I don't think the reaction would be quite the same. Many people would complain, and the game would get a M or, more likely, an AO rating. Nothing would directly prevent its sale though.
I was in high school in the late 1990's and I remember most of my books being at least a few years old. The oldest by far was a county geological survey from 1978. I loved that book, because the aerial survey showed just how much the county had changed in the last 20 years.
This isn't the first time that I have heard of this happening. I think the law needs an exception added that protects minors from being charged with adult crimes when it comes to "child" pornography in many situations.
It's also why our current healthcare system sucks. Regardless of whether people are paying a copay to the government or to the insurance company, they are still shielded from the actual cost of service and have no incentive to shop around.
If I remember correctly, it won't flag you as an identity thief (or a victim of an identity thief) to the police. It will flag as a picture with significant changes and put it into a list for the BMV staff to review.
I don't think there is any negative force driving women away from computer science. I think that most women just aren't interested enough in computer science to make a career out of it. The decreasing number of women could have to do with decreasing wages, longer hours, and other job-related things... they drive out people who are doing it for the money and leave only the people with genuine interest in the field.
This is being over-analyzed though, and for the wrong reasons.
When all science and engineering fields are considered, the percentage of bachelor's degree recipients who are women has improved to 51 percent in 2004-5 from 39 percent in 1984-85, according to National Science Foundation surveys.
There are plenty of fields that are predominately one gender. A lot of people see that as a problem, and, as shown by the language in the article, it's viewed as an "improvement" when the ratio is balanced out. As long as the difference isn't being caused by discrimination or any other negative means, we shouldn't be trying to balance genders.
A couple of things on the whole negative advertising comment...
First, let me say that in Indiana, where I live, both candidates ran very, VERY negative ads. Obama's ads were just as negative and misleading (if not outright lies) as McCain's ads. Obama and McCain were about even in Indiana in the polls, and so I suspect that's why the ads were so dirty. They were bad enough that I didn't vote for either candidate.
Second of all, on the whole issue of McCain taxing healthcare, simply saying that "McCain wants to tax your healthcare" is misleading because, while technically true, it leaves out other key components of his plan that more than counteract the loss incurred by taxpayers by having their healthcare taxed. Also, I think that you can technically say that Obama did "pal around" with terrorists if you consider Ayers a terrorist and his association with Ayers "paling around..." but that's another big stretch and very misleading. Really, both of these issues illustrate a pet peeve of mine. IMO, both McCain and Obama had plenty of dirt on them. Neither one of them should have been resorting to misleading accusations. There were plenty of things that they could have said about each other without having to make things up.
Yikes! I decided to look at corrupt.org... Their posision on leadership is quite frightening:
Democratic leaders do not lead. They listen to polls and propose nice-sounding but impractical plans. We need strong leaders who are willing to do what is unpopular if it is the right thing to do. Banning SUVs or destructive plastic products will generate cries of "oppression," but if all of humanity benefits, it is a freedom from oppression. No one can make a decision for a society at large without stepping on some toes, but as most individuals are inclined to see detail and not the whole, their desires are often inappropriate. Among our people there are those who lead intelligently, nobly and compassionately. Rigorous education in history and philosophy can round these people out, and we can start them out as local leaders and promote those that do the best job. Further, we should breed them in a special category of people, or "caste," so that we pass on the genes that produce great leaders.
I am in that group myself. My TV is 32" and standard definition. Here is a list of major purchases, in chronological order, that I plan on making.
Car
Computer
House
Furniture and practical appliances for house
Home Theater with HDTV, etc
As you can see, that home theater is a little ways in the future... at least 3 years. I'm not going to bother with BluRay until I get a HDTV. So, they aren't getting my money for a while. I just don't watch TV enough to justify the cost compared to those other things I want.
Although... Here are some drugs that are ranked as less dangerous than even marijuana in that study: solvents, LSD, anabolic steroids, and ecstasy. And on a list containing 20 drugs, alcohol is ranked at number 4 and is higher than amphetamines. After looking at the rankings, I can't really say that I take the results too seriously.
Did anyone really expect there to be a gap in ability? I hope not... I always figured the gap was in interest, and the real debate is whether or not that gap in interest is inherent in some way or is just the result of our culture and the way people are raised and socialized.
Ya, I agree with where you guys are going with this. Most people have at least one unhealthy habit. And many people also have health problems that they cannot help. Or they are in a group that is generally seen as being at higher risk for health problems. It's a little frustrating to see people doing unhealthy things and realize that we are all going to have to share the cost of it, but the alternative is worse. I prefer to keep the freedom to be unhealthy sometimes and just pay more in insurance for the people who are very unhealthy.
Haha. This is the most insightful post I have read all week. I stopped using Facebook a while ago because of those stupid applications. MySpace has also recently added applications, although they haven't proved to be as annoying as Facebook's. Although, MySpace is annoying by itself in many ways...
I would say that the scripts surf a list of shady sites to get hits on banner ads. I imagine that, even though they don't stay up as long, kiddie porn sites may have ads too...
YouTube has two guiding principles: the law and themselves. They have their own set of rules that they choose to abide by, and the government also has a set of rules that YouTube has to abide by. The leave the terrorist videos up because they don't violate either set of rules. They take the copyrighted stuff down because they violate the government's rules.
Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines.
It doesn't seem like someone would name a file "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" if they were really trying to share child pornography on a P2P network, especially if they were planning on not getting caught. I mean, that file name tells you nothing about the file other than that it's illegal and involves children. It doesn't even actually mention sex, although I guess it kind of implies it. Although I definitely don't have any first hand experience, I would imagine that pedophiles, like other people, would have specific preferences in their pornography and would want to know at least a little bit about the content before they download a file. I mean, I'm not going to download a file that's simply called "hardcore adult.mpg" when I'm looking for porn. What if it's two dudes? What if it's 2 girls 1 cup? Anyway, the example file name they gave sounds more like a file shared by someone who is trying to catch pedophiles than an actual pedophile trying to share child pornography.
The problem is, how can you write this into law? This wasn't really a case of stalking... It dealt more with deceiving someone, manipulating them, and being generally cruel and heartless. I just think that it will be very hard to make something like this illegal without snaring other things that shouldn't be illegal. I think the precedent could end up being wider than you think. The woman involved here is pretty much a terrible, worthless person IMO, but I think that a civil suit is the best solution here.
It all depends on the time the google truck passes and I don't see a reason why we have a right to see these people the moment they were photographed...
You're looking at it backwards. There doesn't need to be a reason for us to have the right to do or see something. But there does have to be a good reason to take a right away.
This is a very big and important difference. Google isn't taking a handful of photos as art, or even as casual snapshots. Why should the case law that protects common, everyday photography also cover what they're doing?
Or a better question... Why shouldn't the law protect it? Are people really that afraid of being in a random photograph taken on the street?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the reaction would be quite the same. Many people would complain, and the game would get a M or, more likely, an AO rating. Nothing would directly prevent its sale though.
I was in high school in the late 1990's and I remember most of my books being at least a few years old. The oldest by far was a county geological survey from 1978. I loved that book, because the aerial survey showed just how much the county had changed in the last 20 years.
"...but the law isn't great with exceptions."
This isn't the first time that I have heard of this happening. I think the law needs an exception added that protects minors from being charged with adult crimes when it comes to "child" pornography in many situations.
It's also why our current healthcare system sucks. Regardless of whether people are paying a copay to the government or to the insurance company, they are still shielded from the actual cost of service and have no incentive to shop around.
If I remember correctly, it won't flag you as an identity thief (or a victim of an identity thief) to the police. It will flag as a picture with significant changes and put it into a list for the BMV staff to review.
I don't think there is any negative force driving women away from computer science. I think that most women just aren't interested enough in computer science to make a career out of it. The decreasing number of women could have to do with decreasing wages, longer hours, and other job-related things... they drive out people who are doing it for the money and leave only the people with genuine interest in the field.
This is being over-analyzed though, and for the wrong reasons.
When all science and engineering fields are considered, the percentage of bachelor's degree recipients who are women has improved to 51 percent in 2004-5 from 39 percent in 1984-85, according to National Science Foundation surveys.
There are plenty of fields that are predominately one gender. A lot of people see that as a problem, and, as shown by the language in the article, it's viewed as an "improvement" when the ratio is balanced out. As long as the difference isn't being caused by discrimination or any other negative means, we shouldn't be trying to balance genders.
A couple of things on the whole negative advertising comment...
First, let me say that in Indiana, where I live, both candidates ran very, VERY negative ads. Obama's ads were just as negative and misleading (if not outright lies) as McCain's ads. Obama and McCain were about even in Indiana in the polls, and so I suspect that's why the ads were so dirty. They were bad enough that I didn't vote for either candidate.
Second of all, on the whole issue of McCain taxing healthcare, simply saying that "McCain wants to tax your healthcare" is misleading because, while technically true, it leaves out other key components of his plan that more than counteract the loss incurred by taxpayers by having their healthcare taxed. Also, I think that you can technically say that Obama did "pal around" with terrorists if you consider Ayers a terrorist and his association with Ayers "paling around..." but that's another big stretch and very misleading. Really, both of these issues illustrate a pet peeve of mine. IMO, both McCain and Obama had plenty of dirt on them. Neither one of them should have been resorting to misleading accusations. There were plenty of things that they could have said about each other without having to make things up.
You can buy Taiyo-Yuden media at...
http://www.supermediastore.com/
That's where I got mine. I haven't had a bad burn yet.
I didn't vote for either McCain or Obama. However, if Obama would have said that, I would have voted for him.
Windows 7 definitely isn't the 7th version of Windows, but it will probably be the 7th version that I use:
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
I would also be willing to bet that it will be the 7th version of Windows that many consumers use.
Although, I doubt that's why it has the name.
They should just support 3rd party high density SD cards.
Yikes! I decided to look at corrupt.org... Their posision on leadership is quite frightening:
Democratic leaders do not lead. They listen to polls and propose nice-sounding but impractical plans. We need strong leaders who are willing to do what is unpopular if it is the right thing to do. Banning SUVs or destructive plastic products will generate cries of "oppression," but if all of humanity benefits, it is a freedom from oppression. No one can make a decision for a society at large without stepping on some toes, but as most individuals are inclined to see detail and not the whole, their desires are often inappropriate. Among our people there are those who lead intelligently, nobly and compassionately. Rigorous education in history and philosophy can round these people out, and we can start them out as local leaders and promote those that do the best job. Further, we should breed them in a special category of people, or "caste," so that we pass on the genes that produce great leaders.
To hell with that!
I am in that group myself. My TV is 32" and standard definition. Here is a list of major purchases, in chronological order, that I plan on making.
Car
Computer
House
Furniture and practical appliances for house
Home Theater with HDTV, etc
As you can see, that home theater is a little ways in the future... at least 3 years. I'm not going to bother with BluRay until I get a HDTV. So, they aren't getting my money for a while. I just don't watch TV enough to justify the cost compared to those other things I want.
Although... Here are some drugs that are ranked as less dangerous than even marijuana in that study: solvents, LSD, anabolic steroids, and ecstasy. And on a list containing 20 drugs, alcohol is ranked at number 4 and is higher than amphetamines. After looking at the rankings, I can't really say that I take the results too seriously.
Did anyone really expect there to be a gap in ability? I hope not... I always figured the gap was in interest, and the real debate is whether or not that gap in interest is inherent in some way or is just the result of our culture and the way people are raised and socialized.
Ya, I agree with where you guys are going with this. Most people have at least one unhealthy habit. And many people also have health problems that they cannot help. Or they are in a group that is generally seen as being at higher risk for health problems. It's a little frustrating to see people doing unhealthy things and realize that we are all going to have to share the cost of it, but the alternative is worse. I prefer to keep the freedom to be unhealthy sometimes and just pay more in insurance for the people who are very unhealthy.
Haha. This is the most insightful post I have read all week. I stopped using Facebook a while ago because of those stupid applications. MySpace has also recently added applications, although they haven't proved to be as annoying as Facebook's. Although, MySpace is annoying by itself in many ways...
I would say that the scripts surf a list of shady sites to get hits on banner ads. I imagine that, even though they don't stay up as long, kiddie porn sites may have ads too...
YouTube has two guiding principles: the law and themselves. They have their own set of rules that they choose to abide by, and the government also has a set of rules that YouTube has to abide by. The leave the terrorist videos up because they don't violate either set of rules. They take the copyrighted stuff down because they violate the government's rules.
You said exactly what I was going to say. Gj
From the article:
Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines.
It doesn't seem like someone would name a file "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" if they were really trying to share child pornography on a P2P network, especially if they were planning on not getting caught. I mean, that file name tells you nothing about the file other than that it's illegal and involves children. It doesn't even actually mention sex, although I guess it kind of implies it. Although I definitely don't have any first hand experience, I would imagine that pedophiles, like other people, would have specific preferences in their pornography and would want to know at least a little bit about the content before they download a file. I mean, I'm not going to download a file that's simply called "hardcore adult.mpg" when I'm looking for porn. What if it's two dudes? What if it's 2 girls 1 cup? Anyway, the example file name they gave sounds more like a file shared by someone who is trying to catch pedophiles than an actual pedophile trying to share child pornography.
a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money
Sadly, you would think that $1 billion IS real money. Sadly, our government doesn't always see it that way...
The problem is, how can you write this into law? This wasn't really a case of stalking... It dealt more with deceiving someone, manipulating them, and being generally cruel and heartless. I just think that it will be very hard to make something like this illegal without snaring other things that shouldn't be illegal. I think the precedent could end up being wider than you think. The woman involved here is pretty much a terrible, worthless person IMO, but I think that a civil suit is the best solution here.
It all depends on the time the google truck passes and I don't see a reason why we have a right to see these people the moment they were photographed...
You're looking at it backwards. There doesn't need to be a reason for us to have the right to do or see something. But there does have to be a good reason to take a right away.
This is a very big and important difference. Google isn't taking a handful of photos as art, or even as casual snapshots. Why should the case law that protects common, everyday photography also cover what they're doing?
Or a better question... Why shouldn't the law protect it? Are people really that afraid of being in a random photograph taken on the street?