Neither is the case, and you don't know me, or of my context. You're guessing, and incorrectly. Kids need to be protected from porn. At some age, they'll figure out how to thwart any blocks imposed anyway. It's a seeming ritual of growing up.
But young children have no business watching adults having sex. They have no context to understand it, and if you ask any mental health professional, it's a bad idea. Go ahead and ask. Please.
The ostensible reason is to protect children. That's a good idea.
That you have to register to watch porn will put you in the same class as about 80% of adults. And you care about this, or really believe you're not being tracked now????
I didn't say anything regarding the cost. I talked about the exposure to children. I'm clueless about what motivations of the porn industry are, rather, concerned about inappropriate (for children) images being easily accessible by children.
Blocking children from viewing porn is a good idea. No one has had a good idea regarding how to do this. Parents try, and parents fail. Children deserve to be a bit mature before they're exposed what can sometimes be very shocking material for a young mind.
Having the ISPs do the job is probably a bad idea, and there ought to be a better way. Nudity isn't as important as graphic sex. Immature minds aren't ready for some of the stuff you can simply google these days.
No. Once you lay the data communications grid, you don't have the same analogy as the electrical grid. RESIST the urge to cave into the telco mentality.
Your use of invectives leaves much to be desired, as well.
We should demand common carrier status for the wires we use, service neutral. Pay by pipe size per period. The telcos provide wires, not content. I should not be held captive to their content dreams (are you listening, Comcast?) and if I want content, it's abstracted from the rest of the neutral services I provide.
There's a job waiting for you in PR at Verizon. You're good.
Remember when the argument against deep packet inspection was that it would inject gruesome latency, and be thwarted by privacy concerns? It shows that if you wait long enough, and remain persistent, that you can do fiendish things when people are either worn down, or not looking.
The grain of the carriers is to charge you for everything, just like it's the mantra of every hotel-- at least in the US. Is it a plot? No-- while you cite that going against the grain is a way to make money, the most efficient distribution mechanism will be rewarded, viz Walmart and Dell. The way you will pay will be by the packet, it just takes a wave of carriers to agree to go this route (pardon the pun). This is why net neutrality from end point to end point, is so critically important. Cranked-up MBAs will try to find a way to do it, make no mistake. Unless we fight it at all edges, we're going to be buying Internet by the expensive, pseudo-market-based gallon, not by the pipe size.
Here's where you're wrong. The FCC didn't yank the plug on websites last month. Different agency. The current posture says nothing about bittorrent or other peer services, nor licensing, etc. Where do you get your facts?
And as pointed down this thread, the Dems don't outspend the other side.
There are eleven acts as amended to the FCC Act of 1935 going thru the TCA that directly and without a doubt, give the FCC domain over the Internet. Another presidential agency, the NTIA was essentially dismantled by Geo Bush et al.
You don't know what you're talking about. Censorship over the public airwaves, not private cable, has been a fact for decades. The FCC has the authority endowed by Congress to do this, like it or not. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.
The four running dog lackeys of Business America threw in their lack of wisdom.
The First Sale Doctrine jurisdictional domain was bent into the 11th dimension. Yet the rubric regarding selling your own Omega watch is false. Do what you want with impunity, IMHO. If you can't do that, then your BMW, even your Hitachi stereo can't be resold without permission.
I don't think that was their intention. Nonetheless, SCOTUS protects vendors heavily, rather than We The People. Let the Libertarians Begin.
Were his actions valid? IANAL. I have business law training, and a bit of political science training. When in doubt, I follow the money. The money from insurance companies in the state where I live is huge, as many are domiciled here. Their contributions to the state Republican party, which is in power here, and to the election of the governor and many representatives (Dem and Repub) were very generous. Very.
He had the legal right to do what he did. I didn't say that his actions were illegal, or they were invalid. His views were still not mine. I don't support his views, except that he's the atty general of this state; his actions were legal. I disagree with him, and the federal judge that made the decision. I have to respect that decision. That respect doesn't have to include fealty to the concepts behind the litigation, only respects for the results and the desire to change them thru appeal.
And I meant to say understanding but typed visage; amusing what kinds of mistakes you can make with four browser windows open.
No. Attorney Generals are supposed to represent the state of their jurisdiction. They don't legislate, although they can litigate to contest legislation. I didn't elect the Atty General of my state-- others did-- and this Atty General DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS. As elected, he can indeed use his office for its legal purposes, and in this case, he did. Whine? That a major piece of legislation is derailed for the benefit of insurance companies? Yeah, I'll complain.
Generally, my visage of the term ad hominem points to the person, as in a personal attack. Like your nose is ugly. Not your views are ugly.
While correlation != causation, each of those 22 states that joined this litigation has a conservative atty gen/state's atty. Ostensibly, they represent their states. But they do not, according to 1) the House 2) the Senate and 3) the President, who went through a lot of guts to make the sausage called the Health Care legislation in question. They also don't represent my views in this matter.
Unless appealed, the risk pool gets a leg kicked out, and it gets messier from there. Ad hominem means 'to the man', something personal. If you consider 'man' to be all of us, yes, it strikes us there. But I didn't see any real insult to Cuccinelli, save that he's an anti-homo conservative Republican. Some believe those to be fighting words, or worse. I do not. He's just another joe with bad ideas and the advocacy for insurance companies rather than 'we the people'.
There's a product engineer at Google that thinks he/she is really smart and revolutionary, when in fact, that person should be taken out back and paddled hard until they promise not to mess with language in such an empirical way.
That engineer needs to do pentinence afterward, and find a way to the many languages of the world that must use unicode.
Actually, that's what I thought, too. What an amusement that might be: get the download on a crack, whilst being cracked. I know a few jokers that would do just that and laugh their butts off at the list succumbing to the hack, in between rounds of WoW.
I believe that there ought to be common carrier status, so that someone runs the wires (or wireless) and service providers rent that infrastructure from the geography (municipality, state, etc.) and offer their services atop that.... just like utilities were supposed to work.
Comcast is trying to save bandwidth to not only cover infrastructure costs, but also to make money from Netflix, one of their greatest competitors. The last mile *ought* to be owned by the local community or region, and Comcast should rent from them. But this is heresy.
The founding fathers only had cash (often only coins) and script. Barter did well, because needs were small and consumerism hadn't taken hold. The reason to get rid of cash in society is to cut the cost of managing it (printing, minting, etc.) and then track it as in for taxes, etc.
I have to fly a lot, and put up with the indignities. I've been slowly desensitized to the madness, but others hit obstacle after needless obstacle. The reason that many undocumented people don't fly is just that- no documentation. So they drive. That's not liberty. Neither is the indignity I face flying.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither is the case, and you don't know me, or of my context. You're guessing, and incorrectly. Kids need to be protected from porn. At some age, they'll figure out how to thwart any blocks imposed anyway. It's a seeming ritual of growing up.
But young children have no business watching adults having sex. They have no context to understand it, and if you ask any mental health professional, it's a bad idea. Go ahead and ask. Please.
You presume I watch it.
The ostensible reason is to protect children. That's a good idea.
That you have to register to watch porn will put you in the same class as about 80% of adults. And you care about this, or really believe you're not being tracked now????
No. Kids at the age of seven don't need to be watching oral, vaginal, and anal sex, not to mention interesting variants of these.
Thank you, my children are grown. The free world shouldn't be exposing porn to children. I did my job. Others need to, as well.
Your stance is irresponsible. Ask your family doctor if this is a good idea.
I didn't say anything regarding the cost. I talked about the exposure to children. I'm clueless about what motivations of the porn industry are, rather, concerned about inappropriate (for children) images being easily accessible by children.
Blocking children from viewing porn is a good idea. No one has had a good idea regarding how to do this. Parents try, and parents fail. Children deserve to be a bit mature before they're exposed what can sometimes be very shocking material for a young mind.
Having the ISPs do the job is probably a bad idea, and there ought to be a better way. Nudity isn't as important as graphic sex. Immature minds aren't ready for some of the stuff you can simply google these days.
Makes good business sense. The sex industry there might suffer.
No. Once you lay the data communications grid, you don't have the same analogy as the electrical grid. RESIST the urge to cave into the telco mentality.
Your use of invectives leaves much to be desired, as well.
No, we should not help them out with that.
We should demand common carrier status for the wires we use, service neutral. Pay by pipe size per period. The telcos provide wires, not content. I should not be held captive to their content dreams (are you listening, Comcast?) and if I want content, it's abstracted from the rest of the neutral services I provide.
There's a job waiting for you in PR at Verizon. You're good.
Remember when the argument against deep packet inspection was that it would inject gruesome latency, and be thwarted by privacy concerns? It shows that if you wait long enough, and remain persistent, that you can do fiendish things when people are either worn down, or not looking.
The grain of the carriers is to charge you for everything, just like it's the mantra of every hotel-- at least in the US. Is it a plot? No-- while you cite that going against the grain is a way to make money, the most efficient distribution mechanism will be rewarded, viz Walmart and Dell. The way you will pay will be by the packet, it just takes a wave of carriers to agree to go this route (pardon the pun). This is why net neutrality from end point to end point, is so critically important. Cranked-up MBAs will try to find a way to do it, make no mistake. Unless we fight it at all edges, we're going to be buying Internet by the expensive, pseudo-market-based gallon, not by the pipe size.
"our idea"?? You have a mouse in your pocket?
Here's where you're wrong. The FCC didn't yank the plug on websites last month. Different agency. The current posture says nothing about bittorrent or other peer services, nor licensing, etc. Where do you get your facts?
And as pointed down this thread, the Dems don't outspend the other side.
There are eleven acts as amended to the FCC Act of 1935 going thru the TCA that directly and without a doubt, give the FCC domain over the Internet. Another presidential agency, the NTIA was essentially dismantled by Geo Bush et al.
You don't know what you're talking about. Censorship over the public airwaves, not private cable, has been a fact for decades. The FCC has the authority endowed by Congress to do this, like it or not. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.
Sotomayor had to recuse herself.
The four running dog lackeys of Business America threw in their lack of wisdom.
The First Sale Doctrine jurisdictional domain was bent into the 11th dimension. Yet the rubric regarding selling your own Omega watch is false. Do what you want with impunity, IMHO. If you can't do that, then your BMW, even your Hitachi stereo can't be resold without permission.
I don't think that was their intention. Nonetheless, SCOTUS protects vendors heavily, rather than We The People. Let the Libertarians Begin.
Yeah, but think of the cool on-site support calls to the sat.
Were his actions valid? IANAL. I have business law training, and a bit of political science training. When in doubt, I follow the money. The money from insurance companies in the state where I live is huge, as many are domiciled here. Their contributions to the state Republican party, which is in power here, and to the election of the governor and many representatives (Dem and Repub) were very generous. Very.
He had the legal right to do what he did. I didn't say that his actions were illegal, or they were invalid. His views were still not mine. I don't support his views, except that he's the atty general of this state; his actions were legal. I disagree with him, and the federal judge that made the decision. I have to respect that decision. That respect doesn't have to include fealty to the concepts behind the litigation, only respects for the results and the desire to change them thru appeal.
And I meant to say understanding but typed visage; amusing what kinds of mistakes you can make with four browser windows open.
No. Attorney Generals are supposed to represent the state of their jurisdiction. They don't legislate, although they can litigate to contest legislation. I didn't elect the Atty General of my state-- others did-- and this Atty General DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS. As elected, he can indeed use his office for its legal purposes, and in this case, he did. Whine? That a major piece of legislation is derailed for the benefit of insurance companies? Yeah, I'll complain.
Generally, my visage of the term ad hominem points to the person, as in a personal attack. Like your nose is ugly. Not your views are ugly.
While correlation != causation, each of those 22 states that joined this litigation has a conservative atty gen/state's atty. Ostensibly, they represent their states. But they do not, according to 1) the House 2) the Senate and 3) the President, who went through a lot of guts to make the sausage called the Health Care legislation in question. They also don't represent my views in this matter.
Unless appealed, the risk pool gets a leg kicked out, and it gets messier from there. Ad hominem means 'to the man', something personal. If you consider 'man' to be all of us, yes, it strikes us there. But I didn't see any real insult to Cuccinelli, save that he's an anti-homo conservative Republican. Some believe those to be fighting words, or worse. I do not. He's just another joe with bad ideas and the advocacy for insurance companies rather than 'we the people'.
Please rate: flame retardant -1.
It's an unbelievable gaffe on the parts of Allen's lawyers. I'm guessing a few heads rolled and they'll be back. After all, Allen's yacht needs fuel. http://www.luxuo.com/super-rich/paul-allen-to-give-away-half-of-his-fortune.html
And how is this different from the myriad vaporware announcements over the past three decades? At least there's some humor in these.
There's a product engineer at Google that thinks he/she is really smart and revolutionary, when in fact, that person should be taken out back and paddled hard until they promise not to mess with language in such an empirical way.
That engineer needs to do pentinence afterward, and find a way to the many languages of the world that must use unicode.
Mr/Ms Engineer: you are a brat.
Sure. I have the budget for that. Why didn't I think of it? Better still, I'll just rent a Citation and fly it myself!
Uh, no.
Your bogus anti-tax argument blows chunks.
You get to own it until you die. Then, depending on the theory of post-death ownership, someone/thing else does.
And gladly, my property taxes pay for public safety, schools, infrastructure, and other things needed in a civilized society.
Your theory doesn't get past the tip of your greedy nose.
Actually, that's what I thought, too. What an amusement that might be: get the download on a crack, whilst being cracked. I know a few jokers that would do just that and laugh their butts off at the list succumbing to the hack, in between rounds of WoW.
I believe that there ought to be common carrier status, so that someone runs the wires (or wireless) and service providers rent that infrastructure from the geography (municipality, state, etc.) and offer their services atop that.... just like utilities were supposed to work.
Comcast is trying to save bandwidth to not only cover infrastructure costs, but also to make money from Netflix, one of their greatest competitors. The last mile *ought* to be owned by the local community or region, and Comcast should rent from them. But this is heresy.
The founding fathers only had cash (often only coins) and script. Barter did well, because needs were small and consumerism hadn't taken hold. The reason to get rid of cash in society is to cut the cost of managing it (printing, minting, etc.) and then track it as in for taxes, etc.
I have to fly a lot, and put up with the indignities. I've been slowly desensitized to the madness, but others hit obstacle after needless obstacle. The reason that many undocumented people don't fly is just that- no documentation. So they drive. That's not liberty. Neither is the indignity I face flying.