Well, consider this - the man-on-man rape scene in Pulp Fiction is OK on public TV (I know, because I've seen it there), because they didn't actually show any nudity. That's the problem with "drawing the line" - the actual line you're looking for is impossible to draw. That's why we have the irrational censorship laws that we have today - we censor the few things we can actually define fairly specifically. OTOH, while Pulp Fiction is perfectly legal to show, you'll probably see in on TBS after 8:00 PM, not on the Disney Channel at 9:00 in the morning. So... my personal feeling is that there should be no censorship at all - people who run TV stations have their own kids too, you know.
My time is valuable. What are you offering me as incentive to read your ads? Specifically.
Well, on the right-hand side of the "firefox cult" link is what appears to be an ad for Windows XP... I clicked that sucker for five minutes trying to get something to come up. SOMEBODY knows how to incentivate!
I just did a search for "J2EE success story," and the vast majority of hits were about a small team of Python programmers replacing large J2EE teams that failed to produce a working product.
I'm not convinced that this is entirely Java/J2EE's fault as much as it is that big corporations love Java and hate Python (and Perl) and have "big-corporatized" Java. Java was actually pretty cool when it first came out... if big industry embraced Python today, by tomorrow you'd see an explosion of PBPEL, P2EE, PDBC, PFaces, PSF and PMS applications and by the next day you'd be assigned to a committee to evaluate the product vendors to find the scalable enterprise solution that was the best fit for your business integration challenges. After a month of vendor selections, you'd narrow the candidates down to the top two contenders, and they'd pitch their expertise in the field, and then your company would sign a multi-million dollar contract with one of them. Then you'd start the process of trying to figure out how to get around the inherent limitations of the "solution" and do plain-old Python programming inside the "container" without it being too obvious to the higher-ups that that's what you're doing...
does Australia seem to be moving towards the harshest big brother state in the world?
Oh, they won't beat us in the USA. If they implement internet filtering, we'll plant microphones in everybody's house and have "profanity police" listening in periodically. Nobody is going to out-big-brother us - we're number one! we're number one!
If I sit there and swear at you in Japanese (assuming you don't speak Japanese), is it going to offend you?
My wife is Mexican, so we listen to/watch a lot of Spanish-language radio and TV. I find it hilarious that, on the Spanish-speaking stations, they bleep out the Spanish swear words, but if they play an audio clip of somebody speaking English, they let the swear words fly (remember, this is over US airwaves, ostensibly under the iron fist of the FCC). And, occasionally, I'll hear Spanish swear words unbleeped in English-language medium. Really, pointing out how stupid it is to censor profanity is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
Right now, my TV is "filtered" - even my cable TV. I can call the cable company and unblock the "filtering" (e.g. get access to channels that are not "filtered") - as long as I'm willing to pay $19.95 a month extra per unfiltered channel. ISP's are salivating over the prospect of applying this "business model" to their service. "Unfiltered" internet (that is, paying them to stop doing something you didn't ask or want them to do in the first place) will CERTAINLY end up being more expensive that "filtered" internet. I give it one year, tops.
If more intelligent people have less sex, then I suppose they have fewer kids and are being bred out of the human race anyway.
You're overlooking something - there's procreation, and there's recreation. The jocks who were getting it in high school were recreating; us nerds are procreating (by and large). We weren't getting any action in our teenage years, because that's when the girls were having (protected) fun with the fun guys. It's when they start wanting to have kids that they start looking at all of us "stable, nice" guys. (I'm referring, of course, to all of *your* wives, not my wife. She married me for my broad, strapping chest, strong, chiseled chin and bronzed, bulging, biceps.) More intelligent people have less sex, but don't necessarily make fewer babies.
The thing about free speech, as protected by the US Constitution, is that it only protects you against the government
Actually, it only stops congress from passing laws against free speech. The constitution doesn't say anything about law enforcement officials enforcing laws not passed by congress - hello Gonzales loophole!
Actually (interestingly), I can't even find an article on Muhammed on Wikipedia. The top link when I search is "Muhammad Ali", and the rest of the links have last names and none appear to be "the prophet Muhmmamed" (or Mohammed, or Mahhamod, or however it's spelled).
If something is for sale, and you get your copy without paying but the other person still has their copy, that's not theft. Dance around the issue all you want, anyone who had a decent upbringing understands theft vs. not theft when they see it.
I don't know Java, so I can't start a rational flamewar over why Lisp is better.
Lisp is preferred in high-security installations (such as nuclear generators) because it's an extra layer of security. Even if a hacker can breach the outer defences, no actual human being can comprehend a Lisp program, so there's no danger of the hacker doing any damage.
Although you make some valid points, remember your audience - you're talking to Slashdot here. If there haven't been any, it's easy to be sure of their ages.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, consider this - the man-on-man rape scene in Pulp Fiction is OK on public TV (I know, because I've seen it there), because they didn't actually show any nudity. That's the problem with "drawing the line" - the actual line you're looking for is impossible to draw. That's why we have the irrational censorship laws that we have today - we censor the few things we can actually define fairly specifically. OTOH, while Pulp Fiction is perfectly legal to show, you'll probably see in on TBS after 8:00 PM, not on the Disney Channel at 9:00 in the morning. So... my personal feeling is that there should be no censorship at all - people who run TV stations have their own kids too, you know.
Actually, by not visiting the site, you're not visiting the ads either, and therefore still stealing. I suggest you turn yourself in now.
Me, too - and I don't see the ads! It worked!
Well, on the right-hand side of the "firefox cult" link is what appears to be an ad for Windows XP... I clicked that sucker for five minutes trying to get something to come up. SOMEBODY knows how to incentivate!
I'm not convinced that this is entirely Java/J2EE's fault as much as it is that big corporations love Java and hate Python (and Perl) and have "big-corporatized" Java. Java was actually pretty cool when it first came out... if big industry embraced Python today, by tomorrow you'd see an explosion of PBPEL, P2EE, PDBC, PFaces, PSF and PMS applications and by the next day you'd be assigned to a committee to evaluate the product vendors to find the scalable enterprise solution that was the best fit for your business integration challenges. After a month of vendor selections, you'd narrow the candidates down to the top two contenders, and they'd pitch their expertise in the field, and then your company would sign a multi-million dollar contract with one of them. Then you'd start the process of trying to figure out how to get around the inherent limitations of the "solution" and do plain-old Python programming inside the "container" without it being too obvious to the higher-ups that that's what you're doing...
Oh, they won't beat us in the USA. If they implement internet filtering, we'll plant microphones in everybody's house and have "profanity police" listening in periodically. Nobody is going to out-big-brother us - we're number one! we're number one!
Well, you better get used to talking that way if you want to communicate with Australians in a few years.
My wife is Mexican, so we listen to/watch a lot of Spanish-language radio and TV. I find it hilarious that, on the Spanish-speaking stations, they bleep out the Spanish swear words, but if they play an audio clip of somebody speaking English, they let the swear words fly (remember, this is over US airwaves, ostensibly under the iron fist of the FCC). And, occasionally, I'll hear Spanish swear words unbleeped in English-language medium. Really, pointing out how stupid it is to censor profanity is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
Right now, my TV is "filtered" - even my cable TV. I can call the cable company and unblock the "filtering" (e.g. get access to channels that are not "filtered") - as long as I'm willing to pay $19.95 a month extra per unfiltered channel. ISP's are salivating over the prospect of applying this "business model" to their service. "Unfiltered" internet (that is, paying them to stop doing something you didn't ask or want them to do in the first place) will CERTAINLY end up being more expensive that "filtered" internet. I give it one year, tops.
No, YOU choose not to let THE REST OF US profane OUR conversations. Whether we want to or not.
As far as hooking
hit it on the head
infinitely large and the infinitely small
Huh-huh...
Yeah, he he..
Yeah, me too! It was all by choice!
Dammit, I'm sure if I repeat that often enough I'll start believing it.
Because she's imaginary.
You're overlooking something - there's procreation, and there's recreation. The jocks who were getting it in high school were recreating; us nerds are procreating (by and large). We weren't getting any action in our teenage years, because that's when the girls were having (protected) fun with the fun guys. It's when they start wanting to have kids that they start looking at all of us "stable, nice" guys. (I'm referring, of course, to all of *your* wives, not my wife. She married me for my broad, strapping chest, strong, chiseled chin and bronzed, bulging, biceps.) More intelligent people have less sex, but don't necessarily make fewer babies.
war on terror, well... the day might come where it's really going to
suck to be you.
Read the rest of this comment...
The REST? DAMN, DUDE - you weren't censored for political incorrectness, they removed you for filling up all the disks on their servers!
Actually, it only stops congress from passing laws against free speech. The constitution doesn't say anything about law enforcement officials enforcing laws not passed by congress - hello Gonzales loophole!
Actually (interestingly), I can't even find an article on Muhammed on Wikipedia. The top link when I search is "Muhammad Ali", and the rest of the links have last names and none appear to be "the prophet Muhmmamed" (or Mohammed, or Mahhamod, or however it's spelled).
If something is for sale, and you get your copy without paying but the other person still has their copy, that's not theft. Dance around the issue all you want, anyone who had a decent upbringing understands theft vs. not theft when they see it.
FWIW, I understood the point you were trying to make. Evidently I'm the only one.
Oh, I think their argument against Google was fairly innovative - oh, sorry, you meant technological innovation.
Well, if you accept his premise, then you really don't know, do you?
Lisp is preferred in high-security installations (such as nuclear generators) because it's an extra layer of security. Even if a hacker can breach the outer defences, no actual human being can comprehend a Lisp program, so there's no danger of the hacker doing any damage.
Watch, out, there - you're going to chase away the one woman who's still reading slashdot...
Interesting - I've never heard of this. What decision was it? Do you have a link to more information?
Although you make some valid points, remember your audience - you're talking to Slashdot here. If there haven't been any, it's easy to be sure of their ages.