles from months ago but do any of us really care about an article posted nearly 1 year ago?
PS: I just remembered, according to your last post, you are on your honeymoon. Either you are a liar, or you *really* should have something better to be doing right now.
Just because some people begin their honeymoon the day after their wedding doesn't mean all people do.
Actually, a majority of Americans do want just this thing. Deal with it.
The majority of Americans are uneducated and passive sheep. As long as their Cable TV is there and they can "relax" and live out their worthless lives through people on Reality TV they are fine.
I am not. I am at least speaking out (true, I don't have a huge voice) against what I believe is wrong w/this country. I feel that everyone around me should be educated as to my personal opinions on the injustices of the world including the loss of freedoms America is suffering all in the name of Terrorism and Family Values.
I refuse to "deal with it" and instead I will continue to speak to everyone here, there, and everywhere. They may not agree 100% with what I say but there is always a small chance that someone might rethink what they are doing and finally understand that what they are supporting is NOT the best for our country.
Amazing that no matter what the topic, from pickled beets to the Internet's historic effect on children going back 15 years, you idiots can manage to bring Neocons into the topic.
It's amazing to me that people will immediately believe that I'm talking about GWB when I speak of "family values". Just another FYI, I'm not. I'm talking about ALL politicians trying to ride the conservative family values bandwagon. They include multiple left-wingers including Hilliary and Mrs. Gore.
In order to promote and increase the freedoms that we so pleasantly enjoyed since our country's inception we need to foster an environment that our children can continue to respect.
Currently, any dissenting opinions are looked down upon negatively (see your post above). For once THINK OF THE CHILDREN;)
Freedoms are slipping away and people like it. It's not appropriate (on any part of the political spectrum) and it's certainly not something a Slashdot troll should support.
Take a peek at the GameFAQs.com forums. They are frequented by youth and young adults. Notice the terrible grammar, horrible spelling, and the inability of many posters there to post coherent, sensible content. Whether this is caused by a lack of proper education, or whether it is just the nature of message boards, is questionable.
I don't need to go anywhere else. I can look right here on Slashdot. Not only do the various readers of Slashdot (myself included) have spelling and grammar mistakes, the "editors" do as well.
I support creativity, and to be truly expressive requires intelligence and at least the ability to read and write with clarity and correctness.
Are you saying that rap music (full of "foul" language and poor grammar) is not creative? Even though I don't particularly care for that genre, I still respect the artists' creativity.
I'm actually disappointed that you would attempt to forbid a child to read a forum because you disagree with the spelling and grammar content. I don't feel particularly moved to commit spelling and grammar mistakes because others do.
Proper education in the home and at school is what will help to change that behavior. Limiting typing and communications skills is the root of the problem.
I suggest that you PROMOTE discussion forums, chat rooms, etc, as a way to teach typing skills, free thought, and creative writing.
I don't think we need (or want) a governing body to tell us what we can or can't do on the internet.
Exactly my point. I said that we need governments that understand and embrace global cultures -- including the Internet.
We do NOT want governments that attempt to embrace isolationist practices with "Great Firewalls" and family values legislation.
We want to foster global understanding in our young people. We need to give the human race the opportunities to learn as they wish including how to avoid content they themselves might find objectionable -- not what the ruling parties do.
BERNERS-LEE: The creativity of our children. In many ways, people growing up with the Web and now the Semantic Web take the power at their fingertips for granted. The people who designed the tools that make the Net run had their own ideas for the future. I look forward to seeing what the next generation does with these tools that we could not have foreseen....
I guess it will depend per person but I find that reading novels, poetry, and other "classic" lit is what causes ME to be more creative. Yes, that stuff is available online but we all know how cumbersome and uncomfortable it can be to read a novel on a screen.
I believe the Internet will lead to more better global understanding and knowledge (it already has). It will lead to better news reporting to compete with those that read from multiple news sources and have a better understanding of the truth so that sensationalism and out and out lies will likely decrease. Finally, I hope that through this global awareness, political pressure for values and family-first as well as "Great Firewalls" will end as governments (and those that run them) grow to understand and embrace the openness of the world.
Wishful thinking, especially when I believed that MY generation would understand these things and stop things like super right-winged conservative "family values" being pushed through the government. Instead, I am watching as people in America are growing up to want less and less freedom.
I am still hopeful as we didn't grow up 100% immersed in the Internet from birth.
Now, what is the price of hydrogen, per gallon or liter?
Will it matter as oil prices continue to rise? If they raised nearly a dollar in ~45 days what's going to happen in 10 years (if we even make it that far with China's recent upturn in heavy usage)?
I'm not defending or damning her study, just wondering why you're so vehement.
Someone needs to be. Everyone else just either sighs and says "oh well, another political retard spreading his propaganda" or they jump up and down with excitement over "a return to 'true' American values."
Fuck all that. People need to sit down, open their fucking eyes, and stop being a bunch of cry-baby whiners that expect everything to be spoon fed to them from the "leaders" of our country.
It's morons like the author and the "reviewer" that continue to pander this nonsensical bullshit to the easily misled American public with cute propaganda messages and undertones of evildoer behavior.
The type of porn in question is the hardcore demeananizing porn that the porn industry seems to have led to.
LOL. You know what, you're 100% right, the "porn industry" has desensitized us to "demeaning" sex acts but thankfully we have people like you, the author, and our conservative/family-first politicians to tell us that anything but missionary sex is bad.
As is described, online porn seems to lead from soft to hard core porn, and it is the rape and bukkake that damage relationships.
You are saying that people *can't* enjoy being doused with semen? How the fuck do you know? It's obvious you have never done it or had it done to you... How could you possibly say, without a doubt, that it would be damaging to your relationship with your SO? You cannot.
All you can do is inject your personal opinion about something you know nothing about except from what you heard from your limited research and "personal knowledgebase". Let's keep our discussions to stuff you really have a clue about.
Rape is an illegal act and is of no relevance to the discussion. Are you not talking about criminal rape and instead simulated rape/fantasy situations where someone *could* enjoy that situation and may even fantasize about it?
Yet another situation that you have no obvious knowledge of and cannot speak on.
This also brings up another side in the viewer, as I won't watch anal, nor anything worse than that, while others may enjoy the rape or bukkake that plagues the internet.
My point: How far do you actually take the openness?
As far as anyone is comfortable bringing it -- as well as it remains within the law (we'll ignore such laws that define sodomy in order to make homosexuality "deviant" as that's an entirely different discussion.)
You and I both know what country we live in so you have to expect (not accept) these conservative views.
I have no problems with people expressing their opinions. What I do have a problem with is people using specific language that twists the meaning around and makes a propaganda piece out of a specific media type.
This conservative viewpoint was specifically worded to make "sexual deviants" feel uncomfortable about what they do because they may "hurt" someone else. Obvious trash.
Wow, I'm a Republican (not a New Aged GOP member mind you) -- I really doubt that the Republican Party's line is "It's all Bush's fault".
Please also note that I am vehemently against ANY conservative pro-value politicians or individuals (i.e. Hillary, Mrs. Gore, etc).
Please don't patronize me w/some trollish, uneducated, and unresearched comment about my political views. In the future, I seriously suggest that you take the time to read through my post history and learn how I really feel about many issues including this pro-conservative push for family first.
You watch porn, but you also use the words fuck and shit when an obviously (by the reviewer's account) well researched book does not fit into your view of the subject. I find that 'remarkable'.
The reviewer was biased and cannot be trusted. His double-speak and propaganda message proves that he is nothing but a conservative retard pushing an agenda.
His claims about the book being "well researched" as likely false and will be easily disproved.
"Fuck" and "Shit" are only inappropriate words for those that are so simple minded that they are easily offended. Grow up and get a life.
Nope, doesn't sound like you've made up your mind about the book already...
sarcasm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm) n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
See, I didn't believe that the "reviewer" gave an unbiased account of the book while trying to claim that he was going his best:
The topic is a difficult one, and perhaps impossible to approach without prejudice. Some readers will dislike Paul's conclusions and will dismiss the entire book as a result.
See, here he tries to imply that anyone that goes against the author is just dismissing it w/o reading deep into the pointless "conclusions".
Also, in the interviews, some stories leave out details the reader is bound to want to know. One of the interviewees is the "former CEO of a large international corporation," who "lost his job due to pornography." How? What happened? Did he dress in a leather teddy at a board meeting? The chapter about porn and relationships was less interesting to me than the rest, but your mileage may vary.
Ahh, the old "see -- a successful man was destroyed by foo." A popular tactic used in many forms of media including porn, pre-marital sex, and anti-drug messages.
Thanks for falling for the oldest propaganda tricks in the book.
Slashdot Mirror
Do they have a strategy behind this?
Of course -- to make money for their investors.
Or are they merely collecting people and figuring out what to do with them later? From the outside looking in, it sure seems like the latter.
Google has always been fairly secretive about their dealings, even after they went public -- it's just that now they are releasing stuff a lot sooner than they were in the past.
Yeah, I'm sure that they are "just collecting" people but I have a feeling that they are being put to good use. Dodgeball (one of the collected items) is likely going to be put to excellent use for business reviews and frequency of visits -- especially when they figure out a way to tie it to everything else.
If you haven't seen their recent additions of Google Maps showing locations of you, and your friends' check-ins, I suggest that you do that.
The possibilities are scary.
It looks like these days, that Microsoft is getting a little scared of the Open Source movement... especially having to share how their server software's communication protocols work. Information of this nature is easily available in the Linux community, yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.
These days? I see by your UID that you've not been around on Slashdot all that long (at least w/your current username) but Microsoft has been fearing OSS for years. This is no new development.
Of course they are keeping tight controls on their communications protocols (they always did - SMB). They were never about to open their document formats or networking protocols to the public. Why should they? Their software is only marginally better than any other alternative out there -- it's just that they are the ones that interoperate with it the best because it's their format!
It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...
Welcome to 1998. This is exactly the rhetoric being tossed around then. We then moved to Linux taking over the desktop. It's 2005. While I see significant strides on both sides of that coin I don't see us "taking over the market" in either.
Windows will likely always exist. Linux will always be there as well but they certainly won't amass the domination that Microsoft has now.
You seem to think in terms of "the Patriot act is evil", without any depth of understanding of the trade off between freedom and security, and the fact that historically these sort of ebbs and flows of freedom are temporary -- and necessary.
There is to be NO trade off between freedom and security as it's completely unnecessary. Freedom is freedom! If you believe otherwise you are a "New Aged Unfree American" and unworthy of trust, liberty, or free speech.
Franklin's frequently recited quote: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They want to be angry and self righteous, and spew hatred toward Bush et al.
God, you know, what the fuck is it w/you morons? BUSH ISN'T THE PROBLEM. It's people like you -- people who believe that the issue is only political. I don't spread "hatred" towards Bush. He's certainly part of the larger problem but he's not the only part. I love the idiots, like you, that continuously believe that I am some left wing retard. I'm not. I'm a TRUE republican. One who believes in the original values of our country -- including real freedoms and not the ones that have been recently invented.
You really need to step back from your backwards and politically biased thinking and really listen to what others are telling you. Right now, you're so worthless that I'm not going to continue this discussion w/you.
I was more pointing out that it sounds like in real life you talk a lot more than you listen to the people around you, and you sound awfully arrogant.
I'd prefer to be thought of as "arrogant" than meek, worthless, and your typical impressionable sheep.
Chances are that if there is immediate disclosure, the users will have a chance to stop using the product until a patch is available. Every day until the patch is issued they should just bill the software company. That would be a great incentive to test well, code carefully and fix the problems faster.
Chances are that a) no one will stop using the unpatched software because they can't afford to or they don't care to be informed of it (how many places were pwnt by worms that had known patches months in advance?)
b) No one will indemnify their code because it wouldn't be cost effective to do so and it wouldn't stop the issue.
It would be a *great* incentive but the cost of software would go up and either people would buy software that was less money (not as well coded) and put the others out of business or they would just continue on the old path.
Wishful thinking but it isn't going to happen.
b) indemnify themselves as much as possible against any public disclosure of said security holes by labeling the disclosers as 'irresponsible'.
And to prepare legal proceedings against those that do end up disclosing the holes against the wishes of the companies trying to patch them (here).
To be honest, I've stopped arguing with people like you, because you /want/ to believe that freedom is getting squashed, despite all evidence to the contrary. Tou say you want to "educate" (how arrogant is that?) the people around you, but perhaps you should be willing to be educated first.
Excuse me? Just because there is no *physical evidence* of freedoms being squashed does not mean it isn't happening.
Remember that a government report is the place where you found your "evidence" and that the Patriot Act itself creates its own safeguards against releasing any information about "investigations" made under its umbrella.
Oooh, you believe everything that the government tells you. Sorry, I don't even bother trying to have an intelligent debate with someone that stands idly by while they are "educated" by those that are trying to deceive them.
Maybe I'd be more willing to learn from others, like you, that were informed and made sense. Unfortunately for you, in this case at least, you are just another sheep willing to take everything that is told to you at face value.
I'm not.
Apple makes a very handsome profit on iPods. You don't have to fill them with iTMS songs (MP3s work just as well) but the pairing of iPod with iTunes now accounts for over a billion dollars annually in sales for Apple.
Which is why they should be less money. Wake me up when they play video and have TV-out like the Archos.
That Apple, they think of everything. Now I'm going to go back to waiting for my Dalmation iPod nano tube.
Except how to make their shit affordable. $199 for 4GB? Don't you find that a bit expensive especially when it's really meant to be an end-unit for their super successful iTMS (additional costs and perhaps even rising costs)?
Yes, it's sexy, small, and cute but 4GB doesn't do me all that much and I would constantly worry about losing it, damanging it, or out and out destroying it.
YMMV.
I'd love to see their breakdown of exactly how they plan to make this mission happen, and on what buget they think they're going to acheive it on. Will they use existing rocketry technology, or will they develop their own? What are the precise economic goals? Will they be relying on any other efforts (e.g. the CEV) to achieve their goals? Just how do they think they're going to get approval for nuclear propulsion? (See the Jobs page under Engineering.) Do they have any experience in these areas, or are they making it up as they go?
They are betting on the fact that people don't require any of that to give money away. They are "hiring" people for a company that is full of freedom and is pro-exploration but gives no solid foundation of how they will remain employed.
Making plastics is great and all but how do you expect to get people there and start the colony so that people can actually make these items w/the materials that are so readily available?
Update: It looks like the partly plan to make their money by building the technological infrastructure themselves. According to this document, they feel that they could be turning a $29.7 million dollar profit by 2010, 15 years before they establish their settlement! This document supposedly shows their plan of attack, but it seems so preliminary that it suggests that the company plans to make it up as they go along.
Just as I pointed out before, without actually saying it, this is very similiar to any dotcom startup in the 1990s. No true business model, no real plan, and no real company. Just a bunch of money and the web.
This is nothing more than an advertisement to gain capital.
And I don't think it could be thought of as spyware.
Spyware is supposed to be unknowingly reporting information about you, whether it was mistakenly installed by you or it crept in from somewhere else.
The typical Linux user won't think it's spyware, no, but those working to move Linux towards a larger market want to be certain that newer users don't ever confuse the two.
Unfortunately, this *could* be confused with Spyware -- especially after a cute little Microsoft funded "research" item gets posted to ZDnet or news.com.com.
Linux Kernel Includes Spyware Reporting Your Usage Habits!
And don't think for one second that any backpedaling by the kernel gurus could outsmart the Microsoft FUD team.
If I turn on my computer and don't touch it for a year, it will have excellent uptime, but it doesn't really test very much. Same too, if I just start up Apache and let it do its thing.
So? The theoretical number of users that will be doing that sort of operation should be outnumbered by those that use it for "normal, day to day operations".
In the end it would even itself out.
If they make the kernel option totally opt-in, which is the right way to go, most people won't use it and only power-users will enable the function which will end up with the results you mentioned (or will it?)
An interesting debate but at least they are willing to 100% respect the rights of their users.
Google omits controversial news stories in China
17:36 21 September 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Will Knight
I realize that the Slashdot editors have recently posted duplicate content and even posted stories with linked articles from months ago but do any of us really care about an article posted nearly 1 year ago?
I don't.
PS: I just remembered, according to your last post, you are on your honeymoon. Either you are a liar, or you *really* should have something better to be doing right now.
Just because some people begin their honeymoon the day after their wedding doesn't mean all people do.
FYI - we leave in a few days.
Actually, a majority of Americans do want just this thing. Deal with it.
The majority of Americans are uneducated and passive sheep. As long as their Cable TV is there and they can "relax" and live out their worthless lives through people on Reality TV they are fine.
I am not. I am at least speaking out (true, I don't have a huge voice) against what I believe is wrong w/this country. I feel that everyone around me should be educated as to my personal opinions on the injustices of the world including the loss of freedoms America is suffering all in the name of Terrorism and Family Values.
I refuse to "deal with it" and instead I will continue to speak to everyone here, there, and everywhere. They may not agree 100% with what I say but there is always a small chance that someone might rethink what they are doing and finally understand that what they are supporting is NOT the best for our country.
Amazing that no matter what the topic, from pickled beets to the Internet's historic effect on children going back 15 years, you idiots can manage to bring Neocons into the topic.
;)
It's amazing to me that people will immediately believe that I'm talking about GWB when I speak of "family values". Just another FYI, I'm not. I'm talking about ALL politicians trying to ride the conservative family values bandwagon. They include multiple left-wingers including Hilliary and Mrs. Gore.
In order to promote and increase the freedoms that we so pleasantly enjoyed since our country's inception we need to foster an environment that our children can continue to respect.
Currently, any dissenting opinions are looked down upon negatively (see your post above). For once THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Freedoms are slipping away and people like it. It's not appropriate (on any part of the political spectrum) and it's certainly not something a Slashdot troll should support.
Take a peek at the GameFAQs.com forums. They are frequented by youth and young adults. Notice the terrible grammar, horrible spelling, and the inability of many posters there to post coherent, sensible content. Whether this is caused by a lack of proper education, or whether it is just the nature of message boards, is questionable.
I don't need to go anywhere else. I can look right here on Slashdot. Not only do the various readers of Slashdot (myself included) have spelling and grammar mistakes, the "editors" do as well.
I support creativity, and to be truly expressive requires intelligence and at least the ability to read and write with clarity and correctness.
Are you saying that rap music (full of "foul" language and poor grammar) is not creative? Even though I don't particularly care for that genre, I still respect the artists' creativity.
I'm actually disappointed that you would attempt to forbid a child to read a forum because you disagree with the spelling and grammar content. I don't feel particularly moved to commit spelling and grammar mistakes because others do.
Proper education in the home and at school is what will help to change that behavior. Limiting typing and communications skills is the root of the problem.
I suggest that you PROMOTE discussion forums, chat rooms, etc, as a way to teach typing skills, free thought, and creative writing.
YMMV.
I don't think we need (or want) a governing body to tell us what we can or can't do on the internet.
Exactly my point. I said that we need governments that understand and embrace global cultures -- including the Internet.
We do NOT want governments that attempt to embrace isolationist practices with "Great Firewalls" and family values legislation.
We want to foster global understanding in our young people. We need to give the human race the opportunities to learn as they wish including how to avoid content they themselves might find objectionable -- not what the ruling parties do.
BERNERS-LEE: The creativity of our children. In many ways, people growing up with the Web and now the Semantic Web take the power at their fingertips for granted. The people who designed the tools that make the Net run had their own ideas for the future. I look forward to seeing what the next generation does with these tools that we could not have foreseen. ...
I guess it will depend per person but I find that reading novels, poetry, and other "classic" lit is what causes ME to be more creative. Yes, that stuff is available online but we all know how cumbersome and uncomfortable it can be to read a novel on a screen.
I believe the Internet will lead to more better global understanding and knowledge (it already has). It will lead to better news reporting to compete with those that read from multiple news sources and have a better understanding of the truth so that sensationalism and out and out lies will likely decrease. Finally, I hope that through this global awareness, political pressure for values and family-first as well as "Great Firewalls" will end as governments (and those that run them) grow to understand and embrace the openness of the world.
Wishful thinking, especially when I believed that MY generation would understand these things and stop things like super right-winged conservative "family values" being pushed through the government. Instead, I am watching as people in America are growing up to want less and less freedom.
I am still hopeful as we didn't grow up 100% immersed in the Internet from birth.
Now, what is the price of hydrogen, per gallon or liter?
Will it matter as oil prices continue to rise? If they raised nearly a dollar in ~45 days what's going to happen in 10 years (if we even make it that far with China's recent upturn in heavy usage)?
I'm not defending or damning her study, just wondering why you're so vehement.
Someone needs to be. Everyone else just either sighs and says "oh well, another political retard spreading his propaganda" or they jump up and down with excitement over "a return to 'true' American values."
Fuck all that. People need to sit down, open their fucking eyes, and stop being a bunch of cry-baby whiners that expect everything to be spoon fed to them from the "leaders" of our country.
It's morons like the author and the "reviewer" that continue to pander this nonsensical bullshit to the easily misled American public with cute propaganda messages and undertones of evildoer behavior.
The type of porn in question is the hardcore demeananizing porn that the porn industry seems to have led to.
LOL. You know what, you're 100% right, the "porn industry" has desensitized us to "demeaning" sex acts but thankfully we have people like you, the author, and our conservative/family-first politicians to tell us that anything but missionary sex is bad.
As is described, online porn seems to lead from soft to hard core porn, and it is the rape and bukkake that damage relationships.
You are saying that people *can't* enjoy being doused with semen? How the fuck do you know? It's obvious you have never done it or had it done to you... How could you possibly say, without a doubt, that it would be damaging to your relationship with your SO? You cannot.
All you can do is inject your personal opinion about something you know nothing about except from what you heard from your limited research and "personal knowledgebase". Let's keep our discussions to stuff you really have a clue about.
Rape is an illegal act and is of no relevance to the discussion. Are you not talking about criminal rape and instead simulated rape/fantasy situations where someone *could* enjoy that situation and may even fantasize about it?
Yet another situation that you have no obvious knowledge of and cannot speak on.
This also brings up another side in the viewer, as I won't watch anal, nor anything worse than that, while others may enjoy the rape or bukkake that plagues the internet.
Thank you for proving my points above.
My point: How far do you actually take the openness?
As far as anyone is comfortable bringing it -- as well as it remains within the law (we'll ignore such laws that define sodomy in order to make homosexuality "deviant" as that's an entirely different discussion.)
You and I both know what country we live in so you have to expect (not accept) these conservative views.
I have no problems with people expressing their opinions. What I do have a problem with is people using specific language that twists the meaning around and makes a propaganda piece out of a specific media type.
This conservative viewpoint was specifically worded to make "sexual deviants" feel uncomfortable about what they do because they may "hurt" someone else. Obvious trash.
Good little kook - remember the party line:
IT's All Bush's fault!!
Wow, I'm a Republican (not a New Aged GOP member mind you) -- I really doubt that the Republican Party's line is "It's all Bush's fault".
Please also note that I am vehemently against ANY conservative pro-value politicians or individuals (i.e. Hillary, Mrs. Gore, etc).
Please don't patronize me w/some trollish, uneducated, and unresearched comment about my political views. In the future, I seriously suggest that you take the time to read through my post history and learn how I really feel about many issues including this pro-conservative push for family first.
You watch porn, but you also use the words fuck and shit when an obviously (by the reviewer's account) well researched book does not fit into your view of the subject. I find that 'remarkable'.
The reviewer was biased and cannot be trusted. His double-speak and propaganda message proves that he is nothing but a conservative retard pushing an agenda.
His claims about the book being "well researched" as likely false and will be easily disproved.
"Fuck" and "Shit" are only inappropriate words for those that are so simple minded that they are easily offended. Grow up and get a life.
Nope, doesn't sound like you've made up your mind about the book already...
sarcasm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
See, I didn't believe that the "reviewer" gave an unbiased account of the book while trying to claim that he was going his best:
The topic is a difficult one, and perhaps impossible to approach without prejudice. Some readers will dislike Paul's conclusions and will dismiss the entire book as a result.
See, here he tries to imply that anyone that goes against the author is just dismissing it w/o reading deep into the pointless "conclusions".
Also, in the interviews, some stories leave out details the reader is bound to want to know. One of the interviewees is the "former CEO of a large international corporation," who "lost his job due to pornography." How? What happened? Did he dress in a leather teddy at a board meeting? The chapter about porn and relationships was less interesting to me than the rest, but your mileage may vary.
Ahh, the old "see -- a successful man was destroyed by foo." A popular tactic used in many forms of media including porn, pre-marital sex, and anti-drug messages.
Thanks for falling for the oldest propaganda tricks in the book.