"Children" defined: depending on immediate adult convenience-some, all, or none of the people between zero and eighteen years of age. Expanded 1)In matters of accountability and responsibilty of one's actions, the definition seems to rely on a series of fluid variables about circumstances, individual knowledge and morals, as well as other random variables; 2)However, in matters of rights and privileges, the definition is absolute and not subject to any of the variables of (1), rather it is rigidly defined as a person under 18 years of age. Use whichever definition is convenient at the moment or allows for the harshest treatment. 3.)In some rare cases, there is no definition of "children" unlike (1) and (2), there are no "children" taxpayers-people under 18 must pay the same taxes at the same rate as those people over 18.
Back to the topic at hand.
If the government can enact a law that doesn't allow "children" to be sold a "violent" video game without their parent standing next to them, why can't they do the same thing for churches? Why can't the government enact a law that says a person under 18 can't be present at a church or receive any form of preaching, communion, confessional services, etc. without their parents?
Some posters in here made the argument that the government barring "children" is not a violation of (the manufactured concept) parents' rights because it keeps kids form buying things their parents wouldn't want them to. In reality it prevents certain people's kid from buying anything on their own even if they have the permission of their parent, because other people don't want their own kids to buy it.
This sort of government-as-an-extension-of-parent concept IS a direct affront to the concept of parents rights. If I'm a parent and I'm (allegedly*) responsible for my kids behavior, why can't I just tell them, "Yes, you can buy that game" and that be all that is required? Why am I required to prove my permission to the store owner? Why does one group of parents get to step on another in the name or "parent's rights?
*I say allegedly because are NOT responsible for what their kids do, except in a limited financial sense. Parents do not go to juvenile halls, do not perform community service and are not tried as adults for their kids actions. The kid bears the bulk, usually the entirety, of the responsiblity for their actions. If parents were actually responsible for their kids action to the same degree of their legally protected influence over their kids actions, it would be the parents going to juvenile hall, sweating away in youth boot camps, performing roadside community service, and serving time in adult jails when their kid something wrong.
At best, what a kid does is between him and his parents. If you don't want your kid drinking beer, buying violent video games, smoking, watching sexual programming on TV, seeing porn on the internet, that's your problem. Not mine, not the government that subsists in part on my tax dollars. You can try education or idiotic filters, but in the end, your rules, your problem. Don't like it? Tough! You should have thought of that before you decided to have kids. You don't get to force an entire society to bend around the whims and desires you've expressed under the banner of protecting your children.
The same people who support this twisted view or government being the parent away from the actual parent embrace the idea that "children" have no rights, that any restrictions imposed upon them are justified and constitutional. Generally these people will engage in discussions about how "children" are immature, rebellious, impulsive, etc. and that these traits (apparently unique to children(1)) justify heavy restrictions on their behavior.
However, should one of these "children" commit a crime where the punishment would be harsher by on-the-fly excluding the person from , these argument about impulsiveness, immaturity, irresponsibility all vanish and the only thing we hear is how this (now) hardened
Do not make these invasions profitable for these agencies.
I don't answer any questions at DUI roadblocks, nor would I consider talking to any officer manning one of those "information gathering" roadblocks. Make these tactics so hard to use that they abandon them and go back to real police work.
Checking the Kosher meal is stupid, any terrorist wishing to avoid detection will order something else.
Send as much of your email as possible encrypted. Make them work hard to find out what you think of the new mustang.
In short, gum up the works.
If this hinders the fbi/police, Tough Shit! Any investigative tactic so easily foiled is worthless and should be abandoned.
"Linux use avoids a bad neighborhood. How long that will remain, I don't know. The second best way is to have someone near you that is more vulnerable than you."
I agree, in part. Linux is the "new" more upscale (compared to existing) neighborhood. As time goes by, it will become "worse".
I live in Las Vegas, and have seen what was the "new" area in 1993ish become less "upscale" with more crime, etc. Compare an area like Smoke Ranch and Rainbow today to what it was 10 years ago.
As Linux becomes more popular, more people will go that neighborhood to check it out. More and more will stay and will bring with them all their bad habits. We know these people. Every article that discusses spyware involves them.
As the linux userbase grows, the bad will come with the good and companies will find it profitable to port their cheesy apps to Linux. Insecure apps ported to linux by companies wishing to (continue) appease(ing) joe user will bring a lot of the current windows problems to Linux.
Picture a bunch of Linux boxes with joe user running as "root" because he doesn't know better, it's easier, he hates typing in the root password for privileged functions, and/or he "knows what he's doing". He's the type that gets ahold of some POS app like bargain buddy or weatherbug or somethingly intentionally harmful and runs it. There are going to be others like him, running as root with net happy spypware running on his linux box looking for other linux boxes in similar fashion.
Even if the linux code was 100%, the various apps run by ignorant (in the polite context) users won't be.
I know the argument is tired, but as more and more people visit linux, more and more criminals will come to victimize those tourists and new residents.
Like most foools, I like to part with my money, but I'm not foolish enough to plop down $300+ for something marketed as portable, contains moving parts, but only has a 90 day warranty.
From creative's site, for the Jukebox Zen Xtra (30 and 60g)-the other Zens seem to have similar warrantie.: a) The limited warranty for the Product extends for three (3) months from the date of your purchase ("Warranty Period"). The warranty period will be extended by each whole day that the Product is out of Your possession for repair under this warranty.
b) Creative will pay for the labor charges incurred by Creative in repairing or replacing the defective parts during three (3) months from the date of your purchase.
c) You will not have to pay for any such replacement parts.
d) Creative also warrants that the repaired or replaced parts will be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of NINETY (90) days from the date of repair or replacement, or for the remainder of the Warranty Period, whichever is greater.
He's not complaining that the police are chasing drunk drivers instead of handling his CC problem, he's complaining that the police would rather spend their time chasing people whose sole crime is drinking a beer. There is a world of difference between drinking, and driving drunk. Most of the people, of any age, who drink, won't necessarily get drunk and most of them will not drive afterwards. Drinking != driving drunk.
If it were drunk drivers, I would agree that they are a higher priority target then the CC thief. If it's people under 21 who are only drinking, then I believe that the CC issue is of higher priority.
To recap, a drunk driver of any age is a higher priority threat then a CC thief, and a person of any age merely drinking is a lower priority threat then the CC thief.
I had a similar problem with my Linksys BEFSX41 router. Sometimes it would fly with 4 or even 8 connections to usenet through grabit, other times it would freeze and would need cycling. I ended up sending it back when it stopped after a only a few seconds of downloading.
I went through two RMAs and gave up. I think I tried everything; I got to the point where I used two battery powered laptops in the middle of my living room with everything unplugged except for the router. It would pass packets from the wan->lan at ~3-4mb/s and would drop off and die-power cycling was the only option. I tried different cables, firmwares, etc. Copying across the lan connections worked fine, just not wan->lan or vice versa.
Unless there's some super strong interference in my apt that only affected the linksys router and not the linksys cable modem,linksys wireless B AP or MN-700 series wirless hardware I got a day later (can't beat $13 for cardbus cards, $17 for pci card, and $19 for router at target:)).
I now hate linksys, I don't know what kept 3 of the same model from working, but the the 3rd try router now sits in a box.
All of these identity/authentication schemes aimed at seperating youth from adults/adult areas accomplish very little because the biggest threat to young people is not the person on the other side of the internet, it's the person on the other side of the house. Parents hurt and kill their kids at a rate that strangers could never achieve.
How many true children are actually adbucted by force because of an online contact? Maybe a handful.
The majority of the "internet kidnappings" we hear about are post-pubescent teens, many of driving age and all of rational thought age, who willingly leave their house to meet a stranger despite the warnings. They either have a terrible life (terrible is in the eye of the beholder), or they enjoy the risk.
No one can be oblivious to the "internet pervert" concept anymore-we hear about it everywhere. Anyone who goes to meet someone in the real world that they only "know" from the internet knows exactly what they're getting into and has chosen to accept the risks.
If a kid is truly oblivious to the idea that the person on the other side of the screen may not be who they say they are, then the blame lies solely with the parent. If they had taught their kids a little skepticism, we wouldn't have any problems.
Don't go burdening every web service provider and reciever with some ineffective authentication scheme because 30 kids, at most, in 27 million (12-17 year olds, 2000 census estimates) can't understand the idea that people on the internet might be lying.
Wow. For some reason, I thought I was alone in this pause when inserting a CD. I always figured it was a filter driver from one of the CD burning applications I had installed. It was either that or MusicMatch, which always had trouble starting up when I was burning a CD.
This may very well be one of the changes most welcomed by me.
"If a threat to national security is noticed by the system, and the threat is subsequently disappeared, it's not like the threat really existed in the first place. There's nobody to question, and therefore nobody was harmed. Q.E.D."
The concept was "whistleblower" a la Colleen Rowley (spelling?), not traitor spy a la Richard Ames.
A whistleblower is not a threat to national security.
I should have read the post a little better. I was referring only to HT capable single CPU setups, not dual CPUs or a single CPUs with dual cores. Of course, Intel/MS could do something to make XP Home treat one dual core CPU the same way it treats a HT CPU now.
XP Home also sees it as two processors. I used a Sony computer at Sam's Club that had a P4 3.06 HT. I was really surprised when I saw it was XP Home. Task Manager did show two processors and allowed me "set affinity" and everything.
I never had any problem upgrading office 2000, XP, or 2003 from NO-SP to SPwhatever using the amdin install. Using the office update site does require you to step through service packs, but admin installs don't.
Not necessarily. If potential copyright violations were what would make or break this kind of idea, the libraries could lock down the PC and use some kind of scripted program with icons that you click on to burn the various images they have stored on a central server. I realize bandwidth would be an issue, unless they set up only a couple of PCs with burners.
"NASA played the same "stay on the safe side" tune on many otehr missions - see for example the Voyager missions, etc."
Even worse than that though, is that in the future the satellite will fall into some kind of blackhole where very powerful beings will find it and send it back to Earth in an effort to locate "the creator".
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds a little more fun than naming them all after volcanos...
"Children" defined: depending on immediate adult convenience-some, all, or none of the people between zero and eighteen years of age. Expanded 1)In matters of accountability and responsibilty of one's actions, the definition seems to rely on a series of fluid variables about circumstances, individual knowledge and morals, as well as other random variables; 2)However, in matters of rights and privileges, the definition is absolute and not subject to any of the variables of (1), rather it is rigidly defined as a person under 18 years of age.
Use whichever definition is convenient at the moment or allows for the harshest treatment. 3.)In some rare cases, there is no definition of "children" unlike (1) and (2), there are no "children" taxpayers-people under 18 must pay the same taxes at the same rate as those people over 18.
Back to the topic at hand.
If the government can enact a law that doesn't allow "children" to be sold a "violent" video game without their parent standing next to them, why can't they do the same thing for churches? Why can't the government enact a law that says a person under 18 can't be present at a church or receive any form of preaching, communion, confessional services, etc. without their parents?
Some posters in here made the argument that the government barring "children" is not a violation of (the manufactured concept) parents' rights because it keeps kids form buying things their parents wouldn't want them to. In reality it prevents certain people's kid from buying anything on their own even if they have the permission of their parent, because other people don't want their own kids to buy it.
This sort of government-as-an-extension-of-parent concept IS a direct affront to the concept of parents rights. If I'm a parent and I'm (allegedly*) responsible for my kids behavior, why can't I just tell them, "Yes, you can buy that game" and that be all that is required? Why am I required to prove my permission to the store owner? Why does one group of parents get to step on another in the name or "parent's rights?
*I say allegedly because are NOT responsible for what their kids do, except in a limited financial sense. Parents do not go to juvenile halls, do not perform community service and are not tried as adults for their kids actions. The kid bears the bulk, usually the entirety, of the responsiblity for their actions. If parents were actually responsible for their kids action to the same degree of their legally protected influence over their kids actions, it would be the parents going to juvenile hall, sweating away in youth boot camps, performing roadside community service, and serving time in adult jails when their kid something wrong.
At best, what a kid does is between him and his parents. If you don't want your kid drinking beer, buying violent video games, smoking, watching sexual programming on TV, seeing porn on the internet, that's your problem. Not mine, not the government that subsists in part on my tax dollars. You can try education or idiotic filters, but in the end, your rules, your problem.
Don't like it? Tough! You should have thought of that before you decided to have kids. You don't get to force an entire society to bend around the whims and desires you've expressed under the banner of protecting your children.
The same people who support this twisted view or government being the parent away from the actual parent embrace the idea that "children" have no rights, that any restrictions imposed upon them are justified and constitutional. Generally these people will engage in discussions about how "children" are immature, rebellious, impulsive, etc. and that these traits (apparently unique to children(1)) justify heavy restrictions on their behavior.
However, should one of these "children" commit a crime where the punishment would be harsher by on-the-fly excluding the person from , these argument about impulsiveness, immaturity, irresponsibility all vanish and the only thing we hear is how this (now) hardened
Abnsoluetely agreed.
Do not make these invasions profitable for these agencies.
I don't answer any questions at DUI roadblocks, nor would I consider talking to any officer manning one of those "information gathering" roadblocks.
Make these tactics so hard to use that they abandon them and go back to real police work.
Checking the Kosher meal is stupid, any terrorist wishing to avoid detection will order something else.
Send as much of your email as possible encrypted. Make them work hard to find out what you think of the new mustang.
In short, gum up the works.
If this hinders the fbi/police, Tough Shit!
Any investigative tactic so easily foiled is worthless and should be abandoned.
Sorry,
"Even if the linux code was 100%, the various apps run by ignorant (in the polite context) users won't be."
Should be
"Even if the linux code was 100% secure, the various apps run by ignorant (in the polite context) users won't be."
"Linux use avoids a bad neighborhood. How long that will remain, I don't know. The second best way is to have someone near you that is more vulnerable than you."
I agree, in part. Linux is the "new" more upscale (compared to existing) neighborhood. As time goes by, it will become "worse".
I live in Las Vegas, and have seen what was the "new" area in 1993ish become less "upscale" with more crime, etc. Compare an area like Smoke Ranch and Rainbow today to what it was 10 years ago.
As Linux becomes more popular, more people will go that neighborhood to check it out. More and more will stay and will bring with them all their bad habits. We know these people. Every article that discusses spyware involves them.
As the linux userbase grows, the bad will come with the good and companies will find it profitable to port their cheesy apps to Linux.
Insecure apps ported to linux by companies wishing to (continue) appease(ing) joe user will bring a lot of the current windows problems to Linux.
Picture a bunch of Linux boxes with joe user running as "root" because he doesn't know better, it's easier, he hates typing in the root password for privileged functions, and/or he "knows what he's doing". He's the type that gets ahold of some POS app like bargain buddy or weatherbug or somethingly intentionally harmful and runs it. There are going to be others like him, running as root with net happy spypware running on his linux box looking for other linux boxes in similar fashion.
Even if the linux code was 100%, the various apps run by ignorant (in the polite context) users won't be.
I know the argument is tired, but as more and more people visit linux, more and more criminals will come to victimize those tourists and new residents.
Like most foools, I like to part with my money, but I'm not foolish enough to plop down $300+ for something marketed as portable, contains moving parts, but only has a 90 day warranty.
From creative's site, for the Jukebox Zen Xtra (30 and 60g)-the other Zens seem to have similar warrantie.:
a) The limited warranty for the Product extends for three (3) months from the date of your purchase ("Warranty Period"). The warranty period will be extended by each whole day that the Product is out of Your possession for repair under this warranty.
b) Creative will pay for the labor charges incurred by Creative in repairing or replacing the defective parts during three (3) months from the date of your purchase.
c) You will not have to pay for any such replacement parts.
d) Creative also warrants that the repaired or replaced parts will be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of NINETY (90) days from the date of repair or replacement, or for the remainder of the Warranty Period, whichever is greater.
He's not complaining that the police are chasing drunk drivers instead of handling his CC problem, he's complaining that the police would rather spend their time chasing people whose sole crime is drinking a beer. There is a world of difference between drinking, and driving drunk. Most of the people, of any age, who drink, won't necessarily get drunk and most of them will not drive afterwards. Drinking != driving drunk.
If it were drunk drivers, I would agree that they are a higher priority target then the CC thief. If it's people under 21 who are only drinking, then I believe that the CC issue is of higher priority.
To recap, a drunk driver of any age is a higher priority threat then a CC thief, and a person of any age merely drinking is a lower priority threat then the CC thief.
"non-parents' voices do not matter."
Until they are no longer required to pay taxes for other people's kids education, their voices do most certainly matter.
Hey this all sounds a lot like what happened in '94 before the AWB went into effect.
Gotta wonder how much "pre-ban" cards will cost in a few years...
I had a similar problem with my Linksys BEFSX41 router. Sometimes it would fly with 4 or even 8 connections to usenet through grabit, other times it would freeze and would need cycling.
I ended up sending it back when it stopped after a only a few seconds of downloading.
I went through two RMAs and gave up. I think I tried everything; I got to the point where I used two battery powered laptops in the middle of my living room with everything unplugged except for the router. It would pass packets from the wan->lan at ~3-4mb/s and would drop off and die-power cycling was the only option. I tried different cables, firmwares, etc. Copying across the lan connections worked fine, just not wan->lan or vice versa.
Unless there's some super strong interference in my apt that only affected the linksys router and not the linksys cable modem,linksys wireless B AP or MN-700 series wirless hardware I got a day later (can't beat $13 for cardbus cards, $17 for pci card, and $19 for router at target:)).
I now hate linksys, I don't know what kept 3 of the same model from working, but the the 3rd try router now sits in a box.
1) ~5.5GB, ~18%, roughly 1200 songs/performances(stand up comedy mostly)
2) Big fat 0
3) Big fat 0
4) 23GB, ~76%, Around 4900 songs/performances
5) 2GB ~6%, around 400 songs/performances
The numbers are off the top of my head, they're close but may not be exact
I'm sorry, I overstated something:
This line:
How many true children are actually adbucted by force because of an online contact? Maybe a handful.
Should say:
How many true children are actually adbucted by force because of an online contact? Not even a handful. Less then a dozen I'll bet.
You just made an excellent point.
All of these identity/authentication schemes aimed at seperating youth from adults/adult areas accomplish very little because the biggest threat to young people is not the person on the other side of the internet, it's the person on the other side of the house. Parents hurt and kill their kids at a rate that strangers could never achieve.
How many true children are actually adbucted by force because of an online contact? Maybe a handful.
The majority of the "internet kidnappings" we hear about are post-pubescent teens, many of driving age and all of rational thought age, who willingly leave their house to meet a stranger despite the warnings. They either have a terrible life (terrible is in the eye of the beholder), or they enjoy the risk.
No one can be oblivious to the "internet pervert" concept anymore-we hear about it everywhere. Anyone who goes to meet someone in the real world that they only "know" from the internet knows exactly what they're getting into and has chosen to accept the risks.
If a kid is truly oblivious to the idea that the person on the other side of the screen may not be who they say they are, then the blame lies solely with the parent. If they had taught their kids a little skepticism, we wouldn't have any problems.
Don't go burdening every web service provider and reciever with some ineffective authentication scheme because 30 kids, at most, in 27 million (12-17 year olds, 2000 census estimates) can't understand the idea that people on the internet might be lying.
the consensus seems to be that dishwahshers are the solution to the dead pig smell...
Wow. For some reason, I thought I was alone in this pause when inserting a CD. I always figured it was a filter driver from one of the CD burning applications I had installed.
It was either that or MusicMatch, which always had trouble starting up when I was burning a CD.
This may very well be one of the changes most welcomed by me.
"If a threat to national security is noticed by the system, and the threat is subsequently disappeared, it's not like the threat really existed in the first place. There's nobody to question, and therefore nobody was harmed. Q.E.D."
The concept was "whistleblower" a la Colleen Rowley (spelling?), not traitor spy a la Richard Ames.
A whistleblower is not a threat to national security.
"NAT is an evil abomination that breaks the Internet's end-to-end model"
Yep, just as PBX systems are evil abominations that break the telephone systems end-to-end model.
Not every phone in an office building has its own "routable" 7 digit phone number, why does every computer need its own routable IP address?
I should have read the post a little better.
I was referring only to HT capable single CPU setups, not dual CPUs or a single CPUs with dual cores.
Of course, Intel/MS could do something to make XP Home treat one dual core CPU the same way it treats a HT CPU now.
XP Home also sees it as two processors. I used a Sony computer at Sam's Club that had a P4 3.06 HT. I was really surprised when I saw it was XP Home. Task Manager did show two processors and allowed me "set affinity" and everything.
Does it work with Linux
I never had any problem upgrading office 2000, XP, or 2003 from NO-SP to SPwhatever using the amdin install. Using the office update site does require you to step through service packs, but admin installs don't.
Not necessarily. If potential copyright violations were what would make or break this kind of idea, the libraries could lock down the PC and use some kind of scripted program with icons that you click on to burn the various images they have stored on a central server. I realize bandwidth would be an issue, unless they set up only a couple of PCs with burners.
"NASA played the same "stay on the safe side" tune on many otehr missions - see for example the Voyager missions, etc."
Even worse than that though, is that in the future the satellite will fall into some kind of blackhole where very powerful beings will find it and send it back to Earth in an effort to locate "the creator".
You're talking about the new V.Pigeon compression standard.
But can PoIP be carried by pigeons?