I don't really think that Facebook has an interest in teaching those durned kids a thing or two about privacy--those durned kids are their consumers and I don't see what they have to gain from continuing an unpopular feature.
Besides, the issue here isn't that OMG MY INFO IS ON TEH INTERNET?!--it's that, now, I know that my buddy who's going out of state just made nineteen new friends I've never heard of and will never meet, and one of them invited him to a party, which he will not be attending, and two others asked him how his first day of classes was on his wall... sure, it's all stuff I could find on my own, but do I give a shit? Unlikely. If I did, I would probably check his profile every nine minutes like a normal creepy stalker.
Sheesh.
They already have transportation that drives itself. It's called the public transportation system. A much more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative, a sufficiently advanced public transportation would beat the idea of personal vehicles altogether.
Of course, the automotive industry would unfortunately never allow anything like that to happen, as has been the case with oil corporations and alternative fuel companies.
I think Wikipedia is more a social experiment than anything, but I treat it as a generally valid information source as much as I would other things on the internet. You have to put some amount of trust in others when you use their research.
Yes, you could insert false information into a Wikipedia article, but what would be the incentive? If you don't know information there's no reason to falsify it; nobody's monitoring your Wikipedia contribution progress. "Hahaha, now that kid's paper is going to have inaccurate data" doesn't sound like a really fufilling prank to pull, particularly since you can't really see the results. If someone wanted to destroy a wiki's integrity I think his first instinct would be to erase the content.
Also, yes, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, but it's just as easy also write a very professional sounding article and post it on a professional looking website and suddenly it's True. The way I see it, the internet on whole isn't extremely reliable unless you take for granted that nobody really wants to maliciously sabotage your research and other people know what they're talking about before they start writing papers about things.
Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but so can the internet itself. If the data you're trying to find are that important to you, you should probably check the library or get out there and do the research yourself.
I applaude the creative ressurrection of a childhood pastime, but I am skeptical of the game being much more than an elaborate "tag, you're it" with costumes.
Which is so disappointing, given the depth and complexity of the original Pacman. Which brilliantly colored ghost chased Pacman up YOUR ass?
Keeping him sheltered from other people is only going to make him feel more alienated from them, and make them feel alienated from him. The goal is to make him feel like a part of society. Besides, who's going to monitor him all the time so he doesn't accidentally have a conversation with someone "small-minded" or a "bully"? Those experiences are as important as positive social experiences and when they're happening you should be teaching skills to cope with them--not years after when they've already learned habits in dealing with them.
It's his -own name-. God help us the day Mick Donald couldn't open up Mick Donald's Landscaping because there's a fast food company with a similar name.
Isn't it true that two companies in different industries can't sue eachother for having the same or similar names? e.g., Supernova the hosting company couldn't sue Supernova the auto repair company?
And in any case, Mikeroesoft is if anything a parody.
So I don't care whether Microsoft's suing Mikeroesoft or if Mandrakesoft is suing Mandy Raike's Mandyraiksoft. It's still pretty moronic.
Well, if you're designing a cancer resource...
on
Web 'Rules' Changing?
·
· Score: 1
It would appear to me that the government isn't making up new rules at all. In fact, judging by the presence of "National Cancer Institute" and "Improving the communication of cancer research" in the header, I think it's a pretty safe bet that these rules aren't intended to apply to most of the internet. And fueled by that suspicion I clicked on the link decievingly entitled "About This Site"--surely, all this talk of cancer was a fluke and this is the government's attempts to lay down rules for web design and CONTROL OUR LIVES.
But alas.
What's the purpose of this site?
This site is designed to provide over 50 of the top Web design and usability guidelines based on emerging research and supporting information in the field.
I don't know about you but that sounds pretty innocent to me.
Firstly, I find this to be a rather general statement. I'm a teenager, I have a computer in my room with an internet hookup, and view of the monitor is obscured from the door (I generally have the door closed, anyways) and I don't look at porn at all. Sure, some less-than-wholesome humor but nothing that would really alarm my parents.
Otherwise, I agree with you--I really don't see the purpose behind all these rules. Whether they have a computer in their room or a computer in the family room, if they want to look at porn or anything else 'bad' they'll find a way to do it whether it's getting on when you're not home or just going over to a friend's house.
And so what if they do? Going overboard with preventitive measures is like fitting your daughter with a chastity belt. I mean, there's a point where you just have to trust your kids. Besides, it's not like looking at naked chicks on a computer is going to damage their oh-so-pure fifteen-year-old moral fibers. They're fifteen, and not looking at naked women isn't going to stop them from thinking about naked women.
So really, what harm is being done in just trusting them a little? If you're constantly asking your kids what they're doing they're probably going to feel like you don't trust them. Maybe they're not looking at porn. Maybe they're talking to their friend about a problem at school they don't want to discuss with you. Maybe they're cursing in IM conversations and they don't want you to see. (It's going to happen anyways when you're not there.) Constantly peering over their shoulder isn't going to stop the behavior, it's going to make lying an easy out and the more often they're lying about trivial things like that the easier it will be to lie about other things.
Sure, maybe check up on your kids once in a while, ask them what's going on, but don't be a snoop about it. It's okay to have these rules in place but it's not fair to walk by and examine their shoulder knowing they can't close windows according to your rules unless you have a specific reason to distrust them. Would you press your ear up to their door when they're having friends sleep over to hear what they're saying, or try to see what they're writing in a journal or snoop through their rooms without a reasonable suspicion of something wrong? If you respect their privacy--maybe discuss the issues one on one with them--I think they'll respect you for it.
Just my two-cents. Hope this helps.
CABBAGE, actually, is the longest word you can write with musical tones. And Baggage.
Face a baggage cabbage--look, whole sentences. The possibilities are virtually endless!
Researchers believe the technology could one day enable paralyzed people to type, control lights and heating controls, maneuver wheelchairs, or even manipulate robotic arms.
This could foreseeably be used in anyone, couldn't it? It would be much faster to type with your mind rather than your fingers and would eliminate the occurance of carpal tunnel and like things. Heck, you could change channels just thinking about it or turn on the light without getting out of bed. (A new era of laziness!)
I wonder if an input chip could be developed, too--it could possibly help the vision and hearing impaired, couldn't it?
#5 Posted by eXclusive on 26 Oct 2003 - 02:34
I cant see why on earth people would use the Alpha/beta stage software.
#5.1 Reply by SHoTTa35 on 26 Oct 2003 - 03:19
cuz XP is stable.... stable = boring! I dunno bout you but my PC has gotten extra boring lately... news like this and new software def makes me loving being on my PC again. I feel like i've been everywhere on the net so i can check out a new OS instead of going to the same websites day in day out (except Neowin of-course.. it's constantly changing YOu guys rock!)
For people like me who likes to fix stuff, when your PC runs 50 days without reeboot or crash then that sux!
By his reference to XP being stable it's obvious he's only used Windows products. Which seems to be exactly what people like him want.
Interestingly, I've yet to get spam on the account with which I post to Usenet(!) and I've been using it for at least a month now, albeit not too often. I just have my return address as:
Name: remove the scientist
Addy: foo@bar.einstein.com
It seems to be rather effective, and I'm questioning whether any spambot would bother to parse emails for certain phrases.
Though I'm probably gravely underestimating the lengths these people are willing to go through to offer me penis enlargements and bad real estate, you don't have to completely abolish all dreams I might have of a last shred of decency in the human race.
I was thinking exactly the same as I read that: why not let the corporations have their own sandbox for the everyday consumer who doesn't know/care any better, and create an entirely seperate new internetwork for those who can't stand the thought Doc suggests of a completely media-regulated internet?
Of course, with my quite limitted networking knowledge I have no idea how one would get something like that off the ground. It does interest me, though.
The overall concept sounds good: it's not to take away or limit business that want to keep their copyrights, but to give works over to public domain when they're no longer wanted anymore.
But really, why charge a fee at all, when you could just have the copyright holder turn in some sort of signed legal document saying "yes, I still want the copyright on this document"? I mean, $1 adds up, but there's really no reason you should have to pay and be fined for wanting to keep the copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really think that Facebook has an interest in teaching those durned kids a thing or two about privacy--those durned kids are their consumers and I don't see what they have to gain from continuing an unpopular feature.
Besides, the issue here isn't that OMG MY INFO IS ON TEH INTERNET?!--it's that, now, I know that my buddy who's going out of state just made nineteen new friends I've never heard of and will never meet, and one of them invited him to a party, which he will not be attending, and two others asked him how his first day of classes was on his wall... sure, it's all stuff I could find on my own, but do I give a shit? Unlikely. If I did, I would probably check his profile every nine minutes like a normal creepy stalker.
Sheesh.
They were developed through a project called OCTOR (sOft robotiC manipulaTORs)
MOSCREND (soMe Of theSe aCRonyms arE gettiNg riDiculous) is all I have to say.
HELAD (wHEn wiLl the mAdness enD)?
They already have transportation that drives itself. It's called the public transportation system. A much more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative, a sufficiently advanced public transportation would beat the idea of personal vehicles altogether. Of course, the automotive industry would unfortunately never allow anything like that to happen, as has been the case with oil corporations and alternative fuel companies.
I think Wikipedia is more a social experiment than anything, but I treat it as a generally valid information source as much as I would other things on the internet. You have to put some amount of trust in others when you use their research.
Yes, you could insert false information into a Wikipedia article, but what would be the incentive? If you don't know information there's no reason to falsify it; nobody's monitoring your Wikipedia contribution progress. "Hahaha, now that kid's paper is going to have inaccurate data" doesn't sound like a really fufilling prank to pull, particularly since you can't really see the results. If someone wanted to destroy a wiki's integrity I think his first instinct would be to erase the content.
Also, yes, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, but it's just as easy also write a very professional sounding article and post it on a professional looking website and suddenly it's True. The way I see it, the internet on whole isn't extremely reliable unless you take for granted that nobody really wants to maliciously sabotage your research and other people know what they're talking about before they start writing papers about things.
Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but so can the internet itself. If the data you're trying to find are that important to you, you should probably check the library or get out there and do the research yourself.
Because it wouldn't be fun if it were allowed.
I applaude the creative ressurrection of a childhood pastime, but I am skeptical of the game being much more than an elaborate "tag, you're it" with costumes.
Which is so disappointing, given the depth and complexity of the original Pacman. Which brilliantly colored ghost chased Pacman up YOUR ass?
Keeping him sheltered from other people is only going to make him feel more alienated from them, and make them feel alienated from him. The goal is to make him feel like a part of society. Besides, who's going to monitor him all the time so he doesn't accidentally have a conversation with someone "small-minded" or a "bully"? Those experiences are as important as positive social experiences and when they're happening you should be teaching skills to cope with them--not years after when they've already learned habits in dealing with them.
It's his -own name-. God help us the day Mick Donald couldn't open up Mick Donald's Landscaping because there's a fast food company with a similar name. Isn't it true that two companies in different industries can't sue eachother for having the same or similar names? e.g., Supernova the hosting company couldn't sue Supernova the auto repair company? And in any case, Mikeroesoft is if anything a parody. So I don't care whether Microsoft's suing Mikeroesoft or if Mandrakesoft is suing Mandy Raike's Mandyraiksoft. It's still pretty moronic.
But alas. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty innocent to me.
Firstly, I find this to be a rather general statement. I'm a teenager, I have a computer in my room with an internet hookup, and view of the monitor is obscured from the door (I generally have the door closed, anyways) and I don't look at porn at all. Sure, some less-than-wholesome humor but nothing that would really alarm my parents. Otherwise, I agree with you--I really don't see the purpose behind all these rules. Whether they have a computer in their room or a computer in the family room, if they want to look at porn or anything else 'bad' they'll find a way to do it whether it's getting on when you're not home or just going over to a friend's house. And so what if they do? Going overboard with preventitive measures is like fitting your daughter with a chastity belt. I mean, there's a point where you just have to trust your kids. Besides, it's not like looking at naked chicks on a computer is going to damage their oh-so-pure fifteen-year-old moral fibers. They're fifteen, and not looking at naked women isn't going to stop them from thinking about naked women. So really, what harm is being done in just trusting them a little? If you're constantly asking your kids what they're doing they're probably going to feel like you don't trust them. Maybe they're not looking at porn. Maybe they're talking to their friend about a problem at school they don't want to discuss with you. Maybe they're cursing in IM conversations and they don't want you to see. (It's going to happen anyways when you're not there.) Constantly peering over their shoulder isn't going to stop the behavior, it's going to make lying an easy out and the more often they're lying about trivial things like that the easier it will be to lie about other things. Sure, maybe check up on your kids once in a while, ask them what's going on, but don't be a snoop about it. It's okay to have these rules in place but it's not fair to walk by and examine their shoulder knowing they can't close windows according to your rules unless you have a specific reason to distrust them. Would you press your ear up to their door when they're having friends sleep over to hear what they're saying, or try to see what they're writing in a journal or snoop through their rooms without a reasonable suspicion of something wrong? If you respect their privacy--maybe discuss the issues one on one with them--I think they'll respect you for it. Just my two-cents. Hope this helps.
CABBAGE, actually, is the longest word you can write with musical tones. And Baggage. Face a baggage cabbage--look, whole sentences. The possibilities are virtually endless!
Interestingly, I've yet to get spam on the account with which I post to Usenet(!) and I've been using it for at least a month now, albeit not too often. I just have my return address as: Name: remove the scientist Addy: foo@bar.einstein.com It seems to be rather effective, and I'm questioning whether any spambot would bother to parse emails for certain phrases. Though I'm probably gravely underestimating the lengths these people are willing to go through to offer me penis enlargements and bad real estate, you don't have to completely abolish all dreams I might have of a last shred of decency in the human race.
I was thinking exactly the same as I read that: why not let the corporations have their own sandbox for the everyday consumer who doesn't know/care any better, and create an entirely seperate new internetwork for those who can't stand the thought Doc suggests of a completely media-regulated internet?
Of course, with my quite limitted networking knowledge I have no idea how one would get something like that off the ground. It does interest me, though.
The overall concept sounds good: it's not to take away or limit business that want to keep their copyrights, but to give works over to public domain when they're no longer wanted anymore. But really, why charge a fee at all, when you could just have the copyright holder turn in some sort of signed legal document saying "yes, I still want the copyright on this document"? I mean, $1 adds up, but there's really no reason you should have to pay and be fined for wanting to keep the copyright.