Make that kind of deception illegal too. Good companies shouldn't be tarnished by spammers, and should be found innocent if ever going to court for something they didn't do.
But there are currently some spammers who do actually say how they got your e-mail address. And there'd have to be penalties for spammers to lie about where they got your e-mail address too, huge penalties. (This type of stuff reminds me of how phishers lie too.)
Why not create legislation requiring all commercial e-mail to have HOW they got your e-mail address in the first place, under penalty of a huge fine. This would be in addition to any other laws in place. So if someone doesn't say, at the bottom of the e-mail, how or where your e-mail address was obtained, it would be illegal. Also, lying about where they got it would be illegal too.
The reward probably outweighs the risk of using it, but I was being serious though. That the fact cell phone useage can cause permanent eye damage should raise some concerns.
Didn't we have a story about cell phones and permanent eye damage days ago? Can't help but wonder if there are potential risks with this kind of stuff.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim (ironically cartoons aimed at teens) pretty much has a 26 minutes with a short break inbetween I think, then a 4 minute break (commercials I mean) at the end. I think that works pretty well, but I don't know how much money they make.
DVDs are ad-free? I don't think they are. I thought some contained previews of movies still, which are in fact advertisements. I'll pay attention next time I stick one into my DVD player.
I'm sure greed factors into a lot of things, but I'll leave that aside for now.
About on-demand television, imagine this. If we had a box hooked up to our t.v., hooked up to the Internet, which we could choose to buy services, very specific ones, from a lot of providers. Then it would have a list of channels, with a list of shows in rotation for the channels. And about the advertisements, if there are any, those could include commercials even though it's on-demand. But they shouldn't get as specific as one's household as it invades privacy. Street address, or better yet zip-code, would be semi-okay. If they do make these boxes, specifically for my idea, it'd be in the best interest to have a fast-forward and rewind option, but no more than 2x play speed if you know what I mean. It'd solve ad-skipping problems. Of course, there should be an option to watch ad-free on-demand shows, which could be charged at a premium fee or whatever.
Privacy or not, just don't buy the stuff advertised. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy anything, right?
And here's a thought. Do "they" have the right to discriminate their commercial advertisements based on the individual they are broadcasting to? Could that be unfair because someone else is getting different television programming than you are, yet you are paying for the same service?
By virtual child pornography, I assume you mean child pornography that didn't use a real child. In that case, no harm was done to a living person, and should be legal, even if distasteful.
About child pornography that involved a real child, I still don't think the federal government should be making any laws like that, unless it pertains to the 10 mile federal district. States really need to be making child pornography laws. And by the way, different states have different ages of consent. So how does that all work out?
By the way, I'd see no problem if the federal government were to lend money to state governments to battle child pornography, if the state were to request, and if Congress were to pass a law allowing for such allocations of money. But for Congress to define the criminal statue itself goes beyond their limits.
Although the legislative branch makes the laws, they don't need to keep making law after law after law to just keep busy for whatever reason.
There are problems with the definition of pornography. What is pornographic and what isn't? And that definition problem even extends to child pornography.
Didn't slashdot cover a story on child pornography once? Is child pornography illegal because it depicts sex with minors, or is it illegal because minors were used for the making of it? What about computer generated child pornography, which is nothing more than pixels?
I'm sure there are probably some health codes making it illegal to defecate in public buildings. And I'd expect for it to be a matter for the police to remove a defecator from the building.
Federal law? Where in the American Constitution does it give the federal government that much power to make laws that the States really should be making individually?
And some States have laws making it a crime to not help someone who has been hurt from a crime. Yes, making criminals out of the apathetic.
One, librarians aren't the police. They shouldn't be forced to go around making sure people aren't committing crimes. As far as I know, child pornography is a crime because it involved harming someone, even if in the past-tense.
However, if a librarian sees something illegal going on, wouldn't it be his or her duty to report it for further investigation?
About borrowing histories, or histories of any kind (even ISP histories/logs), those definitely need to be destroyed. Same if there are surveillance cameras, the tape needs erased after 30 days in my opinion. One, it would allow any investigation if needed. Two, it prevents Big Brother from becoming too powerful.
Is it in their job description to monitor what users access? When they signed their job contract or whatever, did it clearly outline this? Cause if not, they librarians should not be dismissed.
You misunderstand. If they put one of those RFID microchips in license plates, and simply have it reflect the license plate number, all it would be doing it allow it to be read easier as opposed to needing to visually see it. But yes, it could be abused if they were to set up readers everywhere along the road.
I like the concept of being able to read a book, like in Adobe Acrobat Reader, on my computer. I could set the font size and everything. Searching by keyword is a huge plus I don't have with regular books of any kind.
However, having it expire after a certain time, I don't like at all. Real books don't expire, so why do they need this digital ones to expire?
I can understand restrictions on copying text and printing. Afterall, it was meant for reading.
What if I switch to a new computer? I'd want to copy over that digital book file. I don't want it limited to one computer. Would it be possible to watermark the book in such a way that if someone's digital book ends up on the Net, you can trace it back to the original buyer?
You can put them in license plates. Afterall, the only difference will be being able to read the plate number from any angle within a distance.
You can put them near the barcode of products bought in store, for the same reasons as above. Plus it can prevent shoplifting a lot easier. Scan it in, scan it out, no problem.
But under no situation stick it in a human or into our ID cards. That crosses the line.
What schools should consider doing is to readjust their start times on a monthly basis to occur around 1-2 hours at sunrise.
So if sunrise is around 8am during one part of the year, just start school at 9am-10am. If sunrise is around 4am-5am, then start school around 6am-7am. Either that or shorten the school day in the winter months and add extra school days in the summer.
Slashdot Mirror
Make that kind of deception illegal too. Good companies shouldn't be tarnished by spammers, and should be found innocent if ever going to court for something they didn't do.
But there are currently some spammers who do actually say how they got your e-mail address. And there'd have to be penalties for spammers to lie about where they got your e-mail address too, huge penalties. (This type of stuff reminds me of how phishers lie too.)
There is a better idea, and here it is.
Why not create legislation requiring all commercial e-mail to have HOW they got your e-mail address in the first place, under penalty of a huge fine. This would be in addition to any other laws in place. So if someone doesn't say, at the bottom of the e-mail, how or where your e-mail address was obtained, it would be illegal. Also, lying about where they got it would be illegal too.
Or is this just a stupid idea?
The reward probably outweighs the risk of using it, but I was being serious though. That the fact cell phone useage can cause permanent eye damage should raise some concerns.
Is this going to take time away from human interaction, i.e. class discussions, teachers lecturing?
Didn't we have a story about cell phones and permanent eye damage days ago? Can't help but wonder if there are potential risks with this kind of stuff.
Unbiased t.v. news, that would be something.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim (ironically cartoons aimed at teens) pretty much has a 26 minutes with a short break inbetween I think, then a 4 minute break (commercials I mean) at the end. I think that works pretty well, but I don't know how much money they make.
DVDs are ad-free? I don't think they are. I thought some contained previews of movies still, which are in fact advertisements. I'll pay attention next time I stick one into my DVD player.
I'm sure greed factors into a lot of things, but I'll leave that aside for now.
About on-demand television, imagine this. If we had a box hooked up to our t.v., hooked up to the Internet, which we could choose to buy services, very specific ones, from a lot of providers. Then it would have a list of channels, with a list of shows in rotation for the channels. And about the advertisements, if there are any, those could include commercials even though it's on-demand. But they shouldn't get as specific as one's household as it invades privacy. Street address, or better yet zip-code, would be semi-okay. If they do make these boxes, specifically for my idea, it'd be in the best interest to have a fast-forward and rewind option, but no more than 2x play speed if you know what I mean. It'd solve ad-skipping problems. Of course, there should be an option to watch ad-free on-demand shows, which could be charged at a premium fee or whatever.
Otherwise it'd be more expensive.
Privacy or not, just don't buy the stuff advertised. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy anything, right?
And here's a thought. Do "they" have the right to discriminate their commercial advertisements based on the individual they are broadcasting to? Could that be unfair because someone else is getting different television programming than you are, yet you are paying for the same service?
Agreed. Just because someone is interested in something doesn't mean they are going to go forward and take action.
By virtual child pornography, I assume you mean child pornography that didn't use a real child. In that case, no harm was done to a living person, and should be legal, even if distasteful.
About child pornography that involved a real child, I still don't think the federal government should be making any laws like that, unless it pertains to the 10 mile federal district. States really need to be making child pornography laws. And by the way, different states have different ages of consent. So how does that all work out?
By the way, I'd see no problem if the federal government were to lend money to state governments to battle child pornography, if the state were to request, and if Congress were to pass a law allowing for such allocations of money. But for Congress to define the criminal statue itself goes beyond their limits.
Although the legislative branch makes the laws, they don't need to keep making law after law after law to just keep busy for whatever reason.
There are problems with the definition of pornography. What is pornographic and what isn't? And that definition problem even extends to child pornography.
Didn't slashdot cover a story on child pornography once? Is child pornography illegal because it depicts sex with minors, or is it illegal because minors were used for the making of it? What about computer generated child pornography, which is nothing more than pixels?
I'm sure there are probably some health codes making it illegal to defecate in public buildings. And I'd expect for it to be a matter for the police to remove a defecator from the building.
Federal law? Where in the American Constitution does it give the federal government that much power to make laws that the States really should be making individually?
And some States have laws making it a crime to not help someone who has been hurt from a crime. Yes, making criminals out of the apathetic.
Isn't there also some other problems?
The definition of what is pornographic and what isn't?
Also, is computer-generated child pornography illegal anywhere? I think this might have been brought up on slashdot once.
Here are some thoughts.
One, librarians aren't the police. They shouldn't be forced to go around making sure people aren't committing crimes. As far as I know, child pornography is a crime because it involved harming someone, even if in the past-tense.
However, if a librarian sees something illegal going on, wouldn't it be his or her duty to report it for further investigation?
About borrowing histories, or histories of any kind (even ISP histories/logs), those definitely need to be destroyed. Same if there are surveillance cameras, the tape needs erased after 30 days in my opinion. One, it would allow any investigation if needed. Two, it prevents Big Brother from becoming too powerful.
Imagine doing research on the Roman Catholic Church sex scandal.
Just remember, they can't force you to buy any of the products.
Is it in their job description to monitor what users access? When they signed their job contract or whatever, did it clearly outline this? Cause if not, they librarians should not be dismissed.
You misunderstand. If they put one of those RFID microchips in license plates, and simply have it reflect the license plate number, all it would be doing it allow it to be read easier as opposed to needing to visually see it. But yes, it could be abused if they were to set up readers everywhere along the road.
I like the concept of being able to read a book, like in Adobe Acrobat Reader, on my computer. I could set the font size and everything. Searching by keyword is a huge plus I don't have with regular books of any kind.
However, having it expire after a certain time, I don't like at all. Real books don't expire, so why do they need this digital ones to expire?
I can understand restrictions on copying text and printing. Afterall, it was meant for reading.
What if I switch to a new computer? I'd want to copy over that digital book file. I don't want it limited to one computer. Would it be possible to watermark the book in such a way that if someone's digital book ends up on the Net, you can trace it back to the original buyer?
You can put them in license plates. Afterall, the only difference will be being able to read the plate number from any angle within a distance.
You can put them near the barcode of products bought in store, for the same reasons as above. Plus it can prevent shoplifting a lot easier. Scan it in, scan it out, no problem.
But under no situation stick it in a human or into our ID cards. That crosses the line.
What schools should consider doing is to readjust their start times on a monthly basis to occur around 1-2 hours at sunrise.
So if sunrise is around 8am during one part of the year, just start school at 9am-10am. If sunrise is around 4am-5am, then start school around 6am-7am. Either that or shorten the school day in the winter months and add extra school days in the summer.