What's more interesting is the whole question of whether the atomic attacks were necessary to end tha war - I shall say no more on this here but I invite all readers to look into it - it wasn't as easily justified as you may think.
I suppose you think more fire-bombing like what was done to Tokyo and Dresden would have been better?
Governments should not be introducing legislation to `help` me decide my moral choices.
Why?
Governments make laws that are mostly about the moral decisions we have to make. Laws about murder, rape, etc. are all about helping you to decide not to do those things.
And while you, I and perhaps a large majority of the/. crowd are savy enough to realize where a particular link will take us, there is a larger portion of the population that is not necessarily that knowledgable.
If that is the cost of doing business and you can't afford it...
GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS!
I get so tired of people that expect that opening/running a business should be nearly free. If you can't run with the big dogs, quit whining and go do something where you have a chance to succeed.
The mis-direction that I was referring to had more to do with the naming of sites in such way as to make it more likely that someone that either doesn't understand the naming conventions used (i.e. whitehouse.gov vs whitehouse.com), or a common typing error/misspelling, will end up at their site.
Forcing the pornographers to move to.xxx TLD would certainly remove those types of mis-direction. Of course, it would also remove the excuse you use when your boss catches you looking at the stuff. No more "Wow! I didn't realize going to babes.com wasn't going to show me pictures of my friend's new baby"
Bah! I didn't advocate the US controlling the net. Just because we built it doesn't mean we get to control it.
But we should be able to control the part of it that impacts the computers within the US. If you don't think that we already do that to some degree, you are fooling yourself.
Insightful? Not hardly!
While congress doesn't rule the world or the internet, it does make laws applying to the US. So, your site that is hosted outside the US doesn't follow the law? Guess what, your domain just got blocked at the US level of control.
Don't tell me that China and other regimes can block domains that advocate freedom, but that we can't block domains that don't choose to work within the rules we may want to enforce.
I don't think that containing non-explicitly worded links should qualify a site as deserving of the.xxx TLD.
The legislation that I have suggested would be aimed at those sites that carry explicit content, that is intended to be viewed as erotic. Thus, a site that is intended to talk about doing a self-examination for breast cancer would not be forced into the domain; while a site that just seeks to show us a woman fondling herself in a way meant to be erotic would be.
1. The reality is that if you are determined enough, you can get around an ISP blockade of a domain. But that requires concious effort, and the porn industry relies on people not making a concious effort. Instead, they often use mis-direction to tempt the user into visiting their site.
2. I hope that most countries use this as the basis for introducing legislation to force the industry into an easily filterable TLD. Call it the cost of doing business, but the change from $10/domain to $60/domain is like spit in the ocean. Domain squatters tend to lose the battles these days, so that red-herring doesn't swim.
Raising the cost per domain isn't a huge burden. Domain fees are paid on an annual basis. So, if your fee goes up $50/year, on a site that makes several thousands of dollars per year, you have no room to whine.
I suggested this concept to my congressman and senator about two years ago. I'm glad that there is now a TLD for them to use as a place for this stuff.
You wouldn't be outlawing pornography, just making it easier to filter it out. Anything that makes the filtering easier for parents should be applauded, even by those that run the pornography sites.
Make the law with a sufficiently hefty fine, and loss of your offending domain, and plenty of sites will make the move.
You were right until point four. Action and inaction are not functionally the same, since the outcome of each is different. Since you use a ladder-form of argument all points after that are pointless at best, and more likely flawed.
But, even if I ignore that you have built your arguments in such a poor manner, your whole hypothesis is flawed. You pre-suppose two things... 1. God is cruel because children starve. This is wrong from every angle. Did God not provide all of mankind with enough resources to provide food for all of us? It is our irresponsible, and greedy, use of the resources He gave us that causes starvation throughout the world. It is our exercise of free will that causes suffering in this world. 2. Inaction to prevent said starvation is the same as direct action to cause it. If this is the case then you are responsible for the starving children of the world. God created us all to help each other. Your inaction causes the pain and suffering of starving children that is every bit as bad as what you accuse God of. You have the ability to do good, but you don't because in your mind there is nobody to hold you accountable. God does good, even though there is nobody that can hold Him accountable.
Wow! That's so insightful! Can I sign you up to be my hero?
Maybe you can show me the truth and light? I get so confused by all those people that are wanting to do good for others.
But maybe you aren't even trying to bring any truth to the world. Maybe you would be happier if everyone was as miserable a person as you. That's too bad.
Some people are ignorant, and they don't know any better. Others are stupid, because they refuse to take the time to learn. Which are you? Because I want to believe that you are able to learn, I'll just think of you as ignorant and foolish for now.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by replying with some wonderfully worded retort.
Well, I gotta say that my disappointment with/. and sites like it continues to grow on a daily basis. Yeah, politics can be an important part of our lives. However, the rants and raves about Moore, Kerry, Bush, etc. don't seem to have alot to do with technology; and to see news about technology is why I come here!
If I want to see/hear/watch junk like this I can go to CNN/MSNBC/etc. and see all the pontificating that I can stand.
Please! Get rid of the "Politics for Nerds" section. Does my vote matter?
Wow...the absurdity of your statements is overwhelming. I am surprised at what idiocy is used in trying to perpetuate the argument for killing the unborn.
Yes, medical advances have occurred from time to time through the more base methodologies. Does that mean that they could not have happened any other way? I don't believe that.
Have there been people that were great in advancing the human race that were born into families where poverty, abuse and other less than optimal situations? I bet we could look at quite a few, especially when you consider that the poorest americans live like virtual royalty compared to their ancestors of 3-4 generations ago.
So, is the fact that the parents might not want the child, or that the child might grow up otherwise disadvantaged a reason to kill him/her? I don't think you can make a sound reasoning for answering yes to that question.
I think you misunderstand what the point here is. The article isn't just about the OS. It's about the overall culture of Microsoft. It's about how product companies and service companies approach problems with different viewpoints. And perhaps most telling, it's about how Microsoft could have played both sides of the fence.
Then again, perhaps I have misunderstood your arguement, and all you are looking to do is "defend" Microsoft/Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
What's more interesting is the whole question of whether the atomic attacks were necessary to end tha war - I shall say no more on this here but I invite all readers to look into it - it wasn't as easily justified as you may think.
I suppose you think more fire-bombing like what was done to Tokyo and Dresden would have been better?
Governments should not be introducing legislation to `help` me decide my moral choices.
/. crowd are savy enough to realize where a particular link will take us, there is a larger portion of the population that is not necessarily that knowledgable.
Why?
Governments make laws that are mostly about the moral decisions we have to make. Laws about murder, rape, etc. are all about helping you to decide not to do those things.
And while you, I and perhaps a large majority of the
If that is the cost of doing business and you can't afford it...
GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS!
I get so tired of people that expect that opening/running a business should be nearly free. If you can't run with the big dogs, quit whining and go do something where you have a chance to succeed.
The mis-direction that I was referring to had more to do with the naming of sites in such way as to make it more likely that someone that either doesn't understand the naming conventions used (i.e. whitehouse.gov vs whitehouse.com), or a common typing error/misspelling, will end up at their site.
.xxx TLD would certainly remove those types of mis-direction. Of course, it would also remove the excuse you use when your boss catches you looking at the stuff. No more "Wow! I didn't realize going to babes.com wasn't going to show me pictures of my friend's new baby"
Forcing the pornographers to move to
Bah! I didn't advocate the US controlling the net. Just because we built it doesn't mean we get to control it.
But we should be able to control the part of it that impacts the computers within the US. If you don't think that we already do that to some degree, you are fooling yourself.
Insightful? Not hardly!
While congress doesn't rule the world or the internet, it does make laws applying to the US. So, your site that is hosted outside the US doesn't follow the law? Guess what, your domain just got blocked at the US level of control.
Don't tell me that China and other regimes can block domains that advocate freedom, but that we can't block domains that don't choose to work within the rules we may want to enforce.
I don't think that containing non-explicitly worded links should qualify a site as deserving of the .xxx TLD.
The legislation that I have suggested would be aimed at those sites that carry explicit content, that is intended to be viewed as erotic. Thus, a site that is intended to talk about doing a self-examination for breast cancer would not be forced into the domain; while a site that just seeks to show us a woman fondling herself in a way meant to be erotic would be.
1. The reality is that if you are determined enough, you can get around an ISP blockade of a domain. But that requires concious effort, and the porn industry relies on people not making a concious effort. Instead, they often use mis-direction to tempt the user into visiting their site.
2. I hope that most countries use this as the basis for introducing legislation to force the industry into an easily filterable TLD. Call it the cost of doing business, but the change from $10/domain to $60/domain is like spit in the ocean. Domain squatters tend to lose the battles these days, so that red-herring doesn't swim.
Raising the cost per domain isn't a huge burden. Domain fees are paid on an annual basis. So, if your fee goes up $50/year, on a site that makes several thousands of dollars per year, you have no room to whine.
I suggested this concept to my congressman and senator about two years ago. I'm glad that there is now a TLD for them to use as a place for this stuff.
You wouldn't be outlawing pornography, just making it easier to filter it out. Anything that makes the filtering easier for parents should be applauded, even by those that run the pornography sites.
Make the law with a sufficiently hefty fine, and loss of your offending domain, and plenty of sites will make the move.
You were right until point four. Action and inaction are not functionally the same, since the outcome of each is different. Since you use a ladder-form of argument all points after that are pointless at best, and more likely flawed.
But, even if I ignore that you have built your arguments in such a poor manner, your whole hypothesis is flawed. You pre-suppose two things...
1. God is cruel because children starve.
This is wrong from every angle. Did God not provide all of mankind with enough resources to provide food for all of us? It is our irresponsible, and greedy, use of the resources He gave us that causes starvation throughout the world. It is our exercise of free will that causes suffering in this world.
2. Inaction to prevent said starvation is the same as direct action to cause it.
If this is the case then you are responsible for the starving children of the world. God created us all to help each other. Your inaction causes the pain and suffering of starving children that is every bit as bad as what you accuse God of. You have the ability to do good, but you don't because in your mind there is nobody to hold you accountable. God does good, even though there is nobody that can hold Him accountable.
Wow! That's so insightful! Can I sign you up to be my hero?
Maybe you can show me the truth and light? I get so confused by all those people that are wanting to do good for others.
But maybe you aren't even trying to bring any truth to the world. Maybe you would be happier if everyone was as miserable a person as you. That's too bad.
Some people are ignorant, and they don't know any better. Others are stupid, because they refuse to take the time to learn. Which are you? Because I want to believe that you are able to learn, I'll just think of you as ignorant and foolish for now.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by replying with some wonderfully worded retort.
Well, I gotta say that my disappointment with /. and sites like it continues to grow on a daily basis. Yeah, politics can be an important part of our lives. However, the rants and raves about Moore, Kerry, Bush, etc. don't seem to have alot to do with technology; and to see news about technology is why I come here!
If I want to see/hear/watch junk like this I can go to CNN/MSNBC/etc. and see all the pontificating that I can stand. Please! Get rid of the "Politics for Nerds" section. Does my vote matter?
Wow...the absurdity of your statements is overwhelming. I am surprised at what idiocy is used in trying to perpetuate the argument for killing the unborn. Yes, medical advances have occurred from time to time through the more base methodologies. Does that mean that they could not have happened any other way? I don't believe that. Have there been people that were great in advancing the human race that were born into families where poverty, abuse and other less than optimal situations? I bet we could look at quite a few, especially when you consider that the poorest americans live like virtual royalty compared to their ancestors of 3-4 generations ago. So, is the fact that the parents might not want the child, or that the child might grow up otherwise disadvantaged a reason to kill him/her? I don't think you can make a sound reasoning for answering yes to that question.
I think you misunderstand what the point here is. The article isn't just about the OS. It's about the overall culture of Microsoft. It's about how product companies and service companies approach problems with different viewpoints. And perhaps most telling, it's about how Microsoft could have played both sides of the fence. Then again, perhaps I have misunderstood your arguement, and all you are looking to do is "defend" Microsoft/Windows.