Seriously, they do have ankle (and other similar devices) now, but the problem is they have ot get caught to have it put on. It is not gaurenteed that the person will keep it on.
With this chip they can now implant all crimals. Turn it on when they need to. I noticed they were vague on who would be going to this invitation only event. I also have a major problem with it. It can be turn on externally by anyone else!!!! Notice how they phrased the the sentences saying it can by turned off by the user. They intentionally seperated that from the paragraph above where they said it can be turned o by a ground station or the user. They also didn't say how the user could turn it off. Would we have to buy a $2000 unit to turn it off? They would be bad for a lot of people!
There is too much I don't like about the chip. Big brother can now be watching when ever they want! Privacy just took a big step backwards!
I think they just realised that the artists would start skipping them. Let's be realistic. Who needs them any more?
An artist can set up shop on the internet. Allow users to buy cds that the artist recorded. The cds could be in your regular music format and the cds could be in MP3 format. They could release their singles as free MP3, and they could design their web site to allow customers to design a CD ("designer CDs") putting all of their favorite song on it. Groups of artist could group together and allow "designer CDs" to be created taking songs from any artist in the group.
The boundaries are limitless. As userfriendly stated, the RIAA is obsolete! I hope some of the artists wake up and realise the potential. I woul dlove to design my own CD and buy it in both MP3 and regular flavors.
Does this mean we are closer to quantum computers too? That would open up a whole other can of worms the government will fall behind in their knowledge of. I can see it now. Company A patents DNA sequence A and Company B patents the building blocks of DNA sequences. Think that won't happen? Look at the current patents granted. Doesn't somebody have patent on the . in.com?
According to the article on their site. They did it to prove Linux was scaleable. ABCNews has a picture on it's web site. I would buy it.
IBM goes into better detail on their web site. It has 8M Flash memory, 8M DRAM, a wheel (for getting around), touch screen, and both IR and RF wireless connectivity. Also, it is designed to connect to PCs, cell phones and other wireless-enabled devices. It can view condensed email and pager like messages. It will provide users with calender, to-do list, and an address book, I don't think these are done yet. They plan on doing more with it.
Asside for the "look what we can do" part of it, I think they chose linux because of its open source status, and to add to their list of thing they are doing to promote Linux. The open source might allow you to customise your own watch.:) I would definately by it.
I will reply to the origanal. To answer you first to sentences, I say no, and no. I never said anything about devil whorship. You tried to put those words in my mouth. I never made any distinction between those trying to research the subjects for a report and those who are researching to learn how to perform such acts.
A more correct phrase would be I think that is ok to censor the net based on where it is accessed. There is a difference. Censoring the net would be to try and stop all access to a subject. Censorship based on where it is accessed means the information can still be accessed--just not at certain locations.
For example, if I go on what you said/believe about not sensoring the net, then I can conclude you are in favor of 5 & 6 year olds (kindergarden and 1st grade) accessing porn (and/or pedophilia) from a school computer or a public library. Going on what you said, and what others had said, those are topics you have no problems with children viewing anywhere. I on the other hand don't care what they view in their own house. That is a parents respouncibility to censor what they want. I don't have a problem with censoring in locations such as PUBLIC libraries and PUBLIC schools. The reason for this is two fold. One, it is their equipement. They can censor what they want. Two, is that it is a public place, and being a public place it should be held to the decency laws of the area--what ever they should be.
Please don put words in my mouth. I never said religion was irrelevant. I have one question for you though? Would you want your kids to be reading over someones shoulders as the personal is researching methods of animal sacrifice, human sacrefice, or canabalism? All of thos still exist today to some extent.
See this for further explanations.
Personally, I believe nothing will ever replace a parent being involved with their kid's life and censoring the information for themselves. I understand why they are doing this. In the long run this will save some communities from lawsuits because person A was able to view subject B at place C. At least you didn't put words in my mouth.
You too are putting words in my mouth. I don't believe in sheltering a kid. I do have an experiment for you try. Go to a first grade class and a kindergarden. Then explain EXACTLY what a partial birth abortion is, and don't take out the "gross" and "violent" parts. Then sure the web with these children and visit as many porn sites as you can find. Then find a forum that discusses the problem in relationships because of it. These 2 examples of somethings that a young child is not ready to handle.
You forget that the idea is to protect people for whom their "defenses" are not as strong as our are. You apperently don't realise how much censorship goes on in our society. Do you? Every time you read the news or watch TV, they person wrote wrote the "news" you are paying attention to has censored data and facts to paint a view.
For example, I bet you didn't know that the percentage of males and females that are the victims of domestic violence is closer to equal (50-50) than the media would have you believe. A woman doing a story about female victims discovered this fact when she started her interview process. The fact is that men either can't report the abuse becuase of being consider a "whimp" or when they do they get laughed at and either way it doesn't get reported. Women through things that hurt. If you pay atention to they way the facts are presented inmost stoires that quote females being abused more, you see (or hear) the say somewhere "of reported cases".
My point is we can't control what is censored on the media outlets such as new, radio, and tv. That would involve infringement on free speech, but we can control what is sensored in public schools and libraries. I for one don't want my tax dollars spent on a system that people can use to view material. I think the current legislation is too broad and should provide some way to maintain a list of what is exceptable to censor.
What I said was "[t]here are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about. I think requiring it would be good to a point. " and not "[b]e careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious." I never said it was obvious because it isn't. It won't become obvous till decades later when people look back at it, and they will analise what we did and either agree or diagree.
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about. I think requiring it would be good to a point. I am more wrried about the legislation that will follow if this one is successful.
If you really want an issue to deal with, boycott the RIAA and let them know it.
I will reply even though this is really flaimbait.
Actually, I had a complaint with a previous article of Mr. Moody's I don't usual read his anymore because I have found him to be more wrong than correct. Freedom of speech is one thing, but I think the media has a responcibility to get the facts right and not worry about the picture they want to paint for you to see. I have talk with a person in the indestry, and this person agrees that the media doesn't always care if the facts are straight--as long as it paints the picture you want to see.
This really isn't a free speech issue. It's a reliablity issue. Mr. Moody is not reliable for honest factual reporting. Even though he does editorials mainly, he should pay more atention to the details and facts before he writes (or types) his words of poor wisdom.
I quoted that and the next paragraph when I sent an email to ABCNEWS. I think I also said ABCNEWS should require Moody to appologise for his gross lack of intellegence in the tech field. I did state it nicer in the email.:)
It's funny, Moody never scrolled down a little more. It has Microsoft listed as the top 12 packages most vulnerable in 1999. I may have gotten the title wrong because I checked it yesterday before it was/.ed.
Rather than flames, I would have rather seen everybody write ABCNEWS pointing the obvious problems with his article. Then asking them to ban him from ever posting a tech article in any of their news outlets.
I seriously think Mr. Moody should be banned form writing any commentary on technical arctles for the press. He made several mistakes. If you scroll down on the page that Mr. Moody was basing thing on, you'd see that Microsft had the top twelve most vulnerable packages. Unfotunately, I can't seem to get the page to bring up the graphics with the stats. Look's like it is being/.ed. I sent an email to ABCNEWS asking them to ban him, but I doubt that will happen. I did point out the flaws in his arguements though. I haven't received a respounce as of the writing of this.
It's probably already been posted but if you go to the web site for SecurityFocus.com (who does bugtrack), and scroll down. They have a chart that lists the top Vulnrablities of 2000. The top 2 are NT 4.0 and Win 2000. Also, if you look a little further down, The top 12 Vulnerable packages of 1999 were all Microsoft Packages. I wish Mr. Moody wasn't allowed to write tech articles. Let's all bug ABCNEWS.com by sending them email asking them to ban Mr. Moody.
With that said, it seems to me that he seems to leave out some important items. For one, a lot of these people have grown up in a post cold war society where they are constantly bombarded with advertisements everywhere around them. They by items with brand name logos on them so other people see this advertisement. Look at the rest of the culture. Look at the prevailence of music styles that angry when they have no reason to be angry. Are they living with the threat of an invasion from some country? No. Are we in a great depression to rival the Great Depression. {for those who don't care know history it was that time when an aweful lot of people didn't have work, and couldn't find work.} Look at TV. Look at the prevailence of sex and violence. No other generation has grown up with such constant bombardment of sex and violence. Look at the popularity of the crazy show that are called "talk shows". This atitude is not just inside the tech world. It is previalent all around you. Look at the recent death caused by a father who atacked a guy at a kids Hockey game. Starting to get the point? They just want to single the tech world out. They should look in their own little world of media. There is a lot of argueing (and back stabbing) going on behind those smiles on the tv. These are just the times we live in, and they seem to be getting worse. I just don't like the media singling out the tech industry just becuase they think crackers = hackers and they are evil. It could be argued that Alexander Bell was a hacker of his day. The hacker mentality has probably been around as long as we have.
Slashdot Mirror
So everyone can receive the mark of the devil. ;)
Seriously, they do have ankle (and other similar devices) now, but the problem is they have ot get caught to have it put on. It is not gaurenteed that the person will keep it on.
With this chip they can now implant all crimals. Turn it on when they need to. I noticed they were vague on who would be going to this invitation only event. I also have a major problem with it. It can be turn on externally by anyone else!!!! Notice how they phrased the the sentences saying it can by turned off by the user. They intentionally seperated that from the paragraph above where they said it can be turned o by a ground station or the user. They also didn't say how the user could turn it off. Would we have to buy a $2000 unit to turn it off? They would be bad for a lot of people!
There is too much I don't like about the chip. Big brother can now be watching when ever they want! Privacy just took a big step backwards!
Do they really need more money? Doesn't the x amount of millions they have already amount to enough???
I think they just realised that the artists would start skipping them. Let's be realistic. Who needs them any more?
An artist can set up shop on the internet. Allow users to buy cds that the artist recorded. The cds could be in your regular music format and the cds could be in MP3 format. They could release their singles as free MP3, and they could design their web site to allow customers to design a CD ("designer CDs") putting all of their favorite song on it. Groups of artist could group together and allow "designer CDs" to be created taking songs from any artist in the group.
The boundaries are limitless. As userfriendly stated, the RIAA is obsolete! I hope some of the artists wake up and realise the potential. I woul dlove to design my own CD and buy it in both MP3 and regular flavors.
Does this mean we are closer to quantum computers too? That would open up a whole other can of worms the government will fall behind in their knowledge of. I can see it now. Company A patents DNA sequence A and Company B patents the building blocks of DNA sequences. Think that won't happen? Look at the current patents granted. Doesn't somebody have patent on the . in .com?
According to the article on their site. They did it to prove Linux was scaleable. ABCNews has a picture on it's web site. I would buy it.
:) I would definately by it.
IBM goes into better detail on their web site. It has 8M Flash memory, 8M DRAM, a wheel (for getting around), touch screen, and both IR and RF wireless connectivity. Also, it is designed to connect to PCs, cell phones and other wireless-enabled devices. It can view condensed email and pager like messages. It will provide users with calender, to-do list, and an address book, I don't think these are done yet. They plan on doing more with it.
Asside for the "look what we can do" part of it, I think they chose linux because of its open source status, and to add to their list of thing they are doing to promote Linux. The open source might allow you to customise your own watch.
I will not upgrade and any computer I get (whether I buy it or build it) will be a Linux only machine from now on. MS stuff just costs too much $$!!!
I will reply to the origanal. To answer you first to sentences, I say no, and no. I never said anything about devil whorship. You tried to put those words in my mouth. I never made any distinction between those trying to research the subjects for a report and those who are researching to learn how to perform such acts.
A more correct phrase would be I think that is ok to censor the net based on where it is accessed. There is a difference. Censoring the net would be to try and stop all access to a subject. Censorship based on where it is accessed means the information can still be accessed--just not at certain locations.
For example, if I go on what you said/believe about not sensoring the net, then I can conclude you are in favor of 5 & 6 year olds (kindergarden and 1st grade) accessing porn (and/or pedophilia) from a school computer or a public library. Going on what you said, and what others had said, those are topics you have no problems with children viewing anywhere. I on the other hand don't care what they view in their own house. That is a parents respouncibility to censor what they want. I don't have a problem with censoring in locations such as PUBLIC libraries and PUBLIC schools. The reason for this is two fold. One, it is their equipement. They can censor what they want. Two, is that it is a public place, and being a public place it should be held to the decency laws of the area--what ever they should be.
Please don put words in my mouth. I never said religion was irrelevant. I have one question for you though? Would you want your kids to be reading over someones shoulders as the personal is researching methods of animal sacrifice, human sacrefice, or canabalism? All of thos still exist today to some extent.
See this for further explanations.
Personally, I believe nothing will ever replace a parent being involved with their kid's life and censoring the information for themselves. I understand why they are doing this. In the long run this will save some communities from lawsuits because person A was able to view subject B at place C. At least you didn't put words in my mouth.
You too are putting words in my mouth. I don't believe in sheltering a kid. I do have an experiment for you try. Go to a first grade class and a kindergarden. Then explain EXACTLY what a partial birth abortion is, and don't take out the "gross" and "violent" parts. Then sure the web with these children and visit as many porn sites as you can find. Then find a forum that discusses the problem in relationships because of it. These 2 examples of somethings that a young child is not ready to handle.
You forget that the idea is to protect people for whom their "defenses" are not as strong as our are. You apperently don't realise how much censorship goes on in our society. Do you? Every time you read the news or watch TV, they person wrote wrote the "news" you are paying attention to has censored data and facts to paint a view.
For example, I bet you didn't know that the percentage of males and females that are the victims of domestic violence is closer to equal (50-50) than the media would have you believe. A woman doing a story about female victims discovered this fact when she started her interview process. The fact is that men either can't report the abuse becuase of being consider a "whimp" or when they do they get laughed at and either way it doesn't get reported. Women through things that hurt. If you pay atention to they way the facts are presented inmost stoires that quote females being abused more, you see (or hear) the say somewhere "of reported cases".
My point is we can't control what is censored on the media outlets such as new, radio, and tv. That would involve infringement on free speech, but we can control what is sensored in public schools and libraries. I for one don't want my tax dollars spent on a system that people can use to view material. I think the current legislation is too broad and should provide some way to maintain a list of what is exceptable to censor.
What I said was "[t]here are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about. I think requiring it would be good to a point. " and not "[b]e careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious." I never said it was obvious because it isn't. It won't become obvous till decades later when people look back at it, and they will analise what we did and either agree or diagree.
Mr. Moody is really on Microsoft's payroll for linux spin control!
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about. I think requiring it would be good to a point. I am more wrried about the legislation that will follow if this one is successful.
If you really want an issue to deal with, boycott the RIAA and let them know it.
I will reply even though this is really flaimbait.
Actually, I had a complaint with a previous article of Mr. Moody's I don't usual read his anymore because I have found him to be more wrong than correct. Freedom of speech is one thing, but I think the media has a responcibility to get the facts right and not worry about the picture they want to paint for you to see. I have talk with a person in the indestry, and this person agrees that the media doesn't always care if the facts are straight--as long as it paints the picture you want to see.
This really isn't a free speech issue. It's a reliablity issue. Mr. Moody is not reliable for honest factual reporting. Even though he does editorials mainly, he should pay more atention to the details and facts before he writes (or types) his words of poor wisdom.
I quoted that and the next paragraph when I sent an email to ABCNEWS. I think I also said ABCNEWS should require Moody to appologise for his gross lack of intellegence in the tech field. I did state it nicer in the email. :)
It's funny, Moody never scrolled down a little more. It has Microsoft listed as the top 12 packages most vulnerable in 1999. I may have gotten the title wrong because I checked it yesterday before it was /.ed.
Rather than flames, I would have rather seen everybody write ABCNEWS pointing the obvious problems with his article. Then asking them to ban him from ever posting a tech article in any of their news outlets.
The stats age loaded yesterday. The stats are on images. They were not loading today. I bet they got /.ed.
You obviously didn't read the origanal article and check the stats he was quoting. Other wise you'd not be saying this.
I seriously think Mr. Moody should be banned form writing any commentary on technical arctles for the press. He made several mistakes. If you scroll down on the page that Mr. Moody was basing thing on, you'd see that Microsft had the top twelve most vulnerable packages. Unfotunately, I can't seem to get the page to bring up the graphics with the stats. Look's like it is being /.ed. I sent an email to ABCNEWS asking them to ban him, but I doubt that will happen. I did point out the flaws in his arguements though. I haven't received a respounce as of the writing of this.
Or we could just lengthen them. It'll make us remember bet. Yeah that its. What was that program called thisisareallylongna.....
It's probably already been posted but if you go to the web site for SecurityFocus.com (who does bugtrack), and scroll down. They have a chart that lists the top Vulnrablities of 2000. The top 2 are NT 4.0 and Win 2000. Also, if you look a little further down, The top 12 Vulnerable packages of 1999 were all Microsoft Packages. I wish Mr. Moody wasn't allowed to write tech articles. Let's all bug ABCNEWS.com by sending them email asking them to ban Mr. Moody.
First, which one of you set him off on this rant?
With that said, it seems to me that he seems to leave out some important items. For one, a lot of these people have grown up in a post cold war society where they are constantly bombarded with advertisements everywhere around them. They by items with brand name logos on them so other people see this advertisement.
Look at the rest of the culture. Look at the prevailence of music styles that angry when they have no reason to be angry. Are they living with the threat of an invasion from some country? No. Are we in a great depression to rival the Great Depression. {for those who don't care know history it was that time when an aweful lot of people didn't have work, and couldn't find work.}
Look at TV. Look at the prevailence of sex and violence. No other generation has grown up with such constant bombardment of sex and violence. Look at the popularity of the crazy show that are called "talk shows".
This atitude is not just inside the tech world. It is previalent all around you. Look at the recent death caused by a father who atacked a guy at a kids Hockey game.
Starting to get the point? They just want to single the tech world out. They should look in their own little world of media. There is a lot of argueing (and back stabbing) going on behind those smiles on the tv.
These are just the times we live in, and they seem to be getting worse. I just don't like the media singling out the tech industry just becuase they think crackers = hackers and they are evil. It could be argued that Alexander Bell was a hacker of his day. The hacker mentality has probably been around as long as we have.
That sounds like a nightmare for managing the systems resources. Why would you want to? You'd 41000 different instances to monitor.
I will take 2. Could you overnight on to me? Why not make it both MP3 and regular. I'd actually get mail I want to get.