This whole 'discussion' reminds me of the saying about people never being able to convince another of a viewpoint, unless they already have that viewpoint. Both of you are stating your own views... I'm not 100% sure either is trying to understand where the other is comming from... However, I do feel more sincerety from Bruce. Leo often uses the word 'condescending' and 'arrogant', when infact, he is the one displaying these features the most. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that. However, thank you both for an interesting read. There's a lot of food for thought in this thread, once you wade through all of the mudslinging.
Also to note, Leo, when trying to convince others that your position is the correct one, you might not wish to insult them left and right. Your own PR skills seem to need some brushing up. However, we won't hold that against you.
I give this movie only 1/2 a thumb up, because the plotline was obvious.;)
That's St. Elmo's Fire, actually. It's very uncommon with modern plains, due to the little thingamajigs they put on the wings to 'bleed' static electricity from the wings of the ship. But, should those fail, I can it still being possible.
KDE does. Alt-F2 gets you a small, quick command-line box.. Most I use it for is running xterm, kpm, or various KDE and Gnome programs that I can remember the name of. I don't beleive it has any sort of filename completion or anything, though. I also've not had any experience with Gnome's mini-commander.
Make it so that the browser will refuse to show a page with a certain PICS-label, but don't filter it out at the root. The only thing you need to filter out at the root (anywhere, but as close to the source as possible) are the pages without PICS-labels.. I am not against labeling.. it's a way to know in advance what you can expect, so you can take measures yourself to prevent people from seeing it... people in your own surroundings, that use your computer to access it.
I disagree with that, personally. Nothing should be filtered at the root/source. In doing so, you violate the whole concept of free speech. Why should I have to rate the e-mail that I send between myself and my grandmother? If old granny decides to swear at me or something, let her! But, I/should/ receive her e-mail, reguardless of weather she remembered to rate it or not.
Personally, if one where to have such a system enforced upon them, I would prefer to have the choice weather I download the 'unrated' content or not. It's all about the end-user's choice, or the choice of thier guardians.
I still heartily disagree that some major instutution should spring up to 'protect our children.' As others have said, that is the job of the parents/guardians of that child, not for the government to decide. It all brings back smackings of the various censor-ware groups censoring medical pages and other pertinent information.
(No, little Betty, you may not do a report on breast cancer, because the mammaries are not viable concepts for such a young mind. Forget you have them.)
Personally, I cannot speak for other's views/feelings, I do have some concern there, though it's not for social stigmata reasons. IF someone asks me personal questions, I'm usually willing to answer them... but they must ask me personally, not peruse my personal correspondence. You do bring up a good point though.
Though, I counter with this: What if the powers that be decide that no one can send private messages, and that all private forums of discussion shall be abolished, for the 'higher good' of making us all accept one another? What's more likely to happen, that people will form togather in a great Brotherhood of Man, or that people will become even more segregated to protect themselves from the enforced sociality? Humanity is, by nature, a very xenomorphic entity. Most attempts to make everyone accept one another (beyond the usual level, and even/that/ fails quite often) is usually met with extream distaste, fear, loathing, and attack.
Just because everything you do is legitimate, does that mean you want everything you do published? Do you send all of your snail-mail on post cards or in transparent envelopes? If no, why not? It's all perfectly legitimate. Do you want everyone in the world to be able to read your e-mail?
Personally, I do not... then again, I'm not horribly worried about anyone viewing my place of living with satellites. Best they'll ever manage is seeing me walking to and from my car... but that does not mean I want a web-cam set up in my bedroom or at my front door, so people can see when I'm home or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I'm suprised (not really.) Someone must've watched Dark Angel... Either that, or is setting themselves up to be sued.. So would it be:
1. Redesign game based on TV show, without licensing.
2. Get sued.
3. . . . ?
4. PROFIT!
And just to copy another old joke. I, for one, welcome our new courier overlords.
This whole 'discussion' reminds me of the saying about people never being able to convince another of a viewpoint, unless they already have that viewpoint. Both of you are stating your own views... I'm not 100% sure either is trying to understand where the other is comming from... However, I do feel more sincerety from Bruce. Leo often uses the word 'condescending' and 'arrogant', when infact, he is the one displaying these features the most. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that. However, thank you both for an interesting read. There's a lot of food for thought in this thread, once you wade through all of the mudslinging.
;)
Also to note, Leo, when trying to convince others that your position is the correct one, you might not wish to insult them left and right. Your own PR skills seem to need some brushing up. However, we won't hold that against you.
I give this movie only 1/2 a thumb up, because the plotline was obvious.
Rion Wulfe
Oh good, that makes it all okay, then, since it's centered upon a specific set of individuals, (your clients.)
Not at all like what these guys where doing, since they where talking about a specific set of individuals, (lawyers.)
That's St. Elmo's Fire, actually. It's very uncommon with modern plains, due to the little thingamajigs they put on the wings to 'bleed' static electricity from the wings of the ship. But, should those fail, I can it still being possible.
KDE does. Alt-F2 gets you a small, quick command-line box.. Most I use it for is running xterm, kpm, or various KDE and Gnome programs that I can remember the name of. I don't beleive it has any sort of filename completion or anything, though. I also've not had any experience with Gnome's mini-commander.
Rion Wulfe
Make it so that the browser will refuse to show a page with a certain PICS-label, but don't filter it out at the root. The only thing you need to filter out at the root (anywhere, but as close to the source as possible) are the pages without PICS-labels .. I am not against labeling .. it's a way to know in advance what you can expect, so you can take measures yourself to prevent people from seeing it ... people in your own surroundings, that use your computer to access it.
/should/ receive her e-mail, reguardless of weather she remembered to rate it or not.
I disagree with that, personally. Nothing should be filtered at the root/source. In doing so, you violate the whole concept of free speech. Why should I have to rate the e-mail that I send between myself and my grandmother? If old granny decides to swear at me or something, let her! But, I
Personally, if one where to have such a system enforced upon them, I would prefer to have the choice weather I download the 'unrated' content or not. It's all about the end-user's choice, or the choice of thier guardians.
I still heartily disagree that some major instutution should spring up to 'protect our children.' As others have said, that is the job of the parents/guardians of that child, not for the government to decide. It all brings back smackings of the various censor-ware groups censoring medical pages and other pertinent information.
(No, little Betty, you may not do a report on breast cancer, because the mammaries are not viable concepts for such a young mind. Forget you have them.)
Rion "The Irate" Wulfe
Personally, I cannot speak for other's views/feelings, I do have some concern there, though it's not for social stigmata reasons. IF someone asks me personal questions, I'm usually willing to answer them... but they must ask me personally, not peruse my personal correspondence. You do bring up a good point though.
/that/ fails quite often) is usually met with extream distaste, fear, loathing, and attack.
Though, I counter with this: What if the powers that be decide that no one can send private messages, and that all private forums of discussion shall be abolished, for the 'higher good' of making us all accept one another? What's more likely to happen, that people will form togather in a great Brotherhood of Man, or that people will become even more segregated to protect themselves from the enforced sociality? Humanity is, by nature, a very xenomorphic entity. Most attempts to make everyone accept one another (beyond the usual level, and even
Rion Wulfe
Ok, here's a counter to your argument:
Just because everything you do is legitimate, does that mean you want everything you do published? Do you send all of your snail-mail on post cards or in transparent envelopes? If no, why not? It's all perfectly legitimate. Do you want everyone in the world to be able to read your e-mail?
Personally, I do not... then again, I'm not horribly worried about anyone viewing my place of living with satellites. Best they'll ever manage is seeing me walking to and from my car... but that does not mean I want a web-cam set up in my bedroom or at my front door, so people can see when I'm home or not.
Rion Wulfe