I thought that the problem with morality and ethics is that I'm always right? (Apply to each individual who comments on their own morality or ethics). ---
seumas.com
Saying that there is nothing wrong with certain strings of 1's and 0's is like saying that there is nothing wrong with the certain way that light-waves bounce off a surface which retains certain waves and prevents them from escape so as to display what appears to be child pornography. ---
seumas.com
This type of issue is difficult for me to settle on, too. On one hand, nobody thinks child pornography is a good thing but on the other, I'm reminded that other issues are entwined here. Issues such as prosecuting someone for what amounts to nothing more than circumstancial evidence. I'd hate to see something similar applied to other areas, where perhaps having a trunk or glove compartment in your car is justifiable cause for assuming you're hiding something. But this is even worse than that -- the circumstancial evidence becomes the crime above and beyond the crime the circumstancial evidence might point to.
Sometimes I think we have to stop and think for a minute instead of assuming that because something is disgusting and wrong any methods of preventing it are justified. This will only give precedence to bleed over into other areas of law. ---
seumas.com
Likewise, 25 year old's are not the same as 25 year old's 15 years ago. An adult can just as easily take advantage of a child now as 20 years ago. ---
seumas.com
As detestible as the gross sexualizing of minors is (and I have to put Calvin Klein and most of the known world of commercial media along with the sweaty middle-aged perverts living their mom's basements whacking off to twelve-year-olds in with that) -- if the litmus test for being a child molestor is viewing child pornography, then why isn't the litmus test for being a terrorist owning a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook? Why don't we prosecute Unix admins for being crackers or people buying rope at the hardware store for potentially hiding strangled bodies under their house?
Inventing a crime to get around the fact that finding those who are really committing the true crime is a lousy attempt at cirumventing a person's rights. The burden of proof seems to be higher for drug posession than it does raping a child.
And one more quasi-gripe here -- why is it that we don't go after relatives of molested children the way we go after strangers and non-familiar molestors? If you have some photos of naked children, you're thrown in prison. If a teacher molests a student, they're thrown in prison. If a father molests his child, he and the family are sent to counseling. We attack constitutional liberties under the disguise of 'protecting the children', yet we so rarely handle the REAL first-hand front-line problems. It's difficult to take the justification of 'saving the children' for some of these issues, when they are so secular and half-assed.
Maybe we should start making exampleof people like Michael kennedy. A full grown man having an affair with (aka raping) his fourteen-year-old babysitter -- instead of just slapping him on the wrist (did he even get that?). Maybe if he had nude photos of the girl he was raping, he'd have been treated more harshely. After all, compared to rape and child molestation, photos are a real crime. ---
seumas.com
When I was 17 and my girlfriend at the time was 22, I was a minor. If she and I both posessed a picture of us half-nude, nude or even just sexually suggestive, she would technically be in trouble with the law over this.
However, in the states, you are a minor until the age of 21. You may be old enough at 18,19 or 20 to smoke, drive, vote, pay taxes, be charged as an adult in any crime or even die for your country -- but you can't drink or appear nude in a photo?
So to continue the story above into something real.
When I was 20, the girl I was with at the time was 25. We were playing around at a party and some friends snapped a few incriminating photos. Again, being 20 -- I'm a minor and she's an adult. Does this mean that I'm being sexually exploited and that she (who posesses a few copies of these photos) and our friends (who also posess them) are sick pedophiles?
I'm not arguing with anything else here, although I think we have to draw the line of criminalization while the act being criminalized is still a crime and not (although potentially detestible) speech. I'm just curious of the wording they used in this. ---
seumas.com
Well, a +4 (Interesting) would be one thing. Something can be interesting and also wrong/annoying/not-agreeable -- but +4 (Informative)? I don't think I informed anyone of anything... sheesh.
Hey, on another note -- anyone notice that after your karma gets to a certain point, positive moderations of posts no longer increase your karma? ---
seumas.com
There are several dozen stations in the broadcast bands in this area and every one of them repeats their playlist after about two or three hours.
I prefer to listen to a variety of music (my choice of music) rather than what some radio company is being paid or otherwise compensated to over-expose to its audience.
I'll listen to a few good streaming radio stations online though -- but they don't broadcast on the airwaves anyway.
If it turns out that this service offers a larger variety of music (not just the stations that play the Top40) then they might have a chance at something successful. But I'm not going to hold my breath. ---
seumas.com
Yeah, but most consumers can't figure out how to program their VCR or store a number in their cell phone's memory. *something, entering a time, choosing a CD -- seems like too many steps to be used by most people.
I say they're more likely to just use the service to find out the song name/artist and then disconnect the call and stop at their local store to buy it. ---
seumas.com
This is excellent news. As I posted in a DMCA article on Slashdot a few months ago, I was contacted by lawyers for Universal Records when a user was selling Godsmack bootlegs on my auction site. Like I told Universal -- deal with the person selling them, not me. And I left it at that.
I'm glad to know that if they ever contact me again, I have a legitimate legal precedent to tell them to go to hell. ---
seumas.com
Which is precisely why mediocrity will always rule. Majority (or in some cases, plurality) rules. And, unfortunately, the majority of people are not informed or truly make poor choices based on what MTV or Oprah tell them to. This is why people will always rely on two things: The party line and Religion to dictate how they vote. It's much easier than using any critical thinking skills for themselves.
Now, that being said -- I've seen another image of the ballots in question aside from the first one I saw on CNN. The example by CNN looked like both pages were viewable at one time with arrows obviously pointing to the correct hole -- no excuse for choosing the wrong one. But in this other photo I've seen, there is a list of candidates on the left side, then some arrows, then a blank page on the right, then you flip the page and the next right-sided page has more candidates -- so you cannot see ALL candidates at the same moment, which could explain why the holes would appear confusing. Of course, the arrow still points directly to the holes -- but with two holes close together and no OTHER arrow pointing to the second hole, it's feasible that a small percentage of people could punch the wrong one -- particularly if they are voting in person at the booth under the stress and excitement of a building full of voters running around.
It should be noted, though, that BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats verified and authorized the ballots in Florida before the election took place. If there was any reasonable expectation for confusion, one of them would have raised their concern. Obviously, they did not and there was not such a concern. ---
seumas.com
I saw the ballots in question on CNN's website. There is NO WAY anyone could be mislead into voting for the wrong person unless you're extremely stupid or not paying any attention whatsoever. These blind old fogies should take a little time and READ before they sign something (or in this case, punch a whole). Christ, there were ARROWS pointing directly to the correct holes -- what did they think the arrows were fucking for?!
As for the Electoral College needing to be changed -- that's bullshit. Everyone says "but it's such an unfair system!" -- untrue. The electoral system was intended to make things simpler and fairer in a multi-party system and was designed in a time when there were no political parties, but many were expected to exist.
The problem isn't to kill the electoral college process, but to bolster its importance by encouraging a greater choice in candidates and parties. Of course, it is in the best interest of the GOP and DNC to oppose that and, instead, agree with the downfall of an otherwise worthy electoral system. ---
seumas.com
I mean to state that electoral votes have been cast against the popular vote in the electoral vote's region called into question nine times in the past -- not that it has happened nine times in Florida.
Don't know if I had confused anyone, but I don't want to sound any dumber than I have to.;) ---
seumas.com
You're not stupid -- just using a popular phrase.;)
I don't see what the hangup is over how many votes are cast for each candidate in Florida. Bush could win by a million votes in Florida and the electoral vote could still be cast for Gore. Electoral votes have been cast against the popular vote of that electoral vote's region nine times in the past -- in a race this tight, it would seem more likely to occur than ever before. ---
seumas.com
If so many people have the sites in their bookmarks that they'll be listed on the site's search engine -- who's going to be left to search for the sites, since they're already in everyone's bookmarks?! ---
seumas.com
Ah. Yes. The same Techies.com that keeps spamming me from different regional servers, even though I've unsubscribed from their mailing list months ago. (They stopped sending me mail from my local region, but immediately started sending me mail from their kansas region servers and others.).
I've completely given up on them ever completely removing me. ---
seumas.com
Well, the last time I used Napster, it was nearly impossible to find anything other than Britney Spears or Puff Daddy. How Napster could survive on subscriptions when most of their clients are probably 12-year old MTV-boppers, I'll never know.
A shared FTP would allow you and your friends in Germany to share your desired types of music much easier.
Also, I think that a group of friends sharing music on a private FTP server falls closer into the guides of 'fair use' than anything else. ---
seumas.com
Yeah, well, I'd stick to private FTP servers and small groups of friends with music to share, thank you. Better quality, better choice, more reliable, less cut-off files and no bandwidth issues.
It's rare that one finds an item on Napster that they couldn't find from a friend they already have. Napster just made it easier for people who don't have friends or connections to still get lots of free music. ---
seumas.com
So... Uh.. Sounds like they could include compressed cookies in that claim, too. How fucking rediculous. Somehow I think there are a few too many examples of 'prior art' in any claim they make that would prevent them from keeping their patent. ---
seumas.com
Well, they can video-tape it. It must be comforting to know that you're being watched everywhere you go in public. Sure, it won't prevent you from being killed or maimed, but at least it'll be archived on video and perhaps the person who did it will be found. Lucky you. ---
seumas.com
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. That was horrible humor. I'll stick the No Score +1 Bonus on right this damn minute...
---
seumas.com
I thought that the problem with morality and ethics is that I'm always right? (Apply to each individual who comments on their own morality or ethics).
---
seumas.com
Saying that there is nothing wrong with certain strings of 1's and 0's is like saying that there is nothing wrong with the certain way that light-waves bounce off a surface which retains certain waves and prevents them from escape so as to display what appears to be child pornography.
---
seumas.com
Sometimes I think we have to stop and think for a minute instead of assuming that because something is disgusting and wrong any methods of preventing it are justified. This will only give precedence to bleed over into other areas of law.
---
seumas.com
Likewise, 25 year old's are not the same as 25 year old's 15 years ago. An adult can just as easily take advantage of a child now as 20 years ago.
---
seumas.com
Inventing a crime to get around the fact that finding those who are really committing the true crime is a lousy attempt at cirumventing a person's rights. The burden of proof seems to be higher for drug posession than it does raping a child.
And one more quasi-gripe here -- why is it that we don't go after relatives of molested children the way we go after strangers and non-familiar molestors? If you have some photos of naked children, you're thrown in prison. If a teacher molests a student, they're thrown in prison. If a father molests his child, he and the family are sent to counseling. We attack constitutional liberties under the disguise of 'protecting the children', yet we so rarely handle the REAL first-hand front-line problems. It's difficult to take the justification of 'saving the children' for some of these issues, when they are so secular and half-assed.
Maybe we should start making exampleof people like Michael kennedy. A full grown man having an affair with (aka raping) his fourteen-year-old babysitter -- instead of just slapping him on the wrist (did he even get that?). Maybe if he had nude photos of the girl he was raping, he'd have been treated more harshely. After all, compared to rape and child molestation, photos are a real crime.
---
seumas.com
When I was 17 and my girlfriend at the time was 22, I was a minor. If she and I both posessed a picture of us half-nude, nude or even just sexually suggestive, she would technically be in trouble with the law over this.
However, in the states, you are a minor until the age of 21. You may be old enough at 18,19 or 20 to smoke, drive, vote, pay taxes, be charged as an adult in any crime or even die for your country -- but you can't drink or appear nude in a photo?
So to continue the story above into something real.
When I was 20, the girl I was with at the time was 25. We were playing around at a party and some friends snapped a few incriminating photos. Again, being 20 -- I'm a minor and she's an adult. Does this mean that I'm being sexually exploited and that she (who posesses a few copies of these photos) and our friends (who also posess them) are sick pedophiles?
I'm not arguing with anything else here, although I think we have to draw the line of criminalization while the act being criminalized is still a crime and not (although potentially detestible) speech. I'm just curious of the wording they used in this.
---
seumas.com
Hey, on another note -- anyone notice that after your karma gets to a certain point, positive moderations of posts no longer increase your karma?
---
seumas.com
I prefer to listen to a variety of music (my choice of music) rather than what some radio company is being paid or otherwise compensated to over-expose to its audience.
I'll listen to a few good streaming radio stations online though -- but they don't broadcast on the airwaves anyway.
If it turns out that this service offers a larger variety of music (not just the stations that play the Top40) then they might have a chance at something successful. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
---
seumas.com
I say they're more likely to just use the service to find out the song name/artist and then disconnect the call and stop at their local store to buy it.
---
seumas.com
I guess on the "Hey, neat idea!" scale, it rates a couple points. But on the "How many people will use it?" scale, I think it's pretty much DOA.
---
seumas.com
I'm glad to know that if they ever contact me again, I have a legitimate legal precedent to tell them to go to hell.
---
seumas.com
Now, that being said -- I've seen another image of the ballots in question aside from the first one I saw on CNN. The example by CNN looked like both pages were viewable at one time with arrows obviously pointing to the correct hole -- no excuse for choosing the wrong one. But in this other photo I've seen, there is a list of candidates on the left side, then some arrows, then a blank page on the right, then you flip the page and the next right-sided page has more candidates -- so you cannot see ALL candidates at the same moment, which could explain why the holes would appear confusing. Of course, the arrow still points directly to the holes -- but with two holes close together and no OTHER arrow pointing to the second hole, it's feasible that a small percentage of people could punch the wrong one -- particularly if they are voting in person at the booth under the stress and excitement of a building full of voters running around.
It should be noted, though, that BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats verified and authorized the ballots in Florida before the election took place. If there was any reasonable expectation for confusion, one of them would have raised their concern. Obviously, they did not and there was not such a concern.
---
seumas.com
Voters were not intended to have a direct one-to-one impact on the election from day one.
---
seumas.com
As for the Electoral College needing to be changed -- that's bullshit. Everyone says "but it's such an unfair system!" -- untrue. The electoral system was intended to make things simpler and fairer in a multi-party system and was designed in a time when there were no political parties, but many were expected to exist.
The problem isn't to kill the electoral college process, but to bolster its importance by encouraging a greater choice in candidates and parties. Of course, it is in the best interest of the GOP and DNC to oppose that and, instead, agree with the downfall of an otherwise worthy electoral system.
---
seumas.com
I mean to state that electoral votes have been cast against the popular vote in the electoral vote's region called into question nine times in the past -- not that it has happened nine times in Florida.
Don't know if I had confused anyone, but I don't want to sound any dumber than I have to. ;)
---
seumas.com
I don't see what the hangup is over how many votes are cast for each candidate in Florida. Bush could win by a million votes in Florida and the electoral vote could still be cast for Gore. Electoral votes have been cast against the popular vote of that electoral vote's region nine times in the past -- in a race this tight, it would seem more likely to occur than ever before.
---
seumas.com
If so many people have the sites in their bookmarks that they'll be listed on the site's search engine -- who's going to be left to search for the sites, since they're already in everyone's bookmarks?!
---
seumas.com
Of course, she'll be a giant frost-bitten icicle by the time she smacks into the earth and shatters, but it would still be cool.
---
seumas.com
I've completely given up on them ever completely removing me.
---
seumas.com
A shared FTP would allow you and your friends in Germany to share your desired types of music much easier.
Also, I think that a group of friends sharing music on a private FTP server falls closer into the guides of 'fair use' than anything else.
---
seumas.com
It's rare that one finds an item on Napster that they couldn't find from a friend they already have. Napster just made it easier for people who don't have friends or connections to still get lots of free music.
---
seumas.com
So... Uh.. Sounds like they could include compressed cookies in that claim, too. How fucking rediculous. Somehow I think there are a few too many examples of 'prior art' in any claim they make that would prevent them from keeping their patent.
---
seumas.com
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 270292 hours , 27 minutes ago. No need to try again.
---
seumas.com
Well, they can video-tape it. It must be comforting to know that you're being watched everywhere you go in public. Sure, it won't prevent you from being killed or maimed, but at least it'll be archived on video and perhaps the person who did it will be found. Lucky you.
---
seumas.com