As I recall, the most compelling reason has actually been that the very existence of the pictures can in themselves be considered a perpetuation of the violation of the person depicted; the existence and spread of the pictures harm the victims chances of psychological recovery. An argument that actually makes sense and is convincing even to many of the strongest censorship opponents.
It's not convincing to me; at least, not in the way that it's handled now. I am opposed to child pornography obviously, and i understand that allowing the production, distribution, and purchase of it supports an industry that is often hurtful to children. But the notion of spending massive amounts of tax money patrolling the Internet for random ass holes who downloaded a few pictures and then sending those people to prison and putting them on a list for life is pretty ridiculous. Child pornography is harmful and immoral because its production represents abuse and exploitation of the children, NOT because people look at the images. The law should reflect that, but it doesn't. Going after more-or-less harmless creepos who've downloaded some pictures from IRC or whatever is completely ineffectual as far as tackling the root problem, but it is incredibly lucrative for politicians and morality enforcers.
The Republican Party is the only party where ignorance and being average is actually sold as a presidential trait.
Tragically, you're completely wrong here. Democrats and Republicans have both been engaged in this masturbatory anti-intellectual 'race to the bottom' for at least as long as i've been alive, probably longer. The traditional wisdom is that it is required to secure office -- regardless of your true beliefs, life-style, or up-bringing, you must claim to be 'the common man'. You must be at constant pains to project how similar you are to the average idiot in America. You must be religious, you must use 'folksy' language, you must heap patronising platitudes upon the people you're talking to, you must hold no radical or unique beliefs, you must be in a never-ending battle to prove to everybody that you know all about riding public transportation, eating at McDonald's, watching sports, and doing manual labour. Democrat or Republican, that is how the political game is played in the US.
I've tried Linux on several computers (Dells, Compaqs, self-built ones, &c.) actually. This was all a couple years ago, though, so naturally i had even more trouble then (as in, wireless and sound didn't work at all kind of trouble). The lap-top was just what i went with for Ubuntu.
Well, right, but i'm speaking more in terms of people (like myself and almost everybody i know) who would want to move over to Linux on our existing PC hardware. I was willing to give Ubuntu a try on the lap-top we'd already bought; i was not willing to go out and buy another one for it.
My point is that having to buy very specific devices in order to achieve a usable system does not make Ubuntu an 'it just works' operating system on common hardware; at best it makes it an 'it just works' operating system on restricted hardware, in the same vein as OS X. Given the discussion in this article comparing the negatives of Apple's 'closed' system to the beauty and freedom and elegance of Linux's 'open' system i think this is relevant (unless you are the type of person who can write your own drivers). Linux is, again like OS X, definitely not a viable option for many many people unless they want to go out and buy specific hardware for it.
Yes, you sometimes have to work around things on exotic hardware, very new hardware, or if you're trying to do something very specific that is outside the mainstream. In order to get a system that 'just works', you have to buy hardware that's known to work well on Linux. That's it. Stick with hardware that's been around a bit or has vendor support (like Nvidia graphics cards).
The first sentence seems to contradict the others... and the implication that Linux 'just works' on any hardware that's not 'exotic' or 'very new' is laughable.
I mean i like Ubuntu and everything, i've used it (and several other varieties) fairly extensively, but there are still a lot of things that don't work. WPA encryption didn't work on my not-new and not-exotic wireless card, or any of the different but also not-new and not-exotic wireless cards of the two people i know who've played with Ubuntu at work. ATI video cards are also not new and not exotic, so that arguement doesn't really apply there either. Couldn't figure out how to get my HP printer to work (maybe it ultimately would have if i was smart enough, but jeeze), and although i did eventually get my sound card to work it took about 2 hours of trouble-shooting and research and locating and re-compiling drivers and so on, et cetera et cetera
It's clear that OS X kind of cheats by having a small pool of 'blessed' hardware that it's explicitly designed to run on, so it isn't really fair to compare Linux in general to that particular set-up. But let's be serious, it is not a 'just works' system on common hardware yet.
While that's technically true, everyone at work speaks about BREW as a platform that includes the OS. According to Wikipedia, it's more of a psuedo-OS, as it normally (maybe always?) runs on top of REX RTOS.
Maybe, i don't know for sure, i'm just some idiot with a phone, so i'll concede that point i s'pose.
It doesn't sound like it, but I've not seen a BREW phone that does do ObEx. I'm more inclined to believe that Verizon locks that feature down.
They do lock it down. Depending on the firmware version, they either change a seem to disable the feature or they remove the code for it entirely. I think on one specific firmware version (0.2, i think, something like that) Verizon inexplicably forgot to do this and Bluetooth works. And ObEx works fine on BREW-enabled RAZRs with non-Verizon firmware, including my flashed-to-Alltel Verizon V3m.
From what I'm seeing on various hacking sites, you don't even have to flash it to use the P2K tools. So apparently even the BREW phones run the P2K OS but not the user interface.
I think Verizon's red UI is in fact just a BREW application itself, actually.
1. P2K is a term i'm only somewhat familiar with, but i'm pretty sure it supports more than just GSM, since P2KCommander works with my CDMA RAZR.
2. BREW is not at all an operating system, it's a development platform (competing against Java). It was designed for CDMA but isn't married to it. Don't know why Verizon uses it, but i doubt it's for lack of alternatives.
3. There are no Bluetooth restrictions inherent to BREW. Every other CDMA carrier (e.g., Alltel and US Cellular in the US) ships the RAZR with the more-or-less-stock Motorola firmware, which supports ObEx, &c., just fine. You can use these firmware versions to flash Verizon-provided RAZRs.
However, if I'm going to use Firefox without the extensions, then I might as well be using IE or Opera. Opera is fast, but without the extensions, isn't even close having as many features as Firefox. Extensions are what gives Firefox it's usefulness. Here's the extensions I use on a regular basis. Flashblock, Hackbar, IE View, Reload Every, Save As Image, Web Developer.
Opera's built-in content-blocking feature can block Flash. A 'Reload Every' feature has been built in to Opera for years and years. Most operating systems have a 'capture screen' feature built in. Opera has tons of Web-developer stuff built-in (style sheets, JavaScript options, turn on/off images, table/div structure, element outlining, &c.).
Not to say that Opera does everything you want (as far as i know it can't do the Hackbar stuff and sadly it doesn't have an IEView-like feature) but it is really annoying when people say that Opera 'isn't even close' to Firefox. 90% of all Firefox extensions are designed to emulate Opera.
MIME types are a horrible way of doing file associations; i actually think extensions might even be better. OS X seems to have the most well-thought-out (albeit proprietary) way of doing things here.
Opera was released for Linux in 2000, over 2 years before the first version of Phoenix (now Firefox) and even before the first final version of Konqueror. Really the only other options for Linux at the time were Mozilla (SeaMonkey) and... Lynx.
That said, Opera is absolutely hideous on non-Windows platforms. It does not feel 'native' at all.
The racism is (as far as I know) always portrayed as wrong. Mile's problem with the Romulans, or the TNG episode about the "seeders" of life in the galaxy come to mind as great examples. The opinions of the officers when racist, are almost always shown in the course of the episodes to be wrong.
There are cases where very overt racism is shown to be wrong, yes, but i'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the off-hand remarks that almost every single character in the series makes about the different races. Characters frequently make generalisations about entire species as if every single member of that race acts exactly the same. We are clearly meant to take most of these references humorously or even factually, because the show actually depicts almost every race besides humans as being a more-or-less homogeneous mass of clones, all with the same exact culture and language and traits.
One of the most obvious portrayals of racism in Star Trek, i thought, was the way many of the characters on Voyager treated B'Elanna. The crew was constantly making reference to her 'Klingon side' in spite of the fact that she was clearly uncomfortable about it. If they had been making the same kind of references to a mixed-race human about their 'black side' it would have been viewed as outrageous.
Sure, the show isn't perfect, but particularly the original series was utterly groundbreaking in that area, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
It was ground-breaking in the area of racism within the human species during the '60s, sure. But in the context of the fictional alien races in the show its portrayal was pretty much exactly the same as the later series, i.e., not great.
Also AFAIK the first lesbian on screen kiss in scifi television was in DS9 (Jadzia and her former paramour
I think a 'lesbian kiss' requires that the kissers actually be lesbians, which Jadzia and her ex were definitely not. DS9 did have a little gay/bi love going on in the 'mirror universe', but it wasn't really explored and i don't consider it a favourable depiction anyway since it was pretty much just used to emphasise the mirror characters' 'otherness'.
Sure, the people of Earth don't war with each other, are not racist, and don't need to carry cash on them.
I just have to say, this part is pretty hilarious. I love Star Trek but a lot of the shit the characters say is just unbelievably racist. If some of the off-colour remarks made by even the supposedly moral up-standing Starfleet officers were about 'blacks' or 'Mexicans' instead of 'Klingons' or 'Vulcans', the series would have been booed off the air. And let's not forget that there are apparently no gay people at all in the future and sexism is still going pretty strong too (and i don't just mean in TOS).
For all the intended utopianism in Star Trek it really is kind of disappointing how most of the characters behave.
4. You don't realize that I was the one who brought up dirty jokes, not you.
Right. There are different kinds of dirty jokes, though, as you obviously know.
And I specifically said 'jokes about sex' not 'jokes about how stupid women are'.
When did i ever say anything about how stupid women are? In fact, when did i ever say anything about women at all? I was deliberate in making my initial comment gender-neutral. The insinuation that i must be talking about woman-hating is, frankly, sexist itself.
Telling a disgusting joke about mistaken identity, a cucumber, and a confessional booth where women can overhear it or even to women is not sexist, and is not sexual harassment
100% agreed. But my point again was that that is not the only kind of sex joke.
Of course, the best solution would be to realize such jokes aren't appropriate at the workplace, but saying that a dirty joke told within earshot of a woman is somehow sexist is idiotic.
The act of telling the jokes may not be sexist, but that doesn't mean the jokes themselves aren't. Making comments about people based on their sex is by definition discriminatory, whether or not you're actually in the company of members of that same sex.
Firstly, if there really was nobody buying, the vendor (Pear) would be absolutely retarded not to allow you to change the terms of the agreement. 'Gouging' only works to the extent that people are still willing to pay. If the price floor were truly outrageous, nobody would buy it, and Pear would make no money at all, which would result in a much greater loss for them by the time the product becomes obsolete. Since that is obviously totally undesirable, they are almost sure to annul that particular requirement.
But even if for some crazy reason they didn't, then yes, you're right. There's nothing you can do. You already exercised your 'liberty' when you chose to take a risk and agree to a contract on a product with an artificial price floor.
What the hell are you talking about? This about manufacturers being able to enter into contracts with the retailers they sell their products to. If the retailers (or the consumers, for that matter) find the terms of those contracts unacceptable, they will choose not to purchase them. That's the way it should be; you do not have a right to obtain products from others according to your own fancy.
Despite whatever stupid rulings the Court has made in the past (and there are definitely many), this one is perfectly in line with the Constitution and the general concept of 'liberty'.
However, I would like to point out that the physical differences between men and women is much more pronounced than the differences between black and white men.
Well for sure they are. But i bet there are other differences (besides physical ones) between black and white people that are more pronounced than the differences between, say, white females and white males. I don't think there's any fair way to decide the threshold for pronouncedness in either case.
But that's just statistics. If you compare black men to white men there will be a similar difference, it just won't be as pronounced. That goes for just about any generalisation you can make about women and men -- they talk different (so do black and white people), they dress different (so do black and white people), they eat different foods (so do black and white people), they listen to different music (so do black and white people), they watch different movies (so do black and white people), they have different body features (so do black and white people), they have different susceptibilities to disease (so do black and white people), they have different crime rates (so do black and white people), et cetera. The only differences are the degree and the fact that people inexplicably care more when something is different across sexes rather than across races or nationalities or eye colours.
The fact that women will never be first place in bench-pressing doesn't bother me at all. You probably won't either. That doesn't mean we should invent some fictional prerequisites to give you a better chance at recognition (world bench press record for people named [insert your name] who live in [insert your state/province/whatever]).
Nothing should be gender-segregated, ever. Not sports, not game shows, not clubs, not choirs, not board games, not locker rooms, not hospitals, not dorms, not graduations, not bath rooms, not anything. The only time segregation makes sense is when it is abilities-based. The fallacy is that many people believe that abilities always follow from sex, when they obviously do not -- they are only statistically likely to by varying degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, the most compelling reason has actually been that the very existence of the pictures can in themselves be considered a perpetuation of the violation of the person depicted; the existence and spread of the pictures harm the victims chances of psychological recovery. An argument that actually makes sense and is convincing even to many of the strongest censorship opponents.
It's not convincing to me; at least, not in the way that it's handled now. I am opposed to child pornography obviously, and i understand that allowing the production, distribution, and purchase of it supports an industry that is often hurtful to children. But the notion of spending massive amounts of tax money patrolling the Internet for random ass holes who downloaded a few pictures and then sending those people to prison and putting them on a list for life is pretty ridiculous. Child pornography is harmful and immoral because its production represents abuse and exploitation of the children, NOT because people look at the images. The law should reflect that, but it doesn't. Going after more-or-less harmless creepos who've downloaded some pictures from IRC or whatever is completely ineffectual as far as tackling the root problem, but it is incredibly lucrative for politicians and morality enforcers.
The Republican Party is the only party where ignorance and being average is actually sold as a presidential trait.
Tragically, you're completely wrong here. Democrats and Republicans have both been engaged in this masturbatory anti-intellectual 'race to the bottom' for at least as long as i've been alive, probably longer. The traditional wisdom is that it is required to secure office -- regardless of your true beliefs, life-style, or up-bringing, you must claim to be 'the common man'. You must be at constant pains to project how similar you are to the average idiot in America. You must be religious, you must use 'folksy' language, you must heap patronising platitudes upon the people you're talking to, you must hold no radical or unique beliefs, you must be in a never-ending battle to prove to everybody that you know all about riding public transportation, eating at McDonald's, watching sports, and doing manual labour. Democrat or Republican, that is how the political game is played in the US.
I've tried Linux on several computers (Dells, Compaqs, self-built ones, &c.) actually. This was all a couple years ago, though, so naturally i had even more trouble then (as in, wireless and sound didn't work at all kind of trouble). The lap-top was just what i went with for Ubuntu.
same... but the drivers work :(
Well, right, but i'm speaking more in terms of people (like myself and almost everybody i know) who would want to move over to Linux on our existing PC hardware. I was willing to give Ubuntu a try on the lap-top we'd already bought; i was not willing to go out and buy another one for it.
My point is that having to buy very specific devices in order to achieve a usable system does not make Ubuntu an 'it just works' operating system on common hardware; at best it makes it an 'it just works' operating system on restricted hardware, in the same vein as OS X. Given the discussion in this article comparing the negatives of Apple's 'closed' system to the beauty and freedom and elegance of Linux's 'open' system i think this is relevant (unless you are the type of person who can write your own drivers). Linux is, again like OS X, definitely not a viable option for many many people unless they want to go out and buy specific hardware for it.
Yes, you sometimes have to work around things on exotic hardware, very new hardware, or if you're trying to do something very specific that is outside the mainstream. In order to get a system that 'just works', you have to buy hardware that's known to work well on Linux. That's it. Stick with hardware that's been around a bit or has vendor support (like Nvidia graphics cards).
The first sentence seems to contradict the others... and the implication that Linux 'just works' on any hardware that's not 'exotic' or 'very new' is laughable.
I mean i like Ubuntu and everything, i've used it (and several other varieties) fairly extensively, but there are still a lot of things that don't work. WPA encryption didn't work on my not-new and not-exotic wireless card, or any of the different but also not-new and not-exotic wireless cards of the two people i know who've played with Ubuntu at work. ATI video cards are also not new and not exotic, so that arguement doesn't really apply there either. Couldn't figure out how to get my HP printer to work (maybe it ultimately would have if i was smart enough, but jeeze), and although i did eventually get my sound card to work it took about 2 hours of trouble-shooting and research and locating and re-compiling drivers and so on, et cetera et cetera
It's clear that OS X kind of cheats by having a small pool of 'blessed' hardware that it's explicitly designed to run on, so it isn't really fair to compare Linux in general to that particular set-up. But let's be serious, it is not a 'just works' system on common hardware yet.
Mmm, pretty sure you're wrong.
1. P2K is a term i'm only somewhat familiar with, but i'm pretty sure it supports more than just GSM, since P2KCommander works with my CDMA RAZR.
2. BREW is not at all an operating system, it's a development platform (competing against Java). It was designed for CDMA but isn't married to it. Don't know why Verizon uses it, but i doubt it's for lack of alternatives.
3. There are no Bluetooth restrictions inherent to BREW. Every other CDMA carrier (e.g., Alltel and US Cellular in the US) ships the RAZR with the more-or-less-stock Motorola firmware, which supports ObEx, &c., just fine. You can use these firmware versions to flash Verizon-provided RAZRs.
Um, yeah, probably not, considering it doesn't run on OS X. lern2read
However, if I'm going to use Firefox without the extensions, then I might as well be using IE or Opera. Opera is fast, but without the extensions, isn't even close having as many features as Firefox. Extensions are what gives Firefox it's usefulness. Here's the extensions I use on a regular basis. Flashblock, Hackbar, IE View, Reload Every, Save As Image, Web Developer.
Opera's built-in content-blocking feature can block Flash. A 'Reload Every' feature has been built in to Opera for years and years. Most operating systems have a 'capture screen' feature built in. Opera has tons of Web-developer stuff built-in (style sheets, JavaScript options, turn on/off images, table/div structure, element outlining, &c.).
Not to say that Opera does everything you want (as far as i know it can't do the Hackbar stuff and sadly it doesn't have an IEView-like feature) but it is really annoying when people say that Opera 'isn't even close' to Firefox. 90% of all Firefox extensions are designed to emulate Opera.
MIME types are a horrible way of doing file associations; i actually think extensions might even be better. OS X seems to have the most well-thought-out (albeit proprietary) way of doing things here.
Windows doesn't do file associations by MIME types, it does them by extensions.
Opera was released for Linux in 2000, over 2 years before the first version of Phoenix (now Firefox) and even before the first final version of Konqueror. Really the only other options for Linux at the time were Mozilla (SeaMonkey) and... Lynx.
That said, Opera is absolutely hideous on non-Windows platforms. It does not feel 'native' at all.
The racism is (as far as I know) always portrayed as wrong. Mile's problem with the Romulans, or the TNG episode about the "seeders" of life in the galaxy come to mind as great examples. The opinions of the officers when racist, are almost always shown in the course of the episodes to be wrong.
There are cases where very overt racism is shown to be wrong, yes, but i'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the off-hand remarks that almost every single character in the series makes about the different races. Characters frequently make generalisations about entire species as if every single member of that race acts exactly the same. We are clearly meant to take most of these references humorously or even factually, because the show actually depicts almost every race besides humans as being a more-or-less homogeneous mass of clones, all with the same exact culture and language and traits.
One of the most obvious portrayals of racism in Star Trek, i thought, was the way many of the characters on Voyager treated B'Elanna. The crew was constantly making reference to her 'Klingon side' in spite of the fact that she was clearly uncomfortable about it. If they had been making the same kind of references to a mixed-race human about their 'black side' it would have been viewed as outrageous.
Sure, the show isn't perfect, but particularly the original series was utterly groundbreaking in that area, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
It was ground-breaking in the area of racism within the human species during the '60s, sure. But in the context of the fictional alien races in the show its portrayal was pretty much exactly the same as the later series, i.e., not great.
Also AFAIK the first lesbian on screen kiss in scifi television was in DS9 (Jadzia and her former paramour
I think a 'lesbian kiss' requires that the kissers actually be lesbians, which Jadzia and her ex were definitely not. DS9 did have a little gay/bi love going on in the 'mirror universe', but it wasn't really explored and i don't consider it a favourable depiction anyway since it was pretty much just used to emphasise the mirror characters' 'otherness'.
Sure, the people of Earth don't war with each other, are not racist, and don't need to carry cash on them.
I just have to say, this part is pretty hilarious. I love Star Trek but a lot of the shit the characters say is just unbelievably racist. If some of the off-colour remarks made by even the supposedly moral up-standing Starfleet officers were about 'blacks' or 'Mexicans' instead of 'Klingons' or 'Vulcans', the series would have been booed off the air. And let's not forget that there are apparently no gay people at all in the future and sexism is still going pretty strong too (and i don't just mean in TOS).
For all the intended utopianism in Star Trek it really is kind of disappointing how most of the characters behave.
4. You don't realize that I was the one who brought up dirty jokes, not you.
Right. There are different kinds of dirty jokes, though, as you obviously know.
And I specifically said 'jokes about sex' not 'jokes about how stupid women are'.
When did i ever say anything about how stupid women are? In fact, when did i ever say anything about women at all? I was deliberate in making my initial comment gender-neutral. The insinuation that i must be talking about woman-hating is, frankly, sexist itself.
Telling a disgusting joke about mistaken identity, a cucumber, and a confessional booth where women can overhear it or even to women is not sexist, and is not sexual harassment
100% agreed. But my point again was that that is not the only kind of sex joke.
1. You seem to be making assumptions about what kinds of jokes i'm talking about.
2. You seem to be making assumptions about whether i think general sex jokes constitute harassment.
3. You don't know very many jokes.
Of course, the best solution would be to realize such jokes aren't appropriate at the workplace, but saying that a dirty joke told within earshot of a woman is somehow sexist is idiotic.
The act of telling the jokes may not be sexist, but that doesn't mean the jokes themselves aren't. Making comments about people based on their sex is by definition discriminatory, whether or not you're actually in the company of members of that same sex.
Firstly, if there really was nobody buying, the vendor (Pear) would be absolutely retarded not to allow you to change the terms of the agreement. 'Gouging' only works to the extent that people are still willing to pay. If the price floor were truly outrageous, nobody would buy it, and Pear would make no money at all, which would result in a much greater loss for them by the time the product becomes obsolete. Since that is obviously totally undesirable, they are almost sure to annul that particular requirement.
But even if for some crazy reason they didn't, then yes, you're right. There's nothing you can do. You already exercised your 'liberty' when you chose to take a risk and agree to a contract on a product with an artificial price floor.
What the hell are you talking about? This about manufacturers being able to enter into contracts with the retailers they sell their products to. If the retailers (or the consumers, for that matter) find the terms of those contracts unacceptable, they will choose not to purchase them. That's the way it should be; you do not have a right to obtain products from others according to your own fancy.
Despite whatever stupid rulings the Court has made in the past (and there are definitely many), this one is perfectly in line with the Constitution and the general concept of 'liberty'.
However, I would like to point out that the physical differences between men and women is much more pronounced than the differences between black and white men.
Well for sure they are. But i bet there are other differences (besides physical ones) between black and white people that are more pronounced than the differences between, say, white females and white males. I don't think there's any fair way to decide the threshold for pronouncedness in either case.
But that's just statistics. If you compare black men to white men there will be a similar difference, it just won't be as pronounced. That goes for just about any generalisation you can make about women and men -- they talk different (so do black and white people), they dress different (so do black and white people), they eat different foods (so do black and white people), they listen to different music (so do black and white people), they watch different movies (so do black and white people), they have different body features (so do black and white people), they have different susceptibilities to disease (so do black and white people), they have different crime rates (so do black and white people), et cetera. The only differences are the degree and the fact that people inexplicably care more when something is different across sexes rather than across races or nationalities or eye colours.
The fact that women will never be first place in bench-pressing doesn't bother me at all. You probably won't either. That doesn't mean we should invent some fictional prerequisites to give you a better chance at recognition (world bench press record for people named [insert your name] who live in [insert your state/province/whatever]).
on average
Nothing should be gender-segregated, ever. Not sports, not game shows, not clubs, not choirs, not board games, not locker rooms, not hospitals, not dorms, not graduations, not bath rooms, not anything. The only time segregation makes sense is when it is abilities-based. The fallacy is that many people believe that abilities always follow from sex, when they obviously do not -- they are only statistically likely to by varying degrees.