As a parent (though I wasn't at the time) I have no idea how any parent could react to something like the Columbine shootings with a desire to censor the infobaun. Was the glorious infobaun a part in anyway of what they did? I don't recall it being so. They didn't build bombs with downloaded plans, they didn't use online tools to do any kind of organizing. What they did do was buy weapons and ammo from a department store and go crazy.
I do at the time remember a lot of folks trying to blame all manner of things, including one of my favorite music groups - a group I can't wait to expose my kid to because frankly a lot of their message is extremely positive.
What nearly no one at the time didn't was blame the two kids that did it. Right, there'd be no justice if we did that I guess, cause they offed themselves before they could be punished, but oh well. That was who was at fault.
Restrict kids access to firearms and ammo without parental consent/presence? Good idea. Keep kids from packing in school? Another good idea. Censor the internet? Why? What does that have to do with anything.
Well, if you're going to stretch it to Jesus, toss in a few other fables too. I'd like to see a facial reconstruction of Snow White and perhaps one of Anansi also.
Indeed, I've seen the film may times and adore it, but Kubrick didn't come close to touching the moment the book captured. Here was a being, made for a thing, doing everything he could for that thing, and yet, the best thing was for it to cease being, knowing, as you slowly killed it's mind (think coma patients, the doors kept working after the mind died) that it's perception of the best way forward was flawed and that the only chance of success was death. I think that in the story Hal knew he was the obstacle, but couldn't understand the way beyond himself.
Clark wrote an introduction for the 2001 books in a later publication where he explained how the book/movie happened. Apparently Kubrick wanted him to write a movie for him but suggested that he write it as a novel due to screenplays being very dry and nearly impossible to read (this is so true if you ever have to read one). Seems the two began having a life of their own, with Kubrick deciding to change moons at the last minute due to him feeling that his effects team couldn't create a convincing Saturn. In the sequels of the book Clark decided he preferred Kubrick's version and edited history accordingly. Personally I always thought that was a shame, the 2001 book course of events was much better I always thought. Especially the part where Dave failed to rush off in a pod without a space suit to try to rescue a corpse. Him doing that in the movie I always felt was the weakest point in the story.
Look at me: still talking when there's science to do!
Not a strawman at all, a strawman argument is one where a person takes a position on an issue and distorts it and then attacks the distortion. The pro-life position is that no abortion should be allowed ever in any situation. You are right that my example it is an extreme case, but it is the type of situation that actually happens. However, in the pro-life view abortion is still not allowed in this case, which is what is extreme.
Ok, so we've banned the word fuck even in a situation comedy type setting where a character accidentally hits his/her thumb with a hammer. The actor now screams "fugglesticks!" when ever this happens. However, the cop drama show that is on after that sitcom can still have a bad guy type character back a woman into a corner and say something like, "I have a rigid organ in my pants which I am going to force upon you against your will." A nice clean sentence without a single vulgar word.
Which of these would you rather your kid stumble upon? Speaking as a parent I take the one that has a "profanity" over the clean language of the other any day of the week. Context is much more important than content.
True, but only if your profits are greater than $250k annually. If your profits are that high, tighten your belt and buy one less Porsche this year. I know, it'll be rough.
Wow, you are extremely defensive. All I was attempting to point out is that your possibly accurate post was made nearly impossible to read and take seriously because of your inflammatory and blanketing initial statements. If you meant that no species of *amphibian* has evolved in that time, then frankly you should say so as when people read something that seems to be a scientific argument they often take it literally. Sorry I pointed out that the way it read seemed like crazy talk, but it did. Your response leaves me thinking you have a massive chip on your shoulder, cause you can't even tell that at least with me, you are preaching to the choir.
So, the temperature rise on Mars must be 80% to 99% caused by man also? See, I *knew* those UFO nutjobs were on to something, we *do* have secret bases there. John Lear was right!
We're talking about "since 1970" here, which isn't even a blip at evolution scales. _No_ species ever evolved in 38 years.
Sorry, this statement caused my inability to continue reading your post. It is completely false. Microorganisms evolve extremely rapidly for one. Also, the way you phrase it makes it seem as though you are suggesting that evolution is an event that has a start and stop in the life of a species. As though one day evolution will begin in a species and then after a preset amount of time it stops and the species carries on. Which is silly.
... it's giving the copy away or getting the copy without also getting the original that's illegal.
It's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Neither is illegal. Though they may cause damages for which the damaged party may seek to have you held liable. If you are found to be liable, it is STILL not illegal.
Seriously, everyone knows that both the uploading AND the downloading are blatantly illegal.
These are not criminal matters, they are civil. Copyright infringement is not illegal. It may cause damages to the party infringed upon, but that party must pursue the matter in civil court. Seriously, walk into a police station holding a burned CD full of MP3s and demand to be arrested. They will laugh at you, because it is not a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
As a parent (though I wasn't at the time) I have no idea how any parent could react to something like the Columbine shootings with a desire to censor the infobaun. Was the glorious infobaun a part in anyway of what they did? I don't recall it being so. They didn't build bombs with downloaded plans, they didn't use online tools to do any kind of organizing. What they did do was buy weapons and ammo from a department store and go crazy.
I do at the time remember a lot of folks trying to blame all manner of things, including one of my favorite music groups - a group I can't wait to expose my kid to because frankly a lot of their message is extremely positive.
What nearly no one at the time didn't was blame the two kids that did it. Right, there'd be no justice if we did that I guess, cause they offed themselves before they could be punished, but oh well. That was who was at fault.
Restrict kids access to firearms and ammo without parental consent/presence? Good idea. Keep kids from packing in school? Another good idea. Censor the internet? Why? What does that have to do with anything.
Since when is "actual work" equivalent to typing code?
Since the original parent was discussing programing specifically?
It's like a touchscreen but you don't have to leave greasy fingerprints all over.
So you want a Light Pen?
Well, if you're going to stretch it to Jesus, toss in a few other fables too. I'd like to see a facial reconstruction of Snow White and perhaps one of Anansi also.
Indeed, controlled with a Power Glove no less.
Indeed, I've seen the film may times and adore it, but Kubrick didn't come close to touching the moment the book captured. Here was a being, made for a thing, doing everything he could for that thing, and yet, the best thing was for it to cease being, knowing, as you slowly killed it's mind (think coma patients, the doors kept working after the mind died) that it's perception of the best way forward was flawed and that the only chance of success was death. I think that in the story Hal knew he was the obstacle, but couldn't understand the way beyond himself.
If only we all could see this.
No one has mentioned "Rising Sun" either, which I feel is his best book.
Clark wrote an introduction for the 2001 books in a later publication where he explained how the book/movie happened. Apparently Kubrick wanted him to write a movie for him but suggested that he write it as a novel due to screenplays being very dry and nearly impossible to read (this is so true if you ever have to read one). Seems the two began having a life of their own, with Kubrick deciding to change moons at the last minute due to him feeling that his effects team couldn't create a convincing Saturn. In the sequels of the book Clark decided he preferred Kubrick's version and edited history accordingly. Personally I always thought that was a shame, the 2001 book course of events was much better I always thought. Especially the part where Dave failed to rush off in a pod without a space suit to try to rescue a corpse. Him doing that in the movie I always felt was the weakest point in the story.
Look at me: still talking when there's science to do!
The title of the thread/article is *stupid* unix tricks after all.
Not a strawman at all, a strawman argument is one where a person takes a position on an issue and distorts it and then attacks the distortion. The pro-life position is that no abortion should be allowed ever in any situation. You are right that my example it is an extreme case, but it is the type of situation that actually happens. However, in the pro-life view abortion is still not allowed in this case, which is what is extreme.
Seeing the words cyber and attack in the same sentence always causes this to read itself aloud to me in my head.
Let's look at this another way.
Ok, so we've banned the word fuck even in a situation comedy type setting where a character accidentally hits his/her thumb with a hammer. The actor now screams "fugglesticks!" when ever this happens. However, the cop drama show that is on after that sitcom can still have a bad guy type character back a woman into a corner and say something like, "I have a rigid organ in my pants which I am going to force upon you against your will." A nice clean sentence without a single vulgar word.
Which of these would you rather your kid stumble upon? Speaking as a parent I take the one that has a "profanity" over the clean language of the other any day of the week. Context is much more important than content.
Japanese is good at it too, they even take it one step further and adopt/add on other alphabets.
Pro-life is a bad thing, if your niece is pregnant because your brother raped her.
Profit is what you get after you subtract your operating costs from your gross. Payroll is an operating cost. Try again.
True, but only if your profits are greater than $250k annually. If your profits are that high, tighten your belt and buy one less Porsche this year. I know, it'll be rough.
When did you have this problem? 1994? Haven't needed to do that for more than a decade.
Neither, I just believe John Lear.
Wow, you are extremely defensive. All I was attempting to point out is that your possibly accurate post was made nearly impossible to read and take seriously because of your inflammatory and blanketing initial statements. If you meant that no species of *amphibian* has evolved in that time, then frankly you should say so as when people read something that seems to be a scientific argument they often take it literally. Sorry I pointed out that the way it read seemed like crazy talk, but it did. Your response leaves me thinking you have a massive chip on your shoulder, cause you can't even tell that at least with me, you are preaching to the choir.
So, the temperature rise on Mars must be 80% to 99% caused by man also? See, I *knew* those UFO nutjobs were on to something, we *do* have secret bases there. John Lear was right!
We're talking about "since 1970" here, which isn't even a blip at evolution scales. _No_ species ever evolved in 38 years.
Sorry, this statement caused my inability to continue reading your post. It is completely false. Microorganisms evolve extremely rapidly for one. Also, the way you phrase it makes it seem as though you are suggesting that evolution is an event that has a start and stop in the life of a species. As though one day evolution will begin in a species and then after a preset amount of time it stops and the species carries on. Which is silly.
Huh, you're right, we should do this the American way.
Shoot them all and let God sort them out.
Or did you mean something different?
... it's giving the copy away or getting the copy without also getting the original that's illegal.
It's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Neither is illegal. Though they may cause damages for which the damaged party may seek to have you held liable.
If you are found to be liable, it is STILL not illegal.
Seriously, everyone knows that both the uploading AND the downloading are blatantly illegal.
These are not criminal matters, they are civil. Copyright infringement is not illegal. It may cause damages to the party infringed upon, but that party must pursue the matter in civil court. Seriously, walk into a police station holding a burned CD full of MP3s and demand to be arrested. They will laugh at you, because it is not a crime.
I don't know, I'm neither Korean nor young and I speak English.