I'm not really sure how to deal with that, but let us focus as one method of spam. The method would be sending to a variety of e-mail addresses. Those kind of dictionary attacks or whatever they are killed. If e-mail providers were to make some dummy addresses which if hit, could block the e-mail server and/or IP address(es) for a given period of time, wouldn't that work?
(Fine, mod me down if you think this is off topic.)
You have the basis of it. If he did sign or agree to something, then the school is in the right. If he did not sign or agree to something, then he is in the right.
If anything, the school should go after the students accessing the material the school doesn't allow. Imagine all those students getting suspended. Yeah, that will make the person very unpopular for providing the proxy in the first place.
Excellent point. Yeah, maybe in 10 years time when they are burnt out on those performance enchanging drugs for intellectual purposes, they'll end up losing their job and having to resort to McJobs.
If they really want to improve their performance, EAT HEALTHIER. Eat a better diet of foods. Stop with the brain fog junk foods. However, since caffeine is a legal drug, I see nothing wrong with downing a 12 ounce can of Coca~Cola before an exam provided there is nothing against the rules regarding that.
I don't know what the specific law says, but here's my opinion on the matter.
If the law is simply preventing businesses from selling games which are rated for adults to children, and if the fines are imposed on the retailers (not the customers), then I guess it's okay. An adult, any adult, could simply go in and buy it for the minor, but hopefully that adult is the legal guardian. However, game ratings should always be optional, meaning if the video game manufacturers wanted to get around this law, they could leave the video game unrated.
Unlike other things, gambling tends to leave one without anything in return. You can buy a CD, comic book, etc., and have something to show for it. Gambling is more of a form of entertainment, and I'd really like to see the studies it has on the teenage mind.
I still think permitting online gambling is a bad idea, but I guess letting out elected state officials decide is good enough. They can really debate out the pros and cons.
I'm sure there's a long list of why it's a bad idea to permit Internet gambling, such as the issue of identity theft, gambling with someone else's money, but let me make a comment about why I think minors shouldn't gamble, whether in person or on the Net.
You said that minors should be allowed to gamble if they have their own bank account and enough money. - One, what defines enough money? - Two, they are minors, usually living rent free in their parents house, I'd think saving for college and whatnot would be better use of the money. Plus allowing a minor to spend his or her money in such a frivolous manner may not prepare him or her for adulthood.
Once someone is an adult, it is assumed they are to be off on their own supporting themselves. Once then, they should be permitted to spend their money as they please. If children were to graduate high school and go out on their own at age 15, for example, then so be it, then the gambling age should be lowered to 15.
By the way, about my comment about my state wanting to raise the gambling age from 18 to 21, I heard the reasons are as follows. To comply with other states which currently have it as 21. To rid the problem of 18-20 year old gambling addicts, which I think can cost the state government money somehow. Alcohol laws. If there's no 18-20 year olds allowed in the casino, it becomes less of an issue I guess.
Since Native American casinos tend to be on Native American land, it that specific nation's responsibility to deal with any gambling problems.
I still "feel" that it's a good idea to ban gambling via the Internet, but I don't agree with making it a felony nor do I agree with prison/jail time. Simply have fines.
I'm not sure how they do it, since it's on gross receipts. Maybe it's the total difference of incoming money and outgoing money from a given individual casino concerning gambling. The B&O tax is a fixed rate, more or less. It tends to be either 1.5% or 1.6% of the gross receipts for gambling if you look at http://dor.wa.gov./
This law doesn't bother me. Gambling via the Internet seems like a bad idea. You cannot check for someone's age, and plus there's no way to deal with people who have gambling problems.
However, what does bother me about the law is the punishment. One, at most it should be a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. Two, they should go after any business which doesn't hold a disclaimer saying Washingtonians cannot gamble via their site. A fine equal to 110% of the winnings or amount gambled, whichever is greater, for the individual Washingtonian who gambled.
How many have heard that Washington state is considering raising the gambling age from 18 to 21?
Let me see. They remove those sites because of hate speech (but isn't hate speech still freedom of speech?), yet they leave sites such as The Spoof listed in news.google.com as a source.
Moderate me down if you will. I just wanted to point that out.
This borders on censorship. Maybe an analogy would be banning teen drivers from driving sports cars because they tend to speed. Just because it's a social site, doesn't mean they're going to abuse it.
How about a quarter class (half a semester or trimester) in which students learn about net-etiquette?
Also, let schools decide what they want their students to access. Perhaps banning students from accessing the Internet for non-research purposes during school hours would be a good idea. (E-mailing one's paper to one's e-mail address would be acceptable. E-mailing friends for fun wouldn't be acceptable. E-mailing one's parent to pick one up from school would require permission.)
This is so inanely absurd. Just because it's a DVD, doesn't mean it's illegal. Just because someone has a baggie full of white powder, doesn't mean it's illegal either.
Imagine bringing a baggie full of baking soda and salt through airport security for example, trying to explain to them that you use that as an alternative to brush one's teeth due to the harmful chemicals they put in toothpaste.
Imagine having a case of syringes you bring with you to college because you like infecting your burritos full of hot sauce.
They're abusing the commerce clause. When two states have disagreements over taxes (like double taxation), it's okay for the federal government to get involved. What does pornography have to do with commerce?
I guess it really depends on the definition of pornography.
Is it... A) pictures that are sexually explicit involving one person? B) simply swimsuit pictures? C) pictures involving two persons? D) videos involving two persons?
There's no real way to know why someone in a pornographic photo/video did what he or she did.
If you cannot monitor your kids, don't allow them Internet access. No school can really force your student to use the Internet out of school hours. Sure, a computer is different, which can be used for typing up reports, but they cannot really force you to use the Internet for homework.
There are worse problems than kids coming across pornography. Kids putting too much information out on the Net. Do you realize how easy it can be to find out information about a given individual?
Oops, I see what you mean. I'm not sure what I was really thinking when I said it was a state issue. Maybe I was tired at the time.
I think I might have been thinking why the federal government is spending tax dollars on something like this, and it's not something they really need to be doing. I think I was also thinking that maybe if it's such a problem with minors viewing pornography images, state governments could address it, but when it comes to filters, things can go to far when the legislators want to justify their jobs.
I don't think it's a state issue either. I believe I was just saying that there is nothing in the federal constitution saying they should have this kind of interest. The federal government's general welfare issues should be... education, health care, and as we've seen with the hurricanes, property damage and recovery. The federal government can take on things not one single state can take on themselves. I'd like to see the average state take on a task costing tens of billions of dollars fixing damage when their budget is less than that for a given year.
I don't know how many, if any popular browsers at all, have this option, but what if there was a way to disable all image content? If all image content was disabled, wouldn't that solve all the problems of visual pornography?
One, I would hope that children viewing pornography issues is more of a state issue, not a federal government issue. I don't believe it fits in with the general welfare clause. However, they can legislate all they want for the 10 mile federal district.
I don't want the federal government getting involved with this. This is just censorship towards minors. Minors should be able to view what they please, but parents should be the ones responsible for stopping them from viewing things they don't wish for their young ones to view.
The only thing the federal government should be helping with in regards with pornography is giving grants to state governments to help stop child pornography, and by that I mean pornography that actually has real life minors in it.
Moderate me down if you wish, I just had to voice my opinion.
will buy Vista in the first place. Sorry to say, I'm sticking to Windows XP Pro (legal of course). I'm also sticking with Ad-Aware to get rid of my spyware.
I'm American, but let me ask you this. What do you think about the below idea?
All of the below has to be done to work properly. 1) Patent reform for drug related medicinal patents. Maybe a 5-10 year expiration on the patent itself to help make prescription drug prices cheaper. 2) Putting aside $300 billion per year into a pool. Giving everyone those EBT cards (which are used for cash assistance and foodstamps to those on welfare). Putting those EBT things in clinics, pharmacies, and hospitals. Allow people to opt into it annually for $300. Allow people to pay for 100% of their purchases this way. This is a supplement to current health care plans, NOT a replacement. So each month, another $25 billion would be added to the system. If it runs out, tough for those who need it, but it would be better than it is right now.
I didn't say it would replace the current system. I am talking about designating something like $300 billion that each citizen can use until it runs out for the given year.
I forgot to mention something. You cannot offshore all businesses. Grocery stores are physically located in America. You can't necessarily offshore them.
Also, any business that is offshore wanting to do business in America would have to comply with the law or be sanctioned. Maybe a tech company offshores their employees so they don't have to comply with federal law. If that company has a physical business in America, then perhaps make a law requiring them to comply regardless of their employees physical location or revoke their business license.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really sure how to deal with that, but let us focus as one method of spam. The method would be sending to a variety of e-mail addresses. Those kind of dictionary attacks or whatever they are killed. If e-mail providers were to make some dummy addresses which if hit, could block the e-mail server and/or IP address(es) for a given period of time, wouldn't that work?
(Fine, mod me down if you think this is off topic.)
You have the basis of it. If he did sign or agree to something, then the school is in the right. If he did not sign or agree to something, then he is in the right.
If anything, the school should go after the students accessing the material the school doesn't allow. Imagine all those students getting suspended. Yeah, that will make the person very unpopular for providing the proxy in the first place.
Excellent point. Yeah, maybe in 10 years time when they are burnt out on those performance enchanging drugs for intellectual purposes, they'll end up losing their job and having to resort to McJobs.
If they really want to improve their performance, EAT HEALTHIER. Eat a better diet of foods. Stop with the brain fog junk foods. However, since caffeine is a legal drug, I see nothing wrong with downing a 12 ounce can of Coca~Cola before an exam provided there is nothing against the rules regarding that.
I don't know what the specific law says, but here's my opinion on the matter.
If the law is simply preventing businesses from selling games which are rated for adults to children, and if the fines are imposed on the retailers (not the customers), then I guess it's okay. An adult, any adult, could simply go in and buy it for the minor, but hopefully that adult is the legal guardian. However, game ratings should always be optional, meaning if the video game manufacturers wanted to get around this law, they could leave the video game unrated.
Like I said, I would like to see studies of how gambling affects the teenage mind. The addiction element.
Unlike other things, gambling tends to leave one without anything in return. You can buy a CD, comic book, etc., and have something to show for it. Gambling is more of a form of entertainment, and I'd really like to see the studies it has on the teenage mind.
I still think permitting online gambling is a bad idea, but I guess letting out elected state officials decide is good enough. They can really debate out the pros and cons.
I'm sure there's a long list of why it's a bad idea to permit Internet gambling, such as the issue of identity theft, gambling with someone else's money, but let me make a comment about why I think minors shouldn't gamble, whether in person or on the Net.
You said that minors should be allowed to gamble if they have their own bank account and enough money.
-
One, what defines enough money?
-
Two, they are minors, usually living rent free in their parents house, I'd think saving for college and whatnot would be better use of the money. Plus allowing a minor to spend his or her money in such a frivolous manner may not prepare him or her for adulthood.
Once someone is an adult, it is assumed they are to be off on their own supporting themselves. Once then, they should be permitted to spend their money as they please. If children were to graduate high school and go out on their own at age 15, for example, then so be it, then the gambling age should be lowered to 15.
By the way, about my comment about my state wanting to raise the gambling age from 18 to 21, I heard the reasons are as follows. To comply with other states which currently have it as 21. To rid the problem of 18-20 year old gambling addicts, which I think can cost the state government money somehow. Alcohol laws. If there's no 18-20 year olds allowed in the casino, it becomes less of an issue I guess.
Since Native American casinos tend to be on Native American land, it that specific nation's responsibility to deal with any gambling problems.
I still "feel" that it's a good idea to ban gambling via the Internet, but I don't agree with making it a felony nor do I agree with prison/jail time. Simply have fines.
I'm not sure how they do it, since it's on gross receipts. Maybe it's the total difference of incoming money and outgoing money from a given individual casino concerning gambling. The B&O tax is a fixed rate, more or less. It tends to be either 1.5% or 1.6% of the gross receipts for gambling if you look at http://dor.wa.gov./
This law doesn't bother me. Gambling via the Internet seems like a bad idea. You cannot check for someone's age, and plus there's no way to deal with people who have gambling problems.
However, what does bother me about the law is the punishment. One, at most it should be a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. Two, they should go after any business which doesn't hold a disclaimer saying Washingtonians cannot gamble via their site. A fine equal to 110% of the winnings or amount gambled, whichever is greater, for the individual Washingtonian who gambled.
How many have heard that Washington state is considering raising the gambling age from 18 to 21?
to non-chickens, but still chicken-like, get it on and produce an offspring that is known as a chicken. You become a product of your parents.
Let me see. They remove those sites because of hate speech (but isn't hate speech still freedom of speech?), yet they leave sites such as The Spoof listed in news.google.com as a source.
Moderate me down if you will. I just wanted to point that out.
This borders on censorship. Maybe an analogy would be banning teen drivers from driving sports cars because they tend to speed. Just because it's a social site, doesn't mean they're going to abuse it.
How about a quarter class (half a semester or trimester) in which students learn about net-etiquette?
Also, let schools decide what they want their students to access. Perhaps banning students from accessing the Internet for non-research purposes during school hours would be a good idea. (E-mailing one's paper to one's e-mail address would be acceptable. E-mailing friends for fun wouldn't be acceptable. E-mailing one's parent to pick one up from school would require permission.)
This is so inanely absurd. Just because it's a DVD, doesn't mean it's illegal. Just because someone has a baggie full of white powder, doesn't mean it's illegal either.
Imagine bringing a baggie full of baking soda and salt through airport security for example, trying to explain to them that you use that as an alternative to brush one's teeth due to the harmful chemicals they put in toothpaste.
Imagine having a case of syringes you bring with you to college because you like infecting your burritos full of hot sauce.
They're abusing the commerce clause. When two states have disagreements over taxes (like double taxation), it's okay for the federal government to get involved. What does pornography have to do with commerce?
I guess it really depends on the definition of pornography.
Is it...
A) pictures that are sexually explicit involving one person?
B) simply swimsuit pictures?
C) pictures involving two persons?
D) videos involving two persons?
There's no real way to know why someone in a pornographic photo/video did what he or she did.
If you cannot monitor your kids, don't allow them Internet access. No school can really force your student to use the Internet out of school hours. Sure, a computer is different, which can be used for typing up reports, but they cannot really force you to use the Internet for homework.
There are worse problems than kids coming across pornography. Kids putting too much information out on the Net. Do you realize how easy it can be to find out information about a given individual?
Oops, I see what you mean. I'm not sure what I was really thinking when I said it was a state issue. Maybe I was tired at the time.
I think I might have been thinking why the federal government is spending tax dollars on something like this, and it's not something they really need to be doing. I think I was also thinking that maybe if it's such a problem with minors viewing pornography images, state governments could address it, but when it comes to filters, things can go to far when the legislators want to justify their jobs.
I don't think it's a state issue either. I believe I was just saying that there is nothing in the federal constitution saying they should have this kind of interest. The federal government's general welfare issues should be... education, health care, and as we've seen with the hurricanes, property damage and recovery. The federal government can take on things not one single state can take on themselves. I'd like to see the average state take on a task costing tens of billions of dollars fixing damage when their budget is less than that for a given year.
I don't know how many, if any popular browsers at all, have this option, but what if there was a way to disable all image content? If all image content was disabled, wouldn't that solve all the problems of visual pornography?
One, I would hope that children viewing pornography issues is more of a state issue, not a federal government issue. I don't believe it fits in with the general welfare clause. However, they can legislate all they want for the 10 mile federal district.
I don't want the federal government getting involved with this. This is just censorship towards minors. Minors should be able to view what they please, but parents should be the ones responsible for stopping them from viewing things they don't wish for their young ones to view.
The only thing the federal government should be helping with in regards with pornography is giving grants to state governments to help stop child pornography, and by that I mean pornography that actually has real life minors in it.
Moderate me down if you wish, I just had to voice my opinion.
will buy Vista in the first place. Sorry to say, I'm sticking to Windows XP Pro (legal of course). I'm also sticking with Ad-Aware to get rid of my spyware.
One, they cannot force foreign countries to comply.
Two, it's deliberate censorship.
I'm American, but let me ask you this. What do you think about the below idea?
All of the below has to be done to work properly.
1) Patent reform for drug related medicinal patents. Maybe a 5-10 year expiration on the patent itself to help make prescription drug prices cheaper.
2) Putting aside $300 billion per year into a pool. Giving everyone those EBT cards (which are used for cash assistance and foodstamps to those on welfare). Putting those EBT things in clinics, pharmacies, and hospitals. Allow people to opt into it annually for $300. Allow people to pay for 100% of their purchases this way. This is a supplement to current health care plans, NOT a replacement. So each month, another $25 billion would be added to the system. If it runs out, tough for those who need it, but it would be better than it is right now.
I didn't say it would replace the current system. I am talking about designating something like $300 billion that each citizen can use until it runs out for the given year.
I forgot to mention something. You cannot offshore all businesses. Grocery stores are physically located in America. You can't necessarily offshore them.
Also, any business that is offshore wanting to do business in America would have to comply with the law or be sanctioned. Maybe a tech company offshores their employees so they don't have to comply with federal law. If that company has a physical business in America, then perhaps make a law requiring them to comply regardless of their employees physical location or revoke their business license.