Because they might not have much choice. Like I said, as a webhosting company, I would have no problem doing my part to help get porn behind closed doors.
To do that, I would be happy to voluntarily only accept porn on my.porn tld domains..
And yes, you could and would be filtered by default by being on whatever.porn in my scenario. So, you probably wouldnt choose that domain, would you?
Its not trivial. If properly done, over time, it would remove the whitehouse.com's of the world..
The biggest argument against the net and FOR filtering is that porn doesnt belong near kids. With this system in place, the filtering software could be BUILT INTO THE BROWSER...
And, we could say with total impunity NOT to filter anything but those domains.
Granted, it would take a total agreement by all ISPS, which aint likely for sometime, but ANY move towards a better filter (less negative and more positive matches) is a good thing!
All content should fit on one page? All of what? one category? one topic?
Slashdot doesnt, yahoo doesnt, hell, no one I know of does.
It is the design *I* chose. Many others choose different designs. Thats mine.
You are nitpicking about design choices, and REALLY offtopic. The point was that frontpage is a decent editor, that Amaya didnt render correctly formatted pages, and that is all.
I chose to make it that way. It is valid HTML, it lays out information in a logical fashion, and is stylish..
ALL in my opinion.
As to the slow connection, ALL the graphics are already loaded each new page. All they need to get is the new text.
This is NUTS. The two MOST needed TLD's are.kids and.xxx/.porn..
I DO NOT understand their logic at all. This is surely not the brightest thing for them to do, they must be trying to keep their corporate sponsors (donations, fees, etc.) happy for now.
AFTER this round of elections, the at-large elected members will finally havea say, and I would wager that things will become considerably different.
As a webhoster, I personally condemn them for not accepting.porn/.xxx. It would make filtering SO easy, SO universal. I would in half a heartbeat be happy to not allow porn sites on my system unless they ended in.porn/.xxx. What would consistitute porn? I would look for an existing policy, or write my own.
Yes, there are problems with that, but thats my choice. Dont like it, go to another hosting comapny. But I would wager to bet that PLENTY would do just about the same thing.
As it is I host multiple porn sites all happily, but that would probably change with a.porn TLD.
Dont even get me started on how good.kids would be.. Disney chat rooms anyone?
Yes, in all, this has got to be their WORST decision to date.
>You have clearly missed the point of html. html is _not_ a formatting language, it is a markup language
No, I didnt miss the point. CSS doesnt provide an easy way to accomplish the task of having a size-locked table.
>looks like all every other all-graphics, designed for 640x480 webpages I have ever seen
Opinion. Most of the responses I have gotten are extremely favorable, and get me plenty of business.
>Try looking at that page on a 1600x1200 screen and see how "sexy" you think it looks.
I do everyday.:) It is centered, the way it is meant to be. Just like it is at 800, and at 1024.
As to your validation, that is rather odd. I just did it myself again to make sure..
I had it validated earlier.. although I added in the comments.. I guess that'll learn ya, huh? Well, I will go fix it. Those are tiny mistakes anyways.. no big deal..
The point is that the code is damned good compared to 90% of the sites out there, and save 4 trifling little mistakes, (that just popped up), its valid code, ALL created by frontpage.
Now we can see a true test of programming popularity.
Here is somewhere that Gnome ISNT, and where Qt IS. I am curious to see if their dual-licensing slows down the vast numbers of programmers from linux/unix that want to code for embedded devices..
Licenses in general are already a huge mess, and are getting moreso. This book may be, as you said, interesting.
However, the licenses are just getting silly. I wonder CONSTANTLY about why companies just narrowly tread that path between full-openness, and proprietary.
In my (ever-so-liberalized) mind, I see the choice being very easy to make. Even in my business, I can see making the choice EITHER proprietary OR open..
I dont see why people feel compelled to half-ass it.
I gotta distinctly disagree. I went, worried that the whole movie would be "Robot kills all"..
It wasnt that. Sure, it wasnt a character-driven movie, but hey, this isnt Dangerous Liaisons.
This was a great vehicle to show off Carrie-Ann's GORGEOUS body (SOooo close to seeing what we want), alot of action, and a GREAT set of special effects.
As to the 'sympathy' level of the astronauts, BULL. You are being spoonfed too many movie astronauts. They have a mission to accomplish, and are generally military men. They analyze the situation, and act.
This was a pretty good movie in my opinion. It sounds like you had unrealistic expectations for an action movie to be a drama.
When is the last good action movie with a SOLID plot and character development? T2? Even that had its problems..
Maybe the Matrix, but that is the hand of god, blessing the silver screen, and truly, one of a kind.:)
People pay competitively. Above all else, let me tell you, QUALITY isnt something that sells in websites (not html anyways. Graphics, yeah).
I actually make money doing this, and I dont need to beleive you. I KNOW. I do it every week. People want results, and style. Whether it renders on lynx, or has alt tags, or is html compliant doesnt matter much to the average person.
BUT, -- BUT -- , I dont write crap code. Check out psychasia.com. Its tight. Its sexy. It looks good in lynx. It has alt tags, it has hidden comments. It renders properly in NS, IE, And even decently on that bastard WebTV. It has the pixel size locked so it looks the same on mac as it does on windows..
It has preloading, mouseovers, AND it is html compliant.
I dont do crap code. And I do it IN frontpage.
If I did it all by hand, I would be billing EASILY for three times as much. Thats nuts.
Plus, I wouldnt have clients swearing by me that say "He did my whole site in one hour ON A SUNDAY NIGHT!".
Thats how I got the job I am in, because a client I did work for saw an opening for a webdesigner at work, and when suggesting me said "This guy is fast AND good."
And I dont spend alot of time fixing crappy code. Far from it. I know what crap FP adds, and I know what to rip out, quickly. It takes less time to fix the code after the page is done than it does to make the page! Both of which are MUCH less time than it would take to manually edit them.
MY big thing now is that I am moving to a MS free desktop, and would LOVE a wysiwyg editor for linux.. But I havent seen any really nice ones that arent commercial..
Finally someone that gets my theory on work. By doing more work, faster, I can get clients to say stuff like "He did my whole site in one hour on a SUNDAY!!?!?"
Frames on other sites, mine doesnt use frames, silly. My personal site does tho.. (iamsure.psychasia.com) which it doesnt render at all, even with the correct DOCTYPE.
I see your point about the http, but I would think it would be a decent thing to add as an option..
>Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky.
>That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www
My whole point was that I *am* a webdesigner, my sites *are* conforming, and it still doesnt work. Thats not a conformance issue, thats buggy.:)
Well, I used it for 1 minute, so I figure I am informed enough to comment on slashdot now.:)
First, its scrolling is crap. Load up www.cnn.com and scroll up and down a few times, and fear in utmost horror.
Next, load up our favorite site, slashdot.. sigh.
My business website, painstakingly html-validated (ON THEIR VALIDATOR!!) doesnt even render right. (www.psychasia.com -- drill down thru webhosting or colocation).
You HAVE to enter http://, it doesnt support frames AT ALL (thats not a standard!?!?), and most importantly of all, it renders SLOWLY.
Sometimes its nice having an accelerator. Frontpage does that for me. I do webdesign during my professional job, AND for my at-home business, and for both, I use frontpage.
It allows me to create a website MUCH faster than I could in notepad, and allows me to quickly flesh out the ideas I have. Once that is done, I go through and HTML validate, and clean it up.
Swiss army knives are great to cut through the thick plastic before you can GET to the nut, that needs to be turned by the monkey wrench.
Dont get me wrong, hand-coding is definitely a 'better' way to do things, but I bill by the hour, and dont have time to screw around. It works, and its fast, and its code isnt really all that bad. In fact, compared to dreamweaver, its almost sexy code.
Remember, there are appropriate tools for EACH situation. Dont grab a hammer and think that everything is a nail.
I'm glad to see this book come out. It seems to me that there are not nearly enough quality books on KDE & Gnome programming in general, and definitely not enough for KDE itself.
In the years to come we are going to need alot of quality tools to help pull programmers out of their reliance on the HUGE pile of high-quality crutches (ie, books on how to program in VB).
The transition to a free/open software world is not going to be won on the desktop alone. The other half of the fight is going to be for the commercial programmers.
With the establishment of the Gnome foundation, I was slightly worried that KDE might slow down a little bit. Thankfully, they didnt seem to miss a beat.:)
It seems to me based on the Salon reporting, the MULTIPLE universities and other groups that claim to have cracked all their watermarks, and protection schemes that they are fibbing.
Maybe they have some cute little exception (cant be reproduced on a p100, doesnt sound the same to golden-ears after the fact), but it seems like a fib or a stretch at LEAST to me.
So, what if they are fibbing?
More power to them. Let them release a flawed product, get everyone's support, have it added to a million products and songs, and weeks after release have a winamp plug-in come out that real-time decodes them.
Suits me just fine.
The honest, appropriate, and correct solution to the problem of digital security is to not be militant about it.
Sure, anyone can copy cassette tapes, and lots do. That didnt stop PLENTY of cassette sales.
You say its different because its digital, but it really isnt. The general populace doesnt have the knowledge, time, nor toys that support mp3's in a wide-spread way yet.
Not to mention I dont think it will become super-widespread for another 3-4 years.
(Yes, I know napster has a large user base. Thats not the same as the user base of people with cd-players (home, car, personal, AND computer) now is it?)
In short, the media giants need to just tuck tail. Its a losing battle. Mp3's sound more than decent, and are not secured. They will always be around now. If the music companies had gotten on board sooner, and done digital distribution sooner, they may have prevented it.
First, we have the 3500 ballots from Palm Beach County that may need to be recast, due to the VERY confusing layout of the ballot that may have given the votes for gore to buchanan. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews /ELECTION_WatchdogPart4001107.html)
Next, we have a pile of absentee ballots, with a roughly 50/50 leaning for the vote.
So, just the public vote is seriously in question (not to mention the 9 lost ballot boxes in Dade, nor the automatic recount).
The public vote determines the electoral vote.
Or does it?
Some electoral college votes voted OPPOSITE of their affiliation in both 1972 and 1960. In addition to that, if everything is as projected in the electoral right now (and bush took florida), if just *eleven* bush electoral votes in other states change their minds, Gore would win.
If you wonder about those electoral college votes, you should. They have a federal right to vote their opinion. Some states do have penalties against changing their stated vote, but the federal overrides the state, and -- it would go to a federal judge.
Which, would be close to call as well.
We wont *reallllly* know until Decemeber 8th, for sure, for sure.
From his leaving Netscape, and his neat little utilities he codes on the side, from a nightclub to this little tutorial about music law, JWZ is one keen cat.
It's nice, and refreshing to see people with high visibility in the computer sphere showing backbone, and talking HONESTLY about music law. Sure, there are plenty screaming "napster, napster", but few break it down this well.
What we really need to consider is just how fast technology is moving, and how easy it is becoming to circumvent laws, not on purpose, but on accident.
I look forward to the day when artists get paid fairly, and I can click a link for any song in the world.
I have no problems with censoring, and I completely disagree that the internet has ANYTHING to do with it.
As a potential parent, unlike you, and Frank Zappa, I DONT want my children exposed to these materials. If I choose to not have my children curse, or watch violence, I expect that society will not make the decision impossible.
I dont have any problem with the fact that kids 'end up' seeing porn, and hearing cussing.
My problem is when my tax dollars are being used to PROVIDE that. I dont agree with that.
Much like broadcast TV, movies, etc. There are areas where children should have different access than adults.
However, lemme give you the flip side..
I recently went to my first strip club. Quite enjoyable, really. However, the women were wearing SEE-THRU 'pasties' which are small devices to cover their nipples.
It seems that the laws here protect against those nipples being exposed, with the intent being that if a underage person got in, it would be no worse than a live pg-13 movie.
LET ME SAY HOW STUPID THAT IS.
Censorship exists for one reason.
BECAUSE CHILDREN *ARE* DIFFERENT THAN ADULTS.
Period.
As to whether or not it is right for children to be exposed to nudity, and sex, is not my place to say. But, BUT, the supreme court has *always* ruled that way, and ostensibly always will.
In addition, that *is* how our society is geared. The internet should not be the exception, AS YOU SAID.:)
Lets step back for a second before we bash Crichton. In Jurassic Park, he was one of the first authors of popular dinosaur fiction to display VERY controversial, and very relevant theories.
Like what?
Like the familial instincts, like the pack hunt, like the individualism of some species, etc.
Sure, the movie dumbed some of it down, but book was really very groundbraking, and the sequel was even better.
We have to understand that authors have to capture both the truth AND the common perception of things, and try their best to balance them.
True, but once we go to ipv6, it was my understanding that the ipv6 subnetting was MUCH cleaner, and therefore, that the bgp routes would be more organized, easier to compile, and less bulky.
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
.porn tld domains..
Because they might not have much choice. Like I said, as a webhosting company, I would have no problem doing my part to help get porn behind closed doors.
To do that, I would be happy to voluntarily only accept porn on my
And yes, you could and would be filtered by default by being on whatever.porn in my scenario. So, you probably wouldnt choose that domain, would you?
Its not trivial. If properly done, over time, it would remove the whitehouse.com's of the world..
The biggest argument against the net and FOR filtering is that porn doesnt belong near kids. With this system in place, the filtering software could be BUILT INTO THE BROWSER...
And, we could say with total impunity NOT to filter anything but those domains.
Granted, it would take a total agreement by all ISPS, which aint likely for sometime, but ANY move towards a better filter (less negative and more positive matches) is a good thing!
Why? because you say so?
:)
All content should fit on one page? All of what? one category? one topic?
Slashdot doesnt, yahoo doesnt, hell, no one I know of does.
It is the design *I* chose. Many others choose different designs. Thats mine.
You are nitpicking about design choices, and REALLY offtopic. The point was that frontpage is a decent editor, that Amaya didnt render correctly formatted pages, and that is all.
I chose to make it that way. It is valid HTML, it lays out information in a logical fashion, and is stylish..
ALL in my opinion.
As to the slow connection, ALL the graphics are already loaded each new page. All they need to get is the new text.
You dont like it, fuck off.
This is NUTS. The two MOST needed TLD's are .kids and .xxx/.porn..
.porn/.xxx. It would make filtering SO easy, SO universal. I would in half a heartbeat be happy to not allow porn sites on my system unless they ended in .porn/.xxx. What would consistitute porn? I would look for an existing policy, or write my own.
.porn TLD.
.kids would be.. Disney chat rooms anyone?
I DO NOT understand their logic at all. This is surely not the brightest thing for them to do, they must be trying to keep their corporate sponsors (donations, fees, etc.) happy for now.
AFTER this round of elections, the at-large elected members will finally havea say, and I would wager that things will become considerably different.
As a webhoster, I personally condemn them for not accepting
Yes, there are problems with that, but thats my choice. Dont like it, go to another hosting comapny. But I would wager to bet that PLENTY would do just about the same thing.
As it is I host multiple porn sites all happily, but that would probably change with a
Dont even get me started on how good
Yes, in all, this has got to be their WORST decision to date.
>You have clearly missed the point of html. html is _not_ a formatting language, it is a markup language
:) It is centered, the way it is meant to be. Just like it is at 800, and at 1024.
No, I didnt miss the point. CSS doesnt provide an easy way to accomplish the task of having a size-locked table.
>looks like all every other all-graphics, designed for 640x480 webpages I have ever seen
Opinion. Most of the responses I have gotten are extremely favorable, and get me plenty of business.
>Try looking at that page on a 1600x1200 screen and see how "sexy" you think it looks.
I do everyday.
As to your validation, that is rather odd. I just did it myself again to make sure..
I had it validated earlier.. although I added in the comments.. I guess that'll learn ya, huh? Well, I will go fix it. Those are tiny mistakes anyways.. no big deal..
The point is that the code is damned good compared to 90% of the sites out there, and save 4 trifling little mistakes, (that just popped up), its valid code, ALL created by frontpage.
Its a valid tool, and a good one too.
Now we can see a true test of programming popularity.
Here is somewhere that Gnome ISNT, and where Qt IS. I am curious to see if their dual-licensing slows down the vast numbers of programmers from linux/unix that want to code for embedded devices..
Or to see if the license really IS 'good enough'.
Or if we can code as well on embedded devices..
Lots to see here!
Thats really interesting.
Licenses in general are already a huge mess, and are getting moreso. This book may be, as you said, interesting.
However, the licenses are just getting silly. I wonder CONSTANTLY about why companies just narrowly tread that path between full-openness, and proprietary.
In my (ever-so-liberalized) mind, I see the choice being very easy to make. Even in my business, I can see making the choice EITHER proprietary OR open..
I dont see why people feel compelled to half-ass it.
Maybe I am just naive..
I gotta distinctly disagree. I went, worried that the whole movie would be "Robot kills all"..
:)
It wasnt that. Sure, it wasnt a character-driven movie, but hey, this isnt Dangerous Liaisons.
This was a great vehicle to show off Carrie-Ann's GORGEOUS body (SOooo close to seeing what we want), alot of action, and a GREAT set of special effects.
As to the 'sympathy' level of the astronauts, BULL. You are being spoonfed too many movie astronauts. They have a mission to accomplish, and are generally military men. They analyze the situation, and act.
This was a pretty good movie in my opinion. It sounds like you had unrealistic expectations for an action movie to be a drama.
When is the last good action movie with a SOLID plot and character development? T2? Even that had its problems..
Maybe the Matrix, but that is the hand of god, blessing the silver screen, and truly, one of a kind.
Sorry. I should have done the footwork. Thank you for the correction.
People pay competitively. Above all else, let me tell you, QUALITY isnt something that sells in websites (not html anyways. Graphics, yeah).
:)
I actually make money doing this, and I dont need to beleive you. I KNOW. I do it every week. People want results, and style. Whether it renders on lynx, or has alt tags, or is html compliant doesnt matter much to the average person.
BUT, -- BUT -- , I dont write crap code. Check out psychasia.com. Its tight. Its sexy. It looks good in lynx. It has alt tags, it has hidden comments. It renders properly in NS, IE, And even decently on that bastard WebTV. It has the pixel size locked so it looks the same on mac as it does on windows..
It has preloading, mouseovers, AND it is html compliant.
I dont do crap code. And I do it IN frontpage.
If I did it all by hand, I would be billing EASILY for three times as much. Thats nuts.
Plus, I wouldnt have clients swearing by me that say "He did my whole site in one hour ON A SUNDAY NIGHT!".
Thats how I got the job I am in, because a client I did work for saw an opening for a webdesigner at work, and when suggesting me said "This guy is fast AND good."
And I dont spend alot of time fixing crappy code. Far from it. I know what crap FP adds, and I know what to rip out, quickly. It takes less time to fix the code after the page is done than it does to make the page! Both of which are MUCH less time than it would take to manually edit them.
MY big thing now is that I am moving to a MS free desktop, and would LOVE a wysiwyg editor for linux.. But I havent seen any really nice ones that arent commercial..
Maybe mozilla's will be EVENTUALLY.
Finally someone that gets my theory on work. By doing more work, faster, I can get clients to say stuff like "He did my whole site in one hour on a SUNDAY!!?!?"
Thats mad advertising, baby.
No, you can set FP not to do that.
Try comparing mouse-over code from the two.
MS = roughly 4-5 lines,
Dreamweaver= *30*!?!?!
All obfuscated too.
Dreamweaver's output isnt cleanly delineated, isnt indented well (try a few embedded tables for comparison)..
Frontpage isnt the end all be all, but it beats DW there.
Now, when I need a good selection of drag and drop javascript, DreamWeaver looks ALOT sexier tho..
:)
Frames on other sites, mine doesnt use frames, silly. My personal site does tho.. (iamsure.psychasia.com) which it doesnt render at all, even with the correct DOCTYPE.
:)
I see your point about the http, but I would think it would be a decent thing to add as an option..
>Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky.
>That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www
My whole point was that I *am* a webdesigner, my sites *are* conforming, and it still doesnt work. Thats not a conformance issue, thats buggy.
Well, I used it for 1 minute, so I figure I am informed enough to comment on slashdot now. :)
First, its scrolling is crap. Load up www.cnn.com and scroll up and down a few times, and fear in utmost horror.
Next, load up our favorite site, slashdot.. sigh.
My business website, painstakingly html-validated (ON THEIR VALIDATOR!!) doesnt even render right. (www.psychasia.com -- drill down thru webhosting or colocation).
You HAVE to enter http://, it doesnt support frames AT ALL (thats not a standard!?!?), and most importantly of all, it renders SLOWLY.
What in the hell?!?!
Sorry, but I am going to categorically disagree.
Sometimes its nice having an accelerator. Frontpage does that for me. I do webdesign during my professional job, AND for my at-home business, and for both, I use frontpage.
It allows me to create a website MUCH faster than I could in notepad, and allows me to quickly flesh out the ideas I have. Once that is done, I go through and HTML validate, and clean it up.
Swiss army knives are great to cut through the thick plastic before you can GET to the nut, that needs to be turned by the monkey wrench.
Dont get me wrong, hand-coding is definitely a 'better' way to do things, but I bill by the hour, and dont have time to screw around. It works, and its fast, and its code isnt really all that bad. In fact, compared to dreamweaver, its almost sexy code.
Remember, there are appropriate tools for EACH situation. Dont grab a hammer and think that everything is a nail.
I'm glad to see this book come out. It seems to me that there are not nearly enough quality books on KDE & Gnome programming in general, and definitely not enough for KDE itself.
:)
In the years to come we are going to need alot of quality tools to help pull programmers out of their reliance on the HUGE pile of high-quality crutches (ie, books on how to program in VB).
The transition to a free/open software world is not going to be won on the desktop alone. The other half of the fight is going to be for the commercial programmers.
With the establishment of the Gnome foundation, I was slightly worried that KDE might slow down a little bit. Thankfully, they didnt seem to miss a beat.
1. Unlimited Karma whoring. Imagine using a webpad in the bathroom to write comments. You'd be the most brilliant poster on slashdot.
2. Infinite access to porn. Its just the right size to replace holding a playboy in one hand. How perfect is that?
3. Ultimate connectivity. No more running back to the bedroom during midnight snacking. There is another computer in the kitchen
4. Look mom, linux is EASIER than windows!
5. Read #4 again, out loud, and beam with joy.
6. Proclaim "ITS ALIVE" as you mix the hottest geek processor, the hottest geek OS, and the WORST online community.
7. FINALLY prove that there CAN be 31337 AOL users.
Okay, so I made #7 up..
The true question is, how long will it take to figure out what they did, and re-code the little bugger to do what we want it to do?
:)
Also, will this be a good test of transmeta's performance finally?
What ability will there be for people to upgrade the software (netscape 6 anyone?)?
Is winamp included?
But most importantly of all (I just COULDNT resist) -- I wonder what a beowolf cluster of these would do for Seti@home?
:)
It seems to me based on the Salon reporting, the MULTIPLE universities and other groups that claim to have cracked all their watermarks, and protection schemes that they are fibbing.
Maybe they have some cute little exception (cant be reproduced on a p100, doesnt sound the same to golden-ears after the fact), but it seems like a fib or a stretch at LEAST to me.
So, what if they are fibbing?
More power to them. Let them release a flawed product, get everyone's support, have it added to a million products and songs, and weeks after release have a winamp plug-in come out that real-time decodes them.
Suits me just fine.
The honest, appropriate, and correct solution to the problem of digital security is to not be militant about it.
Sure, anyone can copy cassette tapes, and lots do. That didnt stop PLENTY of cassette sales.
You say its different because its digital, but it really isnt. The general populace doesnt have the knowledge, time, nor toys that support mp3's in a wide-spread way yet.
Not to mention I dont think it will become super-widespread for another 3-4 years.
(Yes, I know napster has a large user base. Thats not the same as the user base of people with cd-players (home, car, personal, AND computer) now is it?)
In short, the media giants need to just tuck tail. Its a losing battle. Mp3's sound more than decent, and are not secured. They will always be around now. If the music companies had gotten on board sooner, and done digital distribution sooner, they may have prevented it.
All they can do now is try to save their ass.
No, my userid is mine. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
:)
First, we have the 3500 ballots from Palm Beach County that may need to be recast, due to the VERY confusing layout of the ballot that may have given the votes for gore to buchanan. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews /ELECTION_WatchdogPart4001107.html)
Next, we have a pile of absentee ballots, with a roughly 50/50 leaning for the vote.
So, just the public vote is seriously in question (not to mention the 9 lost ballot boxes in Dade, nor the automatic recount).
The public vote determines the electoral vote.
Or does it?
Some electoral college votes voted OPPOSITE of their affiliation in both 1972 and 1960. In addition to that, if everything is as projected in the electoral right now (and bush took florida), if just *eleven* bush electoral votes in other states change their minds, Gore would win.
If you wonder about those electoral college votes, you should. They have a federal right to vote their opinion. Some states do have penalties against changing their stated vote, but the federal overrides the state, and -- it would go to a federal judge.
Which, would be close to call as well.
We wont *reallllly* know until Decemeber 8th, for sure, for sure.
From his leaving Netscape, and his neat little utilities he codes on the side, from a nightclub to this little tutorial about music law, JWZ is one keen cat.
It's nice, and refreshing to see people with high visibility in the computer sphere showing backbone, and talking HONESTLY about music law. Sure, there are plenty screaming "napster, napster", but few break it down this well.
What we really need to consider is just how fast technology is moving, and how easy it is becoming to circumvent laws, not on purpose, but on accident.
I look forward to the day when artists get paid fairly, and I can click a link for any song in the world.
I disagree.
:)
I have no problems with censoring, and I completely disagree that the internet has ANYTHING to do with it.
As a potential parent, unlike you, and Frank Zappa, I DONT want my children exposed to these materials. If I choose to not have my children curse, or watch violence, I expect that society will not make the decision impossible.
I dont have any problem with the fact that kids 'end up' seeing porn, and hearing cussing.
My problem is when my tax dollars are being used to PROVIDE that. I dont agree with that.
Much like broadcast TV, movies, etc. There are areas where children should have different access than adults.
However, lemme give you the flip side..
I recently went to my first strip club. Quite enjoyable, really. However, the women were wearing SEE-THRU 'pasties' which are small devices to cover their nipples.
It seems that the laws here protect against those nipples being exposed, with the intent being that if a underage person got in, it would be no worse than a live pg-13 movie.
LET ME SAY HOW STUPID THAT IS.
Censorship exists for one reason.
BECAUSE CHILDREN *ARE* DIFFERENT THAN ADULTS.
Period.
As to whether or not it is right for children to be exposed to nudity, and sex, is not my place to say. But, BUT, the supreme court has *always* ruled that way, and ostensibly always will.
In addition, that *is* how our society is geared. The internet should not be the exception, AS YOU SAID.
What will be interesting to note is how the politicians respond to this. I see that one changed his mind about it.
The truth is, I highly doubt that anyone really wants students to have un-controlled access to ANYTHING on the net in school, provided by our money.
Its not like people advocate playboy (magazines) to high schools (no matter how educational it might be, grin)..
The idea itself (filtering the net) is good, its just the implementation that is, was, and will be (for a long time) crap.
At least, IMHO..
Lets step back for a second before we bash Crichton. In Jurassic Park, he was one of the first authors of popular dinosaur fiction to display VERY controversial, and very relevant theories.
Like what?
Like the familial instincts, like the pack hunt, like the individualism of some species, etc.
Sure, the movie dumbed some of it down, but book was really very groundbraking, and the sequel was even better.
We have to understand that authors have to capture both the truth AND the common perception of things, and try their best to balance them.
True, but once we go to ipv6, it was my understanding that the ipv6 subnetting was MUCH cleaner, and therefore, that the bgp routes would be more organized, easier to compile, and less bulky.
Was I mistaken?