The problem of course is that there are a lot of parents that don't parent. And its a question of whether society wants to try and impose legislation to do the job of less involved parents, or if we want to deal with children growing up with a basis that we now generally don't agree with.
I'm going to mention two things before I get flamed. First, I understand that legislators really don't do much to help the situation, and only impose more silly, ineffective laws. Second, I understand that people have drastically differing views on what children should grow up with. I grant them both.
That said, let's assume the impossible and suppose that legislators write effective law, and that people agree on some basics of child rearing. Is it right and desirable for our (now perfect) government to take on the burden of child rearing because of ineffective parents?
Most children can't raise themselves, so are we to leave the children to grow up as non-contributing members of society because they had useless parents? Or does society take the initiative with the idea that in the end, it will have a higher net gain for society as a whole?
Advanced traction control systems can apply brakes to individual wheels to correct loss of traction. There isn't a human who can do this, and it is far more effective than any technique to correct for such conditions. Traction control definately works, the problem is that it means people can drive faster in less than optimal conditions, which just makes for a nastier accident when they push THAT envelope too far.
Not to mention, very few developers are going to make games that only work on the HD-DVD system...since probably half the systems won't be able to use it...
I didn't mean a refund of the subscription. I meant a refund of the original software. I think it's fairly underhanded to change the rules of the service after you pay for the equipment (software) to use the service and not refund at least some of that original equipment.
But as I mentioned above, there is good reason for doing just that.
It's not confusing, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't know about refunds if you disagree with a change. The way the EULA is written, it appears that you cannot return the game for a refund unless it is within 30 days of purchase. This is of course why they have both an EULA and Terms of Use. The EULA pertains only to the software, and I'm willing to bet won't get changed too often. The Terms of Use on the other hand apply to only the online service, this basically says, 'If you don't like it, you are more than welcome to cancel your account.' This of course is crap, but I can't blame them. It would very bad business to have thousands of people all calling in and asking for a refund on the basis of disagreement with the ToS, but they actually just want to cancel their account and want their money back.
You agreed to both their Terms of Service and their EULA by installing the game and creating an account. If you had disagreed with either of these, you are, per the EULA, allowed to uninstall the game and contact Blizzard for a refund.
I believe Blizzard is legally bound to reimburse you your money if you return the game to them because you disagree with their EULA, or the software, etc...unopened or otherwise. At least this is something I read some time ago.
Regardless of their actual intentions, I do remember hearing something about politicians promising that our SSN's will never become some national identification number also. It doesn't matter what they say right now, it matters that they will ahve the legislation and the technology to do things that may severly limit privacy and because they have it they will use it.
It's been a while since I reinstalled on my desktop...I just remember plowing through XConfig files without a clue. Regardless of how or why, things like installation should be seamless.
Well said. Now if all geeks understood that not all people dedicated countless hours to learn new systems and therefore aren't able to install an nVidia card in less than 3 hours on Linux, then we might be able to encourage less technical people to switch to a more technical OS. Hopefully, we can do it without ruining the OS though.
The industries problem is that it is easier and CHEAPER for us, the end user. We arne't paying for books anymore because a few clicks and we already have it.
...a 10lb. addition because you have 4 disks attached to the bottom of your laptop, and I hope you can strap the battery to your back because its going to go quick spinning more than one drive.
I think a better analogy to an embryo is putting a person into space without a space suit or other barrier between them and their environment. If the embryo were to stay in its natural environment and was generally left alone, it would grow and do it's thing unfettered.
Just as a human can survive in his environment, but if someone decided to hurl him into space to see what would happen and justify it because it would have taken "extraneous means" to keep him alive is absurd.
NS isn't random, but the process of genetic change is random mutations. I think that is what he was getting at, as would be indicated by his further discussion and comparison of the ID DNA bit.
I think it could very well transcend porn. Granted, I don't, and haven't taken drugs. But I think a person could be addicted to many drugs, and taking any one of them may fulfill them for a time. It just depends of what's available.
Similarly, the Christian view would be that lusting after any woman that is not your wife is wrong. That is the basis of porn. It serves no other purpose that to help guys get off.
So a guy may very well be addicted to lust, and he uses porn as his 'drug-of-choice'. So yes, I think porn could be addictive given the proper circumstances (thats not to say extraordinary circumstances) but it is simply another indicator of our sex-saturated culture.
I bet if someone took this to court...my arguement would win. Not because your arguement is off, but because common sense is not a defense. Its the default config of the router.
I think I might liken it more to a robot standing at my door handing out name tags. Its identified you, but I'm still not convinced you've been given permission.
Nope. If I don't lock my door, it doesn't imply that I'm giving someone permission to walk through my house. Unless I tell you you can access my wireless network, you aren't authorized to use it.
Most any online game states that online play can change at any time and if you don't agree with it, you can return it at any time. Although, many retailers won't take opened games back, so most likely, you'll have to contact the publisher and ask for your money back since you don't agree with their EULA.
Common carrier status deals with the contents of what is being carried. If someone sends a mail bomb, UPS isn't responsible, because they don't deal with the contents of their packages.
Not sending packages based on their contents, may very well deny them common carrier status.
Now, if they didn't want to deliver to a specific address because they have a nasty dog, or for whatever other reason, they haven't breached their status as common carrier.
I'm still not entirely sure that blocking this revokes the companies common carrier status. It would be like UPS not doing business with whomever. They aren't saying anything about the validity or contents of the packages, they are simply not facilitating the flow of goods to and from that entity.
Certainly, they'd be forced to reimburse for the ticket, but yes, they do not have to have a reason to deny access to their airplane IIRC.
We have laws against them denying access on the basis of race, etc. But denying access to an old jock that used to pick on the owner of the airline, or any other grudge he might hold, I think he is allowed to deny that access.
But, AA does have the right to refuse anyone a flight, for no reason. It does not rescind their common carrier status. The CEO of AA could block his uncle Sal from ever flying on that airline, just because.
I'm not sure blocking access to a website neccessarily takes away their common carrier status. Just because they are blocking a website they don't like, does not mean they have taken responsibility for filtering anything other than this group. It would be an interesting lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem of course is that there are a lot of parents that don't parent. And its a question of whether society wants to try and impose legislation to do the job of less involved parents, or if we want to deal with children growing up with a basis that we now generally don't agree with.
I'm going to mention two things before I get flamed. First, I understand that legislators really don't do much to help the situation, and only impose more silly, ineffective laws. Second, I understand that people have drastically differing views on what children should grow up with. I grant them both.
That said, let's assume the impossible and suppose that legislators write effective law, and that people agree on some basics of child rearing. Is it right and desirable for our (now perfect) government to take on the burden of child rearing because of ineffective parents?
Most children can't raise themselves, so are we to leave the children to grow up as non-contributing members of society because they had useless parents? Or does society take the initiative with the idea that in the end, it will have a higher net gain for society as a whole?
Advanced traction control systems can apply brakes to individual wheels to correct loss of traction. There isn't a human who can do this, and it is far more effective than any technique to correct for such conditions. Traction control definately works, the problem is that it means people can drive faster in less than optimal conditions, which just makes for a nastier accident when they push THAT envelope too far.
400 million is almost half a billion in non-US terms too...
I'm sorry...but I have to say this. The last 1980's, as opposed to the current 1980's. or the previous 1980's?
Not to mention, very few developers are going to make games that only work on the HD-DVD system...since probably half the systems won't be able to use it...
I didn't mean a refund of the subscription. I meant a refund of the original software. I think it's fairly underhanded to change the rules of the service after you pay for the equipment (software) to use the service and not refund at least some of that original equipment.
But as I mentioned above, there is good reason for doing just that.
It's not confusing, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't know about refunds if you disagree with a change. The way the EULA is written, it appears that you cannot return the game for a refund unless it is within 30 days of purchase. This is of course why they have both an EULA and Terms of Use. The EULA pertains only to the software, and I'm willing to bet won't get changed too often. The Terms of Use on the other hand apply to only the online service, this basically says, 'If you don't like it, you are more than welcome to cancel your account.' This of course is crap, but I can't blame them. It would very bad business to have thousands of people all calling in and asking for a refund on the basis of disagreement with the ToS, but they actually just want to cancel their account and want their money back.
You agreed to both their Terms of Service and their EULA by installing the game and creating an account. If you had disagreed with either of these, you are, per the EULA, allowed to uninstall the game and contact Blizzard for a refund.
I believe Blizzard is legally bound to reimburse you your money if you return the game to them because you disagree with their EULA, or the software, etc...unopened or otherwise. At least this is something I read some time ago.
Regardless of their actual intentions, I do remember hearing something about politicians promising that our SSN's will never become some national identification number also. It doesn't matter what they say right now, it matters that they will ahve the legislation and the technology to do things that may severly limit privacy and because they have it they will use it.
It's been a while since I reinstalled on my desktop...I just remember plowing through XConfig files without a clue. Regardless of how or why, things like installation should be seamless.
Well said. Now if all geeks understood that not all people dedicated countless hours to learn new systems and therefore aren't able to install an nVidia card in less than 3 hours on Linux, then we might be able to encourage less technical people to switch to a more technical OS. Hopefully, we can do it without ruining the OS though.
The industries problem is that it is easier and CHEAPER for us, the end user. We arne't paying for books anymore because a few clicks and we already have it.
Dude...you just said most worst...incredible...
...a 10lb. addition because you have 4 disks attached to the bottom of your laptop, and I hope you can strap the battery to your back because its going to go quick spinning more than one drive.
I think a better analogy to an embryo is putting a person into space without a space suit or other barrier between them and their environment. If the embryo were to stay in its natural environment and was generally left alone, it would grow and do it's thing unfettered.
Just as a human can survive in his environment, but if someone decided to hurl him into space to see what would happen and justify it because it would have taken "extraneous means" to keep him alive is absurd.
NS isn't random, but the process of genetic change is random mutations. I think that is what he was getting at, as would be indicated by his further discussion and comparison of the ID DNA bit.
I think it could very well transcend porn. Granted, I don't, and haven't taken drugs. But I think a person could be addicted to many drugs, and taking any one of them may fulfill them for a time. It just depends of what's available.
Similarly, the Christian view would be that lusting after any woman that is not your wife is wrong. That is the basis of porn. It serves no other purpose that to help guys get off.
So a guy may very well be addicted to lust, and he uses porn as his 'drug-of-choice'. So yes, I think porn could be addictive given the proper circumstances (thats not to say extraordinary circumstances) but it is simply another indicator of our sex-saturated culture.
I bet if someone took this to court...my arguement would win. Not because your arguement is off, but because common sense is not a defense. Its the default config of the router.
I think I might liken it more to a robot standing at my door handing out name tags. Its identified you, but I'm still not convinced you've been given permission.
I see your arguement though.
Nope. If I don't lock my door, it doesn't imply that I'm giving someone permission to walk through my house. Unless I tell you you can access my wireless network, you aren't authorized to use it.
Most any online game states that online play can change at any time and if you don't agree with it, you can return it at any time. Although, many retailers won't take opened games back, so most likely, you'll have to contact the publisher and ask for your money back since you don't agree with their EULA.
Common carrier status deals with the contents of what is being carried. If someone sends a mail bomb, UPS isn't responsible, because they don't deal with the contents of their packages.
Not sending packages based on their contents, may very well deny them common carrier status.
Now, if they didn't want to deliver to a specific address because they have a nasty dog, or for whatever other reason, they haven't breached their status as common carrier.
I'm still not entirely sure that blocking this revokes the companies common carrier status. It would be like UPS not doing business with whomever. They aren't saying anything about the validity or contents of the packages, they are simply not facilitating the flow of goods to and from that entity.
Certainly, they'd be forced to reimburse for the ticket, but yes, they do not have to have a reason to deny access to their airplane IIRC.
We have laws against them denying access on the basis of race, etc. But denying access to an old jock that used to pick on the owner of the airline, or any other grudge he might hold, I think he is allowed to deny that access.
But, AA does have the right to refuse anyone a flight, for no reason. It does not rescind their common carrier status. The CEO of AA could block his uncle Sal from ever flying on that airline, just because.
I'm not sure blocking access to a website neccessarily takes away their common carrier status. Just because they are blocking a website they don't like, does not mean they have taken responsibility for filtering anything other than this group. It would be an interesting lawsuit.