>I haven't read the bill yet, and if anyone has specific >objections I am very interested in them. But all I have >read so far is objections to the general idea of limiting >children's access to information.
This bill requires that all (ALL) people who speak on the web (not just MySpace users) label their material as either obscene or not obscene. That will require that government finally provide a definition for that term (in 90 days according to the law). So, I will have to label my content as acceptible or not for public consumption according to the US Government censors.
This will limit my ability to speak, not only to those who may agree with me, but also to those I may want to try to convince - ESPECIALLY those people. They will, of course, wall themselves up behind filters that specifically block all such sites, from their children and themselves and all locations they have control over. And soon, "obscene" and "potentially harmful to children" will no longer be the only required labels.
How can this be considered Constitutional? Isn't this government making a law abridging free speach?
>>>The bill would limit these computers to
>>>what they are intended for.
>>
>>which is what exactly?
>
>Information and research. MySpace
>qualifies as entertainment and
>socialization.
See, this is why conservatives get those ugly stereotypical labels like "stupid" and "ignorant." The fact that you WANT these publicly available computers to be for "information and research" doesn't make it TRUE that this is what they are for.
They are for whatever purpose the library patron might turn them to, provided it isn't illegal (yet) and doesn't damage the machine. If I go to the library and fill out online forms for government assistance, does that violate your preference for "information and research"? I bet it does. And if I write a letter to my son in Iraq, does that count as "information and research"? How about if I use it to access "Information" on where to get counseling about my new and unfamiliar Gay Lifestyle? That's "information and research", right? Or would you damn it with that nasty "socialization" label?
Listen, it's erroneous to assume that, since you are a member of the Public, you rule everything provided by - or to - the Public. That isn't logical. Not sensible. A bit ignorant, perhaps.
And, remember, your belief that something is true has absolutely NO bearing on whether it IS true or not. (Except in some particular circumstances in Quantum Physics, of course.) So, your pronouncement that public computers have exactly the purposes you decree means only that you have certain wishes, fears and prejudices. How do your fears justify legislation requiring self-censorship of millions of American's free speech? Just because they creep you out?
Like the authors of this bill, you have a limited knowledge of the lives and experiences of others. So, you end up sounding a bit ignorant when you INSIST that you hold the only Truth.
Just relax a bit and allow that other folks may have LEGITIMATE purposes and perspectives that may appear strange - and even unpleasant - to you, but are not evil simply because they bewilder and dismay you.
Jeff Gitchel
Look, it really doesn't matter WHY we are able to be altruistic, or compassionate, or generous, or whatever. I imagine that these psychologies exist because they did not make the carriers dead fast enough to avoid reproducing - or it even helped them get laid - or it helped them create societies that aided in survival. It doesn't matter to me. The fact is that humane humans - by any definition I care to respect - have compassion. Those who do not have compassion are not humane humans. And - in my world - humane people are better.
What I haven't been able to determine is whether this study measures Compassion - the ability to perceive the experience of another empathetically. I don't care about measuring "altruism" if it is simply a measure of how helpfull someone tends to be. I think altruistic people have a myriad oof reasons - selfish AND unselfish - for helping. However, when generosity comes from COMPASSION, all actions occur because they are CORRECT actions. Actions that stem from compassion occur because they're simply appropriate reactions and corrections to obvious difficulties.
Jeff
Actually, I heard they switched the fast food folks to the Manufacturing sector (assemby workers, doncha know) a while back. It looked better in the stats to lose Service sector jobs - which most people assume are close to minimum wage - and to gain thousands of Manufacturing jobs - which people assume pay a good deal more. So, hocus pocus, switcherino, walla, PING.
The economy must be inproving since so many people moved from low paying service sector jobs to high paying manufacuring jobs. It's clear our manufacturing secor is NOT being denuded by the Chinese, as we once thought;-)
Jeff
Re:Apple not licensing is not a Marketing mistake
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 1
And before someone asks, 3Q 2006 revenue for Dell was about $13.9B and Apple's was $4.37B.
If you stop and think that maybe the current definition of "success" for Apple is that it has a rock-hard 5% market share of a hugely growing market, and that they continually (perhaps not consistantly, but at least frequently) delight their own customers, perhaps Apple is doing just fine. If you measure Apple with Microsoft's ruler, it'll always come up short.
Re:Apple not licensing is not a Marketing mistake
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, Apple's revenue for FY2005 was about $13B. Dell's was about $49B.
Not real close. Dell made more profit and more return on stock, too, I think, but I'm late for something and can't look that up right now.
On the other hand, Apple made much better equipment, created more brand loyalty, held tightly to its 5-6% market share, ruled a few non-computer markets, and - in the end - really made more people truely happy.
You simply must have been adding in their karmic revenue:-D
Well, actually, that would be a pretty poor disguise now. I get questioned, or shooed away, about every 5th street-photography session. And all I'm shooting is downtown Des Moines, Iowa, streets.
I'm basically a white, 50+ fat guy with a camera bag and tripod.
I would guess the better disguises would be as a policeman, or a janitor, or guy wearing a suit talking on a cell phone. Certainly NOT as a street photographer.
The truth is that a photographer is more likely to capture a picture of bad guy or a clue than to be a bad guy himself. I suspect that is why we have so many SECURITY CAMERAS.
Isn't this document still classified as NOFORN? No Foreign Nationals?
How did the Brits get it?
I suppose the improper dissemination of this doc just proves the point, eh?;-)
"....a more natural descent into the analog noise floor."
I have no idea what this means, but it's making my ears red and the back of my neck hot and sweaty.
Gee. I remember reading almost moment-by-moment updates of the days of Tiananmen Square as the students spread their news through usenet. It felt pretty damn democratic to me at the time. There was no other way to hear them speak - most of them for the last time.
Some people don't "get" that usenet is SUPPOSED to be free to collect as much crap - or gold - as the users feel like putting there. Other users go there to get whatever crap or gold they happen to want. How is this not democratic?!? Is there a Correct Way to use usenet? Have we been doing it wrong all this time? Sheesh.
I am glad to hear that the clueless are turning their backs on usenet. (They were just irritaing everyone anyway.) When they all leave, then the spammers will leave. When the spammers leave, the People will have their usenet back.
Then maybe we won't have all those asshats mixing sick kiddie porn in with the good all-American foot porn. Grrrr!
He looks like he may, simply, have learned to write in the 60s. Back in those days, commas were cheap and plentiful, and we were taught to use them freely, as speed-bumps, curbs, and road signs. Now, of course, it's hard enough to get people to read, and you want to keep the terrain as smooth, simple, and clear, as possible.
':-)
"....Part of that psychological aversion is wanting the computer to be 'available', not tied up, just for watching TV...."
Here is the software I use so that I can watch video fullscreen and still work on the windows behind the video. I set it to show the video at a transparency I prefer and just keep working through the video. Not a perfect solution, but certainly useful at times.
IIRC, wouldn't Schrodinger assume that no keys were pushed at all until what you wrote was read? In other words, I think the typo can certainly be blamed on the reader in this case.
He's the one who killed the cat by opening the box.
Well, I might not have been QUITE as acerbic in my review, but I do have to agree with the spirit of this post.
When I came back to the Mac from several years owning only PCs, I purchased very few software packages for my G5. I intended to use primarily shareware and free programs. I did purchase Symantec Anti-Virus, though. It had worked so well on the PC side, and caught so many viruses.
Well, it's been a year since I flung the CD into the trash, so I can give many details, but it was awful. The auto function slowed me down like molasses. So, I turned it off and set it to do a nightly scan. That resulted in MODAL dialogs telling me it had done it's job. There was no way to make them not come up. There was no way to make it run silent. I wouldn't have minded dialogs that told me what went wrong, but why keep telling me that everything's ok? And it would tell me that it had downloaded the latest update of the defs. It wouldn't tell me what that update was, just that it had downloaded it. Well, actually, it told me that it downloaded the defs update and the latest version of the app. Well, it listed both, though it can't have been the app - unless it was loading it over and over every day... or... why would it list it otherwise... oh... whatever. I called Symantec, but they just got confused.
(I also vaguely remember problems removing it, but I can't recall details now.)
In short, the function AND interface of the Mac version was WAY inferior to the PC version - and that was never any great shakes anyway.
So, I took it off. A waste of $70, but the machine ran so much better with that stuff gone.
I got a distinct impression that Symantec was interested in the quality of the Mac version in direct proportion to the percentage of Mac sales they had. I suppose that makes good "business" sense, but it makes for a crappy product. And that, in the end, makes for no business at all.
Slashdot Mirror
>I haven't read the bill yet, and if anyone has specific
>objections I am very interested in them. But all I have
>read so far is objections to the general idea of limiting
>children's access to information.
This bill requires that all (ALL) people who speak on the web (not just MySpace users) label their material as either obscene or not obscene. That will require that government finally provide a definition for that term (in 90 days according to the law). So, I will have to label my content as acceptible or not for public consumption according to the US Government censors.
This will limit my ability to speak, not only to those who may agree with me, but also to those I may want to try to convince - ESPECIALLY those people. They will, of course, wall themselves up behind filters that specifically block all such sites, from their children and themselves and all locations they have control over. And soon, "obscene" and "potentially harmful to children" will no longer be the only required labels.
How can this be considered Constitutional? Isn't this government making a law abridging free speach?
????
Jeff Gitchel
>>>The bill would limit these computers to >>>what they are intended for. >> >>which is what exactly? > >Information and research. MySpace >qualifies as entertainment and >socialization. See, this is why conservatives get those ugly stereotypical labels like "stupid" and "ignorant." The fact that you WANT these publicly available computers to be for "information and research" doesn't make it TRUE that this is what they are for. They are for whatever purpose the library patron might turn them to, provided it isn't illegal (yet) and doesn't damage the machine. If I go to the library and fill out online forms for government assistance, does that violate your preference for "information and research"? I bet it does. And if I write a letter to my son in Iraq, does that count as "information and research"? How about if I use it to access "Information" on where to get counseling about my new and unfamiliar Gay Lifestyle? That's "information and research", right? Or would you damn it with that nasty "socialization" label? Listen, it's erroneous to assume that, since you are a member of the Public, you rule everything provided by - or to - the Public. That isn't logical. Not sensible. A bit ignorant, perhaps. And, remember, your belief that something is true has absolutely NO bearing on whether it IS true or not. (Except in some particular circumstances in Quantum Physics, of course.) So, your pronouncement that public computers have exactly the purposes you decree means only that you have certain wishes, fears and prejudices. How do your fears justify legislation requiring self-censorship of millions of American's free speech? Just because they creep you out? Like the authors of this bill, you have a limited knowledge of the lives and experiences of others. So, you end up sounding a bit ignorant when you INSIST that you hold the only Truth. Just relax a bit and allow that other folks may have LEGITIMATE purposes and perspectives that may appear strange - and even unpleasant - to you, but are not evil simply because they bewilder and dismay you. Jeff Gitchel
Look, it really doesn't matter WHY we are able to be altruistic, or compassionate, or generous, or whatever. I imagine that these psychologies exist because they did not make the carriers dead fast enough to avoid reproducing - or it even helped them get laid - or it helped them create societies that aided in survival. It doesn't matter to me. The fact is that humane humans - by any definition I care to respect - have compassion. Those who do not have compassion are not humane humans. And - in my world - humane people are better. What I haven't been able to determine is whether this study measures Compassion - the ability to perceive the experience of another empathetically. I don't care about measuring "altruism" if it is simply a measure of how helpfull someone tends to be. I think altruistic people have a myriad oof reasons - selfish AND unselfish - for helping. However, when generosity comes from COMPASSION, all actions occur because they are CORRECT actions. Actions that stem from compassion occur because they're simply appropriate reactions and corrections to obvious difficulties. Jeff
Actually, I heard they switched the fast food folks to the Manufacturing sector (assemby workers, doncha know) a while back. It looked better in the stats to lose Service sector jobs - which most people assume are close to minimum wage - and to gain thousands of Manufacturing jobs - which people assume pay a good deal more. So, hocus pocus, switcherino, walla, PING. The economy must be inproving since so many people moved from low paying service sector jobs to high paying manufacuring jobs. It's clear our manufacturing secor is NOT being denuded by the Chinese, as we once thought ;-)
Jeff
And before someone asks, 3Q 2006 revenue for Dell was about $13.9B and Apple's was $4.37B. If you stop and think that maybe the current definition of "success" for Apple is that it has a rock-hard 5% market share of a hugely growing market, and that they continually (perhaps not consistantly, but at least frequently) delight their own customers, perhaps Apple is doing just fine. If you measure Apple with Microsoft's ruler, it'll always come up short.
Actually, Apple's revenue for FY2005 was about $13B. Dell's was about $49B. Not real close. Dell made more profit and more return on stock, too, I think, but I'm late for something and can't look that up right now. On the other hand, Apple made much better equipment, created more brand loyalty, held tightly to its 5-6% market share, ruled a few non-computer markets, and - in the end - really made more people truely happy. You simply must have been adding in their karmic revenue :-D
Well, actually, that would be a pretty poor disguise now. I get questioned, or shooed away, about every 5th street-photography session. And all I'm shooting is downtown Des Moines, Iowa, streets. I'm basically a white, 50+ fat guy with a camera bag and tripod. I would guess the better disguises would be as a policeman, or a janitor, or guy wearing a suit talking on a cell phone. Certainly NOT as a street photographer. The truth is that a photographer is more likely to capture a picture of bad guy or a clue than to be a bad guy himself. I suspect that is why we have so many SECURITY CAMERAS.
Isn't this document still classified as NOFORN? No Foreign Nationals? How did the Brits get it? I suppose the improper dissemination of this doc just proves the point, eh? ;-)
"....a more natural descent into the analog noise floor." I have no idea what this means, but it's making my ears red and the back of my neck hot and sweaty.
Gee. I remember reading almost moment-by-moment updates of the days of Tiananmen Square as the students spread their news through usenet. It felt pretty damn democratic to me at the time. There was no other way to hear them speak - most of them for the last time. Some people don't "get" that usenet is SUPPOSED to be free to collect as much crap - or gold - as the users feel like putting there. Other users go there to get whatever crap or gold they happen to want. How is this not democratic?!? Is there a Correct Way to use usenet? Have we been doing it wrong all this time? Sheesh. I am glad to hear that the clueless are turning their backs on usenet. (They were just irritaing everyone anyway.) When they all leave, then the spammers will leave. When the spammers leave, the People will have their usenet back. Then maybe we won't have all those asshats mixing sick kiddie porn in with the good all-American foot porn. Grrrr!
You don't need the last comma. Let's tighten things up a bit from now on, ok?
He looks like he may, simply, have learned to write in the 60s. Back in those days, commas were cheap and plentiful, and we were taught to use them freely, as speed-bumps, curbs, and road signs. Now, of course, it's hard enough to get people to read, and you want to keep the terrain as smooth, simple, and clear, as possible. ':-)
Secondlife is Windows and Mac.
IIRC, wouldn't Schrodinger assume that no keys were pushed at all until what you wrote was read? In other words, I think the typo can certainly be blamed on the reader in this case. He's the one who killed the cat by opening the box.
Well, I might not have been QUITE as acerbic in my review, but I do have to agree with the spirit of this post. When I came back to the Mac from several years owning only PCs, I purchased very few software packages for my G5. I intended to use primarily shareware and free programs. I did purchase Symantec Anti-Virus, though. It had worked so well on the PC side, and caught so many viruses. Well, it's been a year since I flung the CD into the trash, so I can give many details, but it was awful. The auto function slowed me down like molasses. So, I turned it off and set it to do a nightly scan. That resulted in MODAL dialogs telling me it had done it's job. There was no way to make them not come up. There was no way to make it run silent. I wouldn't have minded dialogs that told me what went wrong, but why keep telling me that everything's ok? And it would tell me that it had downloaded the latest update of the defs. It wouldn't tell me what that update was, just that it had downloaded it. Well, actually, it told me that it downloaded the defs update and the latest version of the app. Well, it listed both, though it can't have been the app - unless it was loading it over and over every day... or ... why would it list it otherwise... oh ... whatever. I called Symantec, but they just got confused.
(I also vaguely remember problems removing it, but I can't recall details now.)
In short, the function AND interface of the Mac version was WAY inferior to the PC version - and that was never any great shakes anyway.
So, I took it off. A waste of $70, but the machine ran so much better with that stuff gone.
I got a distinct impression that Symantec was interested in the quality of the Mac version in direct proportion to the percentage of Mac sales they had. I suppose that makes good "business" sense, but it makes for a crappy product. And that, in the end, makes for no business at all.