So the earth-spanning network encompassing the totality of human knowledge ends up being a medium for the easier dissemination of TV programs. Truly, a brave new world.
I work on a NASA mission that studies tropical storms and attempts to understand their structure so they can be detected/avoided earlier. If it wasn't for the Global Hawk drones we use, pilots would be in danger from flying over the storms and flights would be much shorter (~8hr vs 24+hr) limiting the amount of science that can be done. Here's an article about the first year of three's results:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/missions/hs3/news/hs3-nadine.html
Scientists use uranium and plutonium in experiments. That doesn't mean they should be available to the general public.
Personally owned flying robots today have the power to change the balance of power between individuals and large bureaucracies in much the same way the Internet did in the past.
The internet has enabled people to get unlimited quantities of porn, bully strangers at a distance, and do shopping from their homes. It has not altered the balance of power between individuals and bureaucracies, states or corporations in any tangible way.
And before anyone says it, the Arab spring was about masses of bodies on the streets, not the invention of Twatter.
His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.
Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.
I would personally agree with the children's charities that preventing people from accessing pornography in public is an entirely acceptable idea. Even as an adult, I have no wish to see someone in a supermarket watching videos of goat porn, and I certainly don't want my kids to.
You will only ever see what you search for on a WiFi system. Forcing ISP's and/or individual establishments that provide free internet access to monitor and block specific traffic is tantamount to authoritarian governance. I see absolutely no difference between this concept and how Egypt or Israel or Iran are manipulating and controlling the information that their citizens have access to. Honestly, please explain the difference? if any?
This is about accessing material over public wi fi. I may be unusual here, but I prefer to view porn in the comfort of my own home, and I certainly don't want to watch people jizzing into their coffee in Starbucks.
And even if the UK government banned porn entirely (which is of course not technically possible without completely abandoning internet access) it still wouldn't amount to censorship like in Iran or China.
Why do you like criminals so much mister prime minister?
People who are in front of a pc spanking it don't have time to commit serious crimes that don't involve spanking it...
That is the most ridiculous pro-pornography argument I have ever seen. Do you seriously think that the only (or main) reason people commit crimes is because they've not tossed one off recently?
If the average user can't access porn easily, they won't be able to access porn full stop.
Anyway, what is the big deal? Who wants to view porn in a McDonald's anyway? I just don't see the terrible infringement on liberty here. You're not allowed to pull down your trousers and start wanking off to a printed porn mag in your local coffee shop anyway.
The idea that you should be able to do whatever you want wherever you are because it's on the internet is ridiculous.
What the hell does the UK government have against porn? This is the second time they've tried to ban it.
I think you'll find that a large proportion of the UK population would agree that porn in public is a bad thing. We still cover up "top shelf" magazines in newsagents so you can't see the boobs. It wasn't until the advent of widespread internet access that any sort of hardcore porn was legal here. (I assume they just gave up at that point).
One thing I've learned on the internets is to walk away from any argument about fluoride in the water. Guns, nuclear power, religion, returning to the Gold Standard, Apple - none of these provoke as much outright insanity as anti-fluoride whackos.
Anyone who's not a consumerist snob or travelling salesman? Here in the UK, a lot of people do less than 5,000 miles a year, so 10 years is a more than reasonable life expectancy. Most people don't buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, there's no real need apart from showing off to the neighbours your new registration.
If you're doing 30,000 miles a year and can't afford a Mercedes, then you have a point.
Welfare fraud and abuse, Medicare fraud and abuse, Medicaid fraud and abuse, food stamp fraud and abuse, Social Security fraud and abuse, illegal immigaration fraud and abuse, myriad welfare programs fraud and abuse, rampant inner city crime, massive deficits and crushing debt, homosexual marriage, on demand infanticide, corrupt politicians----this Country is sick and dying.
Dear Baby Jesus, please let the free market come and save us.
Bill Gates was the classic example of "right time, right place". IBM had absolutely no clue (along with everyone else) that there was going to be a vast market for PCs, or else they wouldn't have let some college drop-out get near their products, regardless of who his parents had dinner with.
Only if you don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. Progressive taxes are there for a reason, and that reason is to force rich people to contribute back into the society that made them rich. Astonishingly, relying on their charity doesn't work, whatever libertarian cheerleaders like to think.
I know socialism's unfashionable, but it's not impossible to achieve. And no, it doesn't have to involve a violent revolution. After WW2, Britain became pretty socialist (for a while) because we wanted to make a land fit for heroes. Just as the country had united to defeat the Nazis, so it could unite to eradicate extreme poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, preventable ill health and so on.
I just tried the DVD. Not great but felt slightly better than 18, until I had to set the root password and realized that it didn't detect the keyboard.
No problem, everyone just leaves the root password blank anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Spam is spam is spam.
So the earth-spanning network encompassing the totality of human knowledge ends up being a medium for the easier dissemination of TV programs. Truly, a brave new world.
I work on a NASA mission that studies tropical storms and attempts to understand their structure so they can be detected/avoided earlier. If it wasn't for the Global Hawk drones we use, pilots would be in danger from flying over the storms and flights would be much shorter (~8hr vs 24+hr) limiting the amount of science that can be done. Here's an article about the first year of three's results: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/missions/hs3/news/hs3-nadine.html
Scientists use uranium and plutonium in experiments. That doesn't mean they should be available to the general public.
Personally owned flying robots today have the power to change the balance of power between individuals and large bureaucracies in much the same way the Internet did in the past.
The internet has enabled people to get unlimited quantities of porn, bully strangers at a distance, and do shopping from their homes. It has not altered the balance of power between individuals and bureaucracies, states or corporations in any tangible way.
And before anyone says it, the Arab spring was about masses of bodies on the streets, not the invention of Twatter.
I don't recall WW2 being fought on the principle of access to pornography in public spaces, but maybe I missed something in my history lessons.
His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.
Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.
I would personally agree with the children's charities that preventing people from accessing pornography in public is an entirely acceptable idea. Even as an adult, I have no wish to see someone in a supermarket watching videos of goat porn, and I certainly don't want my kids to.
You will only ever see what you search for on a WiFi system. Forcing ISP's and/or individual establishments that provide free internet access to monitor and block specific traffic is tantamount to authoritarian governance. I see absolutely no difference between this concept and how Egypt or Israel or Iran are manipulating and controlling the information that their citizens have access to. Honestly, please explain the difference? if any?
This is about accessing material over public wi fi. I may be unusual here, but I prefer to view porn in the comfort of my own home, and I certainly don't want to watch people jizzing into their coffee in Starbucks.
And even if the UK government banned porn entirely (which is of course not technically possible without completely abandoning internet access) it still wouldn't amount to censorship like in Iran or China.
Why do you like criminals so much mister prime minister?
People who are in front of a pc spanking it don't have time to commit serious crimes that don't involve spanking it...
That is the most ridiculous pro-pornography argument I have ever seen. Do you seriously think that the only (or main) reason people commit crimes is because they've not tossed one off recently?
If the average user can't access porn easily, they won't be able to access porn full stop.
Anyway, what is the big deal? Who wants to view porn in a McDonald's anyway? I just don't see the terrible infringement on liberty here. You're not allowed to pull down your trousers and start wanking off to a printed porn mag in your local coffee shop anyway.
The idea that you should be able to do whatever you want wherever you are because it's on the internet is ridiculous.
Because i'll still masturbate in the starbucks bathroom to 2girls1cup and there aint shit you can do about it.
Yeah! Fight the power!
What the hell does the UK government have against porn? This is the second time they've tried to ban it.
I think you'll find that a large proportion of the UK population would agree that porn in public is a bad thing. We still cover up "top shelf" magazines in newsagents so you can't see the boobs. It wasn't until the advent of widespread internet access that any sort of hardcore porn was legal here. (I assume they just gave up at that point).
Supporting porn is not a vote winner here.
Define it first you Socialist prick!
Whatever kind of prick David Cameron is, it's not a socialist one, genius.
So thanks for your post.
How many people keep a car for more than 6 years?
Anyone who's not a consumerist snob or travelling salesman? Here in the UK, a lot of people do less than 5,000 miles a year, so 10 years is a more than reasonable life expectancy. Most people don't buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, there's no real need apart from showing off to the neighbours your new registration.
If you're doing 30,000 miles a year and can't afford a Mercedes, then you have a point.
Jeez, just use tap water and filter it through a sock. What's the difference?
I make more in IT and still, have less because they take more.
Look, I'm a socialist, but even I don't suggest we have tax rates of more than 100%.
Welfare fraud and abuse, Medicare fraud and abuse, Medicaid fraud and abuse, food stamp fraud and abuse, Social Security fraud and abuse, illegal immigaration fraud and abuse, myriad welfare programs fraud and abuse, rampant inner city crime, massive deficits and crushing debt, homosexual marriage, on demand infanticide, corrupt politicians----this Country is sick and dying.
Dear Baby Jesus, please let the free market come and save us.
PS can you smite Iran and the Czech Republic too.
Bill Gates was the classic example of "right time, right place". IBM had absolutely no clue (along with everyone else) that there was going to be a vast market for PCs, or else they wouldn't have let some college drop-out get near their products, regardless of who his parents had dinner with.
The rich get richer, that's just how it is.
Only if you don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. Progressive taxes are there for a reason, and that reason is to force rich people to contribute back into the society that made them rich. Astonishingly, relying on their charity doesn't work, whatever libertarian cheerleaders like to think.
I know socialism's unfashionable, but it's not impossible to achieve. And no, it doesn't have to involve a violent revolution. After WW2, Britain became pretty socialist (for a while) because we wanted to make a land fit for heroes. Just as the country had united to defeat the Nazis, so it could unite to eradicate extreme poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, preventable ill health and so on.
Maybe that's why we spend so much time trying to get back in one.
I think Sigmund Freud would like a word with you.
I guess his attitude would a "Libertarian" one by today's standards.
Rich people are almost all fucking libertarians: they want absolute freedom to enjoy their money, and not pay taxes. Gosh.
I just tried the DVD. Not great but felt slightly better than 18, until I had to set the root password and realized that it didn't detect the keyboard.
No problem, everyone just leaves the root password blank anyway.
If libertarians didn't exist, the IQ level of the internet would rise to almost 100.
Quite a few people grow old without growing up.
But very few grow up before they are 25.
Women don't grow out of adolescence mentally until about 25. Men never do.